The Dark Knight Rises Tom Hardy as Bane XXV

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]383033[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]380431[/split]

 

[KalMart]

Uh oh.

We're back to the "popularity nullifies any debate of artistic merit" argument.

No actually, we're trying to avoid the 'comics and their history trumps creative reinterpretation' thing, but go ahead....

Is this straight from the Nolan defense playbook? It's getting a little stale.

Popularity doesn't mean there are no missed or wasted opportunities.

Cinematic quality doesn't mean that new opportunities are explored, either....at least for those who are open to them.

In fact I'd rather a Batman movie be somewhat less popular but more successful at showing what makes these characters and concepts special in the first place.

Alrighty...it's unfortunate you won't like Bane.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

He did what he could with the time frame he was given so there is always aspects in a film that are gonna be simplified with the basic "You gotta tell this story in 2 hours" frame. I think it was portrayed very well that before Bruce even met Ra's that he was very intelligent, had a unique way of figuring out and understanding criminals, and even had outstanding fighting skills...which is part of the reason why Ra's even took such an interest in him besides him being Bruce Wayne of course.

There are plenty of ways to show that Batman had many mentors, since his childhood, who provided a wide variety of skills essential to Batman's adaptability and readiness.

It would even be better to leave out the mentor(s) entirely if you avoid narrowing and simplifying Batman's legendary training, knowledge, ability, adaptability and readiness. Anything less isn't Batman.

 

[KalMart]

Different, but they chose this and for some did it pretty darn well. It's just one of many versions in various formats, luckily there's plenty of places to find them.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

No actually, we're trying to avoid the 'comics and their history trumps creative reinterpretation' thing, but go ahead....

I didn't say the comics are always better. I'm only suggesting that we should be allowed to debate the artistic merits of both.

But for some reason you want to shut down the debate all together. It's kind of weird.

Cinematic quality doesn't mean that new opportunities are explored, either....at least for those who are open to them.

But whether that new opportunity is a step in the right direction is debatable.

Alrighty...it's unfortunate you won't like Bane.

I haven't made a final judgement. But it's good to explore and debate why people value Bane before we fully access Nolan's version.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Different, but they chose this and for some did it pretty darn well. It's just one of many versions in various formats, luckily there's plenty of places to find them.

Why do you and others like Nolan's version better?

A reboot is around the corner so there will be a window of opportunity to fix the origin if need be.

 

[KalMart]

Why do you and others like Nolan's version better?

A reboot is around the corner so there will be a window of opportunity to fix the origin if need be.

I don't like it 'better', I just don't take away from it because it's different from the comics or because I assessed a certain 'duty' for it to be more accurate. I take it as a film first and foremost. Others may not, and that's their preference. Sure, there's room for other things to be done afterwards...and a more comic-like reboot would be a cool change from these. But nothing needs to be 'fixed' unless the movies were just bad cinematically. It's just another version which, like these, will earn their merit primarily on how good they are as films.

Be patient, this one will be over soon.

 

[NateHevens]

Why do you and others like Nolan's version better?

I actually wrote about this in my recent blog post:

2. Bane isn’t Latino/big enough/on steroids/breaking Batman’s back
I was guilty of this myself at first, to be honest. But seeing Nolan’s Bane in action has me beyond excited for him, and also made this “he’s not enough like the comics!” argument highly annoying.

I would like to show you luchador wrestler Bane in a live-action setting:

Spoiler

Still think that Bane is a good idea?


It can’t be said often enough:
Yes, Nolan has pulled inspiration from specific Batman graphic novels and comics for his trilogy. But these movies are not the comics.

...

Hardy said he worked to make it seem like Bane had a Caribbean ethnicity. Which is great. While I was initially disappointed that Nolan did not go with someone who was ethnically Latino, I’ve gotten over it. Everything I’ve seen of Hardy’s Bane looks ****ing incredible, and I can’t wait to see the whole thing in Imax. It’s going to be amazing.

As far as Bane not being big enough…

Realism, people. Realism.

A super-steroid like Venom turning Bane into an intelligent Hulk simply is not realistic. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but that is simply the way it is. It just would not fit in Nolan’s trilogy.

Again, I give you:

Spoiler

Still think it’d be a good idea? In fact, I’m actually glad Nolan didn’t go that route, because it gives Bane a pathetically obvious Achilles’ heel: cut off the tubes. Bane may have become very good at defending himself against that, but eventually, Batman would get the better of him and cut the tubes… which is what happens in the comics and the animated series over and over and over again. Not to mention that the Bane of Batman & Robin was defeated by Robin and Batgirl… which just made it even worse.

I like the entirely new, totally different, possibly LOS-member Bane quite a bit. I’m very excited to see him in action and think he will be incredible.

In other words, it's an aesthetics thing. I really don't think the Luchador, intelligent Hulk Bane of the comics translates all that well to a live-action setting, and I have Batman & Robin (minus the intelligence part) to back me up on that. I just don't think a comics-like Bane would fit in Nolan's Batverse.

I think how Nolan chose to portray Bane is much more aesthetically in tune with the Batverse as he set it up than the Latino luchador of the comics.

It's my opinion, of course, but that's how I feel about it...

 

[Boom]

I doubt we'll see the origin again in the next franchise, but then again I said the same thing about The Amazing Spider-Man.

I'd love to see Master Kirigi and the real Henri Ducard, but it'll take a hell of a script to pull off a more extensive origin story for Batman.

 

[NateHevens]

I doubt we'll see the origin again in the next franchise, but then again I said the same thing about The Amazing Spider-Man.

I'd love to see Master Kirigi and the real Henri Ducard, but it'll take a hell of a script to pull off a more extensive origin story for Batman.

I'm hoping they avoid any origins story from here on out. We don't need another Batman origins...

 

[KalMart]

One last thing as we steer this back to the thread's namesake.....


...it seems that some comic fans kinda' resent the fact that the most popular and successful of comic films in this all-time high of the genre...happens to be the least comic-like, stylistically. Like it's not celebrating comic fandom enough or what have you...somehow helping to reinforce that comics need to be mutated into something grittier and realistic to be taken more seriously. Although I don't quite find that completely fair to hold against these movies, I kinda' understand where they're coming from.

Add to that...these particular movies are more like gothic thrillers or crime dramas that happen to include Batman, rather than Batman with a movie wrapped around him. As a movie fan, that's great and all the better...whereas a comic fan may feel somehow used. I seriously don't think that's what the intent of the filmmakers are in this case, but if it's any consolation, it's created a real open door policy for future movies...of which a newer, more comic/fantasy-like approach will be even more welcomed for being a change of pace from Nolan's versions.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I'd just like to point out that Bane is more or less an "intelligent Hulk" in the comics. Not exactly, but he's incredibly strong, and almost unstoppable with Venom, while also being incredibly smart and clever.

Oh, and Azbats does have to cut the tubes to defeat him in Knightfall. So there's some precedent there. And it doesn't have to be done as cheesy and lame as it was in B&R.

 

[badgrammar]

Guys if it makes you feel any better try thinking of nolan's Bane as that muntant leader from the Dark Knight Returns comics

 

[KalMart]

Guys if it makes you feel any better try thinking of nolan's Bane as that muntant leader from the Dark Knight Returns comics

Who they named Bane.


And who will make those unfamiliar with Bane laugh at the roided-up, wrestling-mask-wearing version with the Latino accent...but big deal.

 

[Doc Holliday]

One last thing as we steer this back to the thread's namesake.....


...it seems that some comic fans kinda' resent the fact that the most popular and successful of comic films in this all-time high of the genre...happens to be the least comic-like, stylistically. Like it's not celebrating comic fandom enough or what have you...somehow helping to reinforce that comics need to be mutated into something grittier and realistic to be taken more seriously. Although I don't quite find that completely fair to hold against these movies, I kind understand where they're coming from.

Add to that...these particular movies are more like gothic thrillers or crime dramas that happen to include Batman, rather than Batman with a movie wrapped around him. As a movie fan, that's great and all the better...whereas a comic fan may feel somehow used. I seriously don't think that's what the intent of the filmmakers are in this case, but if it's any consolation, it's created a real open door policy for future movies...of which a newer, more comic/fantasy-like approach will be even more welcomed for being a change of pace from Nolan's versions.

I agree, but I also think that the MCU has proven that a slightly less realistic take that is a little more faithful to the comics can be done with success, both in a quality movie and a financial profit.

 

[NateHevens]

One last thing as we steer this back to the thread's namesake.....


...it seems that some comic fans kinda' resent the fact that the most popular and successful of comic films in this all-time high of the genre...happens to be the least comic-like, stylistically. Like it's not celebrating comic fandom enough or what have you...somehow helping to reinforce that comics need to be mutated into something grittier and realistic to be taken more seriously. Although I don't quite find that completely fair to hold against these movies, I kind understand where they're coming from.

Add to that...these particular movies are more like gothic thrillers or crime dramas that happen to include Batman, rather than Batman with a movie wrapped around him. As a movie fan, that's great and all the better...whereas a comic fan may feel somehow used. I seriously don't think that's what the intent of the filmmakers are in this case, but if it's any consolation, it's created a real open door policy for future movies...of which a newer, more comic/fantasy-like approach will be even more welcomed for being a change of pace from Nolan's versions.

Here's my take on that:

I get it. I understand what the comic ans are saying.

However... movies and comics are two different mediums, just like books and comics.

I had this issue with Harry Potter. Prisoner of Azkaban is still, to this day, my favorite of the series. In fact, it's one of the best books I ever read. I thought the movie destroyed the book, so much so that I honestly couldn't stand it for a very long time. It was until I could separate the films from the books that I was able to revise my opinion of the movie PoA. It's still not my favorite, but I no longer hate it like I used to.

Certain things simply don't work in the movies. I think Nolan's trilogy has been the most respectful of its source material. The specific comics it pulls from are quite dark and gritty. But Nolan's added a level of realism to the movies that you rarely, if ever, see in comics.

Also, I don't know why it has to be said a billion times, but I think the comic fans deriding the film for not being closer to the comics are missing the fact that these aren't Batman films. They are Bruce Wayne films, and Bruce Wayne happens to be Batman. To see them as films about Batman and his alter-ego Bruce Wayne would be to see them backwards. This is, I think, where Nolan really separates from the comics. He's telling a story about Bruce Wayne, not Batman. That's also why nobody but Bruce Wayne will be Batman in this trilogy; because it's not about Batman.


Anyways... back to Tom Hardy as Bane...

I'd just like to point out that Bane is more or less an "intelligent Hulk" in the comics. Not exactly, but he's incredibly strong, and almost unstoppable with Venom, while also being incredibly smart and clever.

Oh, and Azbats does have to cut the tubes to defeat him in Knightfall. So there's some precedent there. And it doesn't have to be done as cheesy and lame as it was in B&R.

I... think you misread me.

I know Bane is basically a highly-intelligent Hulk in the comics. I have no problem with that. I simply don't believe that vision of Bane translates well into Nolan's Batverse, let alone a general live-action setting. I feel like, in general, it would come out really cheesy no matter how hard they tried, and in Nolan's Batverse he would stick out like a sore thumb. I think Nolan's re-done bane works better for his adaption than the comics version would.

 

[Harley2004]

I'm hoping they avoid any origins story from here on out. We don't need another Batman origins...

I just hope they wait a while after this. The last thing Batman needs is something else really soon, that no matter what will be in the shadow of what Nolan has done. Also if Gotham looks more like Gotham at whatever point that would be a good thing, but it does not need to to introduce alot over the top fantasy stuff. Keep it feeling as real as possible. No space aliens attacking.

 

[KalMart]

I agree, but I also think that the MCU has proven that a slightly less realistic take that is a little more faithful to the comics can be done with success, both in a quality movie and a financial profit.

I'm certain it can...but if a filmmaker has his own way of telling the story, he should stick to how he wants it. Nolan's is his own not because he wants to avoid being comic-like, but because certain sensibilities appeal to him and his vision. The result is something whose 'non-comic-ness' is, I feel, more than made up for by its uniqueness....and the fact that it is clearly the flagship of the genre for this era.

 

[NateHevens]

I just hope they wait a while after this. The last thing Batman needs is something else really soon, that no matter what will be in the shadow of what Nolan has done. Also if Gotham looks more like Gotham at whatever point that would be a good thing, but it does not need to to introduce alot over the top fantasy stuff. Keep it feeling as real as possible. No space aliens attacking.

See my blog post linked to in my sig, about the Justice League. I talk about this...

 

[Doc Holliday]

Here's my take on that:

I get it. I understand what the comic ans are saying.

However... movies and comics are two different mediums, just like books and comics.

I had this issue with Harry Potter. Prisoner of Azkaban is still, to this day, my favorite of the series. In fact, it's one of the best books I ever read. I thought the movie destroyed the book, so much so that I honestly couldn't stand it for a very long time. It was until I could separate the films from the books that I was able to revise my opinion of the movie PoA. It's still not my favorite, but I no longer hate it like I used to.

Certain things simply don't work in the movies. I think Nolan's trilogy has been the most respectful of its source material. The specific comics it pulls from are quite dark and gritty. But Nolan's added a level of realism to the movies that you rarely, if ever, see in comics.

Also, I don't know why it has to be said a billion times, but I think the comic fans deriding the film for not being closer to the comics are missing the fact that these aren't Batman films. They are Bruce Wayne films, and Bruce Wayne happens to be Batman. To see them as films about Batman and his alter-ego Bruce Wayne would be to see them backwards. This is, I think, where Nolan really separates from the comics. He's telling a story about Bruce Wayne, not Batman. That's also why nobody but Bruce Wayne will be Batman in this trilogy; because it's not about Batman.


Anyways... back to Tom Hardy as Bane...

I love what you're saying and I'm right there with you, especially about Azkaban, but I can't agree with the bolded statement.

BRUCE: Batman's just a symbol, Rachel.
RACHEL: No, this is your mask. Your real face is the one that criminals now fear. The man I loved - the man who vanished - he never came back at all. But maybe he's still out there, somewhere. Maybe some day, when Gotham no longer needs Batman, I'll see him again.

This series is entirely about Batman.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I don't like it 'better', I just don't take away from it because it's different from the comics or because I assessed a certain 'duty' for it to be more accurate. I take it as a film first and foremost. Others may not, and that's their preference. Sure, there's room for other things to be done afterwards...and a more comic-like reboot would be a cool change from these. But nothing needs to be 'fixed' unless the movies were just bad cinematically. It's just another version which, like these, will earn their merit primarily on how good they are as films.

Be patient, this one will be over soon.

I like Nolan's Two-Face better than Schumacher's and I say that without hesitation.

I like the movie version of Blade way better than the comics.

So it's not about accuracy, it's about debating why one thing resonates with you more than another version.

and if a new origin can explain Batman's increased skill-set, readiness, adaptability and knowledge, it would be well worth doing over to fit the reboot's different take on Batman. Nolan's mostly-ninja origin wouldn't support a more versatile version of Batman who is clearly much more advanced in other areas.

 

[NateHevens]

I love what you're saying and I'm right there with you, especially about Azkaban, but I can't agree with the bolded statement.



This series is entirely about Batman.

I'm going to take this over to the TDKR discussion thread, because this thread is about Bane, and I don't want to derail it anymore...

 

[Doc Holliday]

I'm certain it can...but if a filmmaker has his own way of telling the story, he should stick to how he wants it. Nolan's is his own not because he wants to avoid being comic-like, but because certain sensibilities appeal to him and his vision. The result is something whose 'non-comic-ness' is, I feel, more than made up for by its uniqueness....and the fact that it is clearly the flagship of the genre for this era.

Absolutely; I agree. I'm not deriding Nolan's realistic Batman films by any measure. He had a very clear intention and vision and I think he's executed it well.

But after the success of BB, I feel like everyone thought (for a while at least) that they needed to make comic book movies grounded in realism so people would see them. I don't think that's true. I think when WB reboots Batman, they could find a director to give it a feel similar to the MCU and it could totally work. That's all I'm trying to say.

 

[iamcitizen]

The important thing to remember is that it isn't Nolan's responsibility to deliver the most faithful adaption of the Batman comics possible. His job is to deliver his adaption, for better or worse.

Just because a less realistic take could work (and I agree it could), that doesn't mean Nolan was wrong for making his more realistic version.

We know the franchise will be rebooted after TDKR, probably soon after, and something tells me that WB will try to make it similar in tone to Marvel Studios' films. So I have no doubt you'll be seeing a less realistic, more conventional Batman film in the near future- again, for better or worse.

Until then, let's sit back and enjoy the conclusion of Nolan's take- I don't think we'll be seeing anything like it again.