The Dark Knight Rises Tom Hardy as Bane XXIX

[Baneis8feettall]

It may be a limit of the character himself but do you think there is anything either hardy or the creators could have done whereby the bane performance would have been seen to be on par with that of ledgers for the joker?

As in hardy being seen as a shoe in for a best supporting actor nom like ledger or bane going down as one of the great cinematic villains.

They could use the mask as something he only use in combat to protect his fatal injury or not even they might not give him that injury.. So actor could perform at his best...

They could write more dialog of him with Batman like Joker had.Like in that short pit scene. Maybe in 3rd act with Talia etc. Better ending to the character. Maybe tragic like Roy Batty had in Blade Runner (like dying after all he did was to protect Talia in her mission) or De Niro in Heat (like he choose to die rather than going back in prison again) I think these would give actor/character more place to shine.

Personally it would be more interesting if he was a opportunist. He could still break Batman and after he might say like police hunted him down to cover up Dent's crimes etc. He might give Batman his dignity as Gotham's hero, claim they are coming from same root and he is Batman's successor as keeping his legacy by fullfilling Batman's wish as fighting against corruption (police,officials etc) while he puts Bruce in a pit.

 

[AnneFan]

Yup. The simple fact that he had a mask added a lot to his intrigue, not just for the audience but within the reality of the film too. Even his name, "Bane" contributes to that as well.

Exactly. People wanting to know why he wears it. What will happen if he takes it off. What he looks like under there. The mask added questions, intrigue and made him stand out from the pack.

 

[Deserana]

It may be a limit of the character himself but do you think there is anything either hardy or the creators could have done whereby the bane performance would have been seen to be on par with that of ledgers for the joker?

The critics could have gotten over the fact that The Joker wasn't in the goddamn movie would have been a start!

 

[Uroboric Forms]

The critics could have gotten over the fact that The Joker wasn't in the goddamn movie would have been a start!

This.

Bane was just as compelling a villain as the Joker, the only thing I think could have really improved it was having more footage of Bane in the final portion of the film.

 

[Rincewind]

It may be a limit of the character himself but do you think there is anything either hardy or the creators could have done whereby the bane performance would have been seen to be on par with that of ledgers for the joker?

As in hardy being seen as a shoe in for a best supporting actor nom like ledger or bane going down as one of the great cinematic villains.

In my opinion he's on par with Ledger's Joker as it is. I know that not everyone is going to agree with me, but to me the Nolanverse Bane was the best villain in the whole trilogy.

 

[Baneis8feettall]

Gordon & Bane sewer scene made it for me.Wonderful scene.He was like a little bit like Shredder. (1990 movie)

 

[EliteF50]

It may be a limit of the character himself but do you think there is anything either hardy or the creators could have done whereby the bane performance would have been seen to be on par with that of ledgers for the joker?

As in hardy being seen as a shoe in for a best supporting actor nom like ledger or bane going down as one of the great cinematic villains.

In my opinion, Tom's Bane is better than Heath's Joker, but I think giving him a more proper death and a few more dialogue intensive scenes with either Talia or Batman would have boosted him in the critics' eyes.

 

[Travesty]

It may be a limit of the character himself but do you think there is anything either hardy or the creators could have done whereby the bane performance would have been seen to be on par with that of ledgers for the joker?

As in hardy being seen as a shoe in for a best supporting actor nom like ledger or bane going down as one of the great cinematic villains.

Make him feel like an original character, with original motives, and not become a Ra's 2.0.

 

[TinkTonks]

I honestly can not compare Ledger's Joker with Hardy's Bane. Those villains were *exactly* what was needed for each respective film....the Joker was perfect for Batman to face at that point and time in his career, as was Bane in TDKR. To me, they are both perfect examples of quintessential Bat-Villains on opposite sides of the scale.

That being said, I really would have loved to have had more dialogue between Bane and Bats in the film....

 

[BatmanBeyond]

The critics could have gotten over the fact that The Joker wasn't in the goddamn movie would have been a start!

Would've been nice, but it's a testament to how good Ledger's Joker and by extension the mark that TDK left that critics were still thinking about them. Of course, it's rather unfortunate they couldn't get over the fact that Joker wasn't in the movie and TDKR wasn't TDK, but it's also to be expected when you actually do a follow-up to TDK.

It may be a limit of the character himself but do you think there is anything either hardy or the creators could have done whereby the bane performance would have been seen to be on par with that of ledgers for the joker?

As in hardy being seen as a shoe in for a best supporting actor nom like ledger or bane going down as one of the great cinematic villains.

Hardy did great, I thought his performance was really good, embodying everything Bane is about. The creators did fine as well, appearance-wise I thought this version of Bane was more visually appealing than his comic-book counterpart, and especially compared to his most recent appearances in DC animation and the Arkham games. The choice for his voice was bold as well, it was definitely not your typical big-guy voice and I thought that was interesting. It certainly gave this version of Bane a very distinctive touch.

You're also correct in saying that the character is limited in a sense in that he's known for breaking Batman's back and was created for that singular purpose. This is where I thought the creators could've come in...his association with the LoS was a good start I think, as was his excommunication by them. But I think there was room for improvement: for one, even though I'm not one of the ones that believe he was Talia's lackey, I still would've preferred for him to be working independently and to have founded his own distinctive branch of 'LoSers'. While I enjoyed the story between him and Talia, I think having him as a true revolutionary would've been more compelling. The class warfare between the citizens of Gotham was one of the more interesting aspects for me going into this movie, and I was rather disappointed that it wasn't handled a bit differently. I thought there was some real potential for Bane to be this charismatic, revolutionary leader, certainly that flashback of Gordon at the beginning of the movie in which he says "And it will be a very long time before someone inspires us the way he did" seemed to indicate as much, at least to me (of course, it was a reference to Bruce/Batman as well).

In this scenario, Miranda/Talia would be this supremely talented infiltrator that would be operating under the noses of both Bruce and Bane (admittedly, this is an idea I borrowed from another poster on these forums, namely Fenrir), working towards achieving her father's goal of destroying Gotham. Of course, for this to work better, I think Talia should've had a part in BB as well, but that's another story. The bomb would be used as a true insurance policy by Bane and his forces against the government, while Bane would rule Gotham as its 'king'. Talia's intentions towards the bomb from the movie would be maintained.

All this is not to say I didn't enjoy Bane as a villain, he's probably my second favorite villain in the trilogy, but I just think there was more untapped potential for him in this movie. Just my two cents.

 

[The Joker]

Make him feel like an original character, with original motives, and not become a Ra's 2.0.

Exactly. The only time he felt truly like Bane to me was the sewer scene where he broke Batman. The rest of it with all the LOS rehash ideals from Begins didn't feel like Bane.

I was hoping for this:

Bane being his own man who comes to Gotham to prove he can break Batman and take Gotham City for himself to rule. Not a Bane who was trying to fulfill the work of a previous villain. One who kicked Bane out of his gang, too lol. Another destroy the city plot with a doomsday device. How unoriginal and uninspiring. Completely non Bane like, too.

 

[Figs]

Exactly. The only time he felt truly like Bane to me was the sewer scene where he broke Batman. The rest of it with all the LOS rehash ideals from Begins didn't feel like Bane.

I was hoping for this:

Bane being his own man who comes to Gotham to prove he can break Batman and take Gotham City for himself to rule. Not a Bane who was trying to fulfill the work of a previous villain. One who kicked Bane out of his gang, too lol. Another destroy the city plot with a doomsday device. How unoriginal and uninspiring. Completely non Bane like, too.

Not sure how they could have ended it in a big way since it's the end of the trilogy but this movie could have been a lot better if Talia was taken out and the bomb wasn't guaranteed to go off and Bane just used it to threaten the city so he could be the new king of Gotham similar to the comics.

Maybe out of desperation have Bane activate it near the end when he knows he's going to lose. I don't know, I still loved the movie but there are a few big things that if changed would have made the movie a lot better.

 

[BatmanBeyond]

Bane being his own man who comes to Gotham to prove he can break Batman and take Gotham City for himself to rule. Not a Bane who was trying to fulfill the work of a previous villain. One who kicked Bane out of his gang, too lol. Another destroy the city plot with a doomsday device. How unoriginal and uninspiring. Completely non Bane like, too.

While I agree Bane would've been more compelling if he wasn't looking to fulfill Ra's Al Ghul's destiny, saying it's completely non Bane like is not really true. His association with the Al Ghuls from the comics is well-known. Not to mention the destroy the city plot is almost straight from the comics too, namely the one shot that concluded the "Legacy" story arc, "Batman: Bane".

Not sure how they could have ended it in a big way since it's the end of the trilogy but this movie could have been a lot better if Talia was taken out and the bomb wasn't guaranteed to go off and Bane just used it to threaten the city so he could be the new king of Gotham similar to the comics.

Maybe out of desperation have Bane activate it near the end when he knows he's going to lose. I don't know, I still loved the movie but there are a few big things that if changed would have made the movie a lot better.

Pretty much my feelings as well.

 

[The Joker]

Not sure how they could have ended it in a big way since it's the end of the trilogy but this movie could have been a lot better if Talia was taken out and the bomb wasn't guaranteed to go off and Bane just used it to threaten the city so he could be the new king of Gotham similar to the comics.

Removing Talia and any LOS stuff would have been a lot better. Bane is a strong enough villain to carry a villain plot on his own. And in a big way, too.

Maybe out of desperation have Bane activate it near the end when he knows he's going to lose. I don't know, I still loved the movie but there are a few big things that if changed would have made the movie a lot better.

Now that would have worked brilliantly. Imagine a battered and beaten Bane refusing to live with his defeat, and setting off the bomb's timer before he died.

While I agree Bane would've been more compelling if he wasn't looking to fulfill Ra's Al Ghul's destiny, saying it's completely non Bane like is not really true. His association with the Al Ghuls from the comics is well-known. Not to mention the destroy the city plot is almost straight from the comics too, namely the one shot that concluded the "Legacy" story arc, "Batman: Bane".

But that Legacy stuff was a character progression from a Bane who already tried and failed to take Gotham City for himself, and one who was beaten fair and square by Batman, too.

This Bane had never tried that and was never interested in any of that. He was just there to do what Ra's Al Ghul had wanted.

 

[BatLobster]

Bane being his own man who comes to Gotham to prove he can break Batman and take Gotham City for himself to rule. Not a Bane who was trying to fulfill the work of a previous villain. One who kicked Bane out of his gang, too lol. Another destroy the city plot with a doomsday device. How unoriginal and uninspiring. Completely non Bane like, too.

That would have never fit with the story that TDKR was telling though. Batman was no longer the one ruling the city. The law was.

It wasn't just another destroy the city with a doomsday plot. For five months, movie Bane ruled Gotham City in ways comics Bane can only dream of.

Bane may have thought he was fulfilling Ra's' destiny, but I highly doubt Ra's would be in favor of Bane's version of "order". He was way too dignified to let himself be seen as a brutal dictator-like figure, like Bane.

Way I see it, Ra's is kind of the godfather of the whole trilogy. He took two great men under his wing...one became a hero, the other became a monster.

 

[Victarion]

Challenge accepted:

-Bane was born into the Pit for crimes he didn't commit

-Bane escaped the Pit and conquered the Warlord's territory

-Bane goes about to oppressed villages etc. doing small liberations

-Gets notoriety. Dent Act begins gaining traction worldwide. Bane vows to prevent that, as it would turn the world into a prison like the Pit.

-Hires Selina Kyle to find evidence implicating Harvey Dent in the cop killings (?)

-Goes to Gotham after being hired by Dagget, disposes of Batman, destroys Blackgate.

-Army rushes in to stop Bane. Bane sends the prisoners and Gothamites under his sway against them. Heavy colatteral damage to civilians forces the army to withdraw. Meanwhile a second team of his men tracks down and the people who pushed for the Dent Act beyond Gotham. They're brought to Gotham.

-Movie proceeds as it did after Bane blew the bridges. Trials for the people who endorsed the Dent Act. City is dog-eat-dog place. While Bruce is away, Catwoman becomes our eye on the city as does Blake.

-Batman overcomes his fear, returns to Gotham. The truck chase scene is replaced by Batman stealthing through Gotham to track down Catwoman and find the imprisoned GPD.

-****e.

 

[jmc]

^ I actually would kill off the GCP officers and have ordinary citizens take up the fight.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

They use multiple comics to establish a characterization. Everyone is so stuck on Knightfall Bane it is pretty sad. Even in No Man's Land, Bane was doing some work for Lex Luthor but he didn't even know it at first, and he was doing it for a price. No Man's Land and the Legacy and Batman: Bane storylines were reprinted within the past year in the run-up to the movie. This Bane fits pretty close, well, except for the fact he's dead, I guess. There's also the way Bane relates in the comics to women like Talia and Scandal Savage, in his own messed-up-in-the-head way.

 

[The Joker]

That would have never fit with the story that TDKR was telling though. Batman was no longer the one ruling the city. The law was.

That's the point. The story TDKR was telling was flawed. I can't ever imagine a Gotham City that could be freed of crime like that. It's supposed to be the dirtiest city in the world.

Crime rates could have gone down thanks to Dent, but there should still be a need for Batman. 8 years with no need for Batman just doesn't ring true.

The point of taking the fall for Dent was to keep Gotham's hope alive. They could have done that and still have had Batman active.

Did anyone honestly believe after watching TDK's ending that Batman was headed for a retirement straight away? Not one person suggested that idea after TDK came out, and never did until we learned of the 8 year gap in TDKR.

It wasn't just another destroy the city with a doomsday plot. For five months, movie Bane ruled Gotham City in ways comics Bane can only dream of.

Of course it was just a destroy the city plot. The siege was a load of needless filler. It was only there to give Bruce time to recover. What difference would it have made if Bane had pulled the trigger at the start instead of 5 months later?

Oh that's right, he wanted to feed Gotham hope to poison their souls, even though they never knew their impending death was coming.

Bane may have thought he was fulfilling Ra's' destiny, but I highly doubt Ra's would be in favor of Bane's version of "order". He was way too dignified to let himself be seen as a brutal dictator-like figure, like Bane.

It doesn't matter what way Ra's would see it (though he wouldn't have approved of a dumb plan to kill a city that was in peace time). Bane's goal was fulfilling Ra's destiny. That was his goal and he was doing it with Talia, the daughter of Ra's who also thought this brain fart was a good way of honoring her father. Bane was doing the work of a man who hated him and booted him out of his gang.

 

[BatLobster]

That's the point. The story TDKR was telling was flawed. I can't ever imagine a Gotham City that could be freed of crime like that. It's supposed to be the dirtiest city in the world.

That's fine, but it's purely subjective to try and quantify what kind of story is worth telling and which isn't. That's why these debates go on and on I suppose. Obviously people who liked the movie were able to see value in the story it set out to tell.

I grew up in and around NYC, and Rudy Giuliani is seen as the person responsible for basically crippling the mob in New York. Crime rates in general were hitting record lows when he was in office. To this day, the mob presence in the city is pretty much nothing compared to what it once was. So, yeah I believe the Gotham of these films could be cleaned up. At least for a chunk of time. Batman's mission statement in these films was to rid the city of corruption and give people hope...not go out and try to stop every Joe Chill.

 

[Uroboric Forms]

Gordon & Bane sewer scene made it for me.Wonderful scene.He was like a little bit like Shredder. (1990 movie)

I wonder why they cut the steak scene, I was looking forward to that as much as the 'John Blake is the Joker from a parallel dimension' reveal that they must have hastily scrapped and replaced with him being Robin because people starting catching onto it.

^ I actually would kill off the GCP officers and have ordinary citizens take up the fight.

I prefer it as it is really; some civilians attempting to reclaim Gotham along with the police, yes, but the police being there shows how Batman becomes largely obsolete. In BB, there's an emphasis on the corruption of the police, which is lessened in TDK and there's an emphasis on the police being afraid to act, and by the end of TDKR they've summoned the courage to reclaim Gotham and keep it a safer place without legislation based on lies to keep criminals in prison. Gotham becomes a truly prosperous city with police willing to act against threats instead of NO MORE DEAD COPS!

That's the point. The story TDKR was telling was flawed. I can't ever imagine a Gotham City that could be freed of crime like that. It's supposed to be the dirtiest city in the world.

Crime rates could have gone down thanks to Dent, but there should still be a need for Batman. 8 years with no need for Batman just doesn't ring true.

It wasn't solely because there was no need for Batman, he could have still been doing patrols and the like but the risk would be too great. Yes, he's the goddamn Batman and he could find ways to escape from the police, but with however many police chasing him regularly it becomes more and more likely that he would be caught, and the more police chase him the more opportunities there are for crime.

 

[BatmanBeyond]

That's the point. The story TDKR was telling was flawed. I can't ever imagine a Gotham City that could be freed of crime like that. It's supposed to be the dirtiest city in the world.

Crime rates could have gone down thanks to Dent, but there should still be a need for Batman. 8 years with no need for Batman just doesn't ring true.

The point of taking the fall for Dent was to keep Gotham's hope alive. They could have done that and still have had Batman active.

Did anyone honestly believe after watching TDK's ending that Batman was headed for a retirement straight away? Not one person suggested that idea after TDK came out, and never did until we learned of the 8 year gap in TDKR.

Which is exactly why it was such a bold and interesting move. The execution of it could've been better I admit (8 years is a long time, Batman could've remained active for another 2 or 3 years), but Nolan and his team made it very clear they were doing many things differently with their version of the Batman character since BB, so I thought it was consistent with what had been established in the previous movies. Nolan has had a penchant for surprises and left-field choices throughout this trilogy and while his ideas haven't always fulfilled their potential, I can't fault him for trying something different and original (partially, at least).

But that Legacy stuff was a character progression from a Bane who already tried and failed to take Gotham City for himself, and one who was beaten fair and square by Batman, too.

This Bane had never tried that and was never interested in any of that. He was just there to do what Ra's Al Ghul had wanted.

I know what you mean but that's the advantage of an adaptation, you can use different aspects and storylines from a character's history to fit into the story you're trying to tell. I think that's the crux of the matter here.

 

[jmc]

Of course it was just a destroy the city plot. The siege was a load of needless filler. It was only there to give Bruce time to recover. What difference would it have made if Bane had pulled the trigger at the start instead of 5 months later?

Oh that's right, he wanted to feed Gotham hope to poison their souls, even though they never knew their impending death was coming.

Because apparently Bruce needed to be punished, and doing it too soon after getting beaten down just wouldn't feel right.

 

[grand-I-am]

Bane was awesome in this movie

 

[Baneis8feettall]

Bane was awesome in this movie

Of courshe.