The Dark Knight Rises Unpopular Opinion but I hate The Christopher Nolan Dark Knight Trilogy

[Gandhi]

It never ceases to amaze me how people equate action with fighting choreography and nothing else. Just going by The Dark Knight alone, I cannot fathom how people see iconic scenes like the bank heist, the truck chase, the batpod reveal, the hospital blowing up, Lau's kidnapping, all in glorious IMAX, and think this is a movie with mediocre action. Action isn't fist fights, it's mainly suspense and tension and each film in the trilogy, especially the second one, has impeccable tension from beginning to end.

I was about to reply to @Babillygunn but you’ve summed it up perfectly.

 

[RokMeAmadeus]

I'll admit that we're probably kinda spoiled nowadays considering we have The Batman which I'd say is probably the most definitive Batman movie ever, but before that I'd say it was Batman Begins. I have also never had a theater experience quite like the one I felt with TDK, or have felt as hyped with a movie as with TDK with the viral marketing and all. Getting to experience that and be a part of it in any capacity was honestly life changing. Whatever nitpicks we can come up with now (I honestly have felt many times looking back that there were certain choices with Bruce's character I didn't care for), these positives can't be denied.

 

[Herofan]

I did think Bruce came off a bit too much too often as reluctant hero, including or especially The Dark Knight "People are dying"-instantly regret, think he can't go on, think he actually made things worse and they weren't so bad before.

 

[RokMeAmadeus]

I did think Bruce came off a bit too much too often as reluctant hero, including or especially The Dark Knight "People are dying"-instantly regret, think he can't go on, think he actually made things worse and they weren't so bad before.

Exactly. We got a lot of throwaway lines about how "lost inside the monster" he was but the whole trilogy he was looking for any excuse to not have to be Batman anymore all for the sake of getting laid lmao. At least Battinson is actually obsessed with his mission and turns down Catwoman's offer in the end. Bale would've hopped right on that, infact that's literally what he does at the end is run away with Catwoman lol

 

[Awest66]

Exactly. We got a lot of throwaway lines about how "lost inside the monster" he was but the whole trilogy he was looking for any excuse to not have to be Batman anymore all for the sake of getting laid lmao. At least Battinson is actually obsessed with his mission and turns down Catwoman's offer in the end. Bale would've hopped right on that, infact that's literally what he does at the end is run away with Catwoman lol

What an awful take.

Nolans Bruce Wayne saw Batman as a temporary measure to inspire the people of Gotham to take back their city from the corrupt elements. He never wanted Batman to be a permanent fixture that just harasses Street Crime while the city continues to rot. He wanted to elicit an actual lasting change.

In TDK, His desire to stop had nothing to do with "wanting to get laid", he truly saw Harvey Dent as the culmination of everything he was trying to accomplish as Batman. In Rises, He succeeded in what he set out to do (turn Batman into something more than just one man) and rewarded both Alfred and Rachel's faith that he"d be able to move on with his life.

 

[RokMeAmadeus]

What an awful take.

Nolans Bruce Wayne saw Batman as a temporary measure to inspire the people of Gotham to take back their city from the corrupt elements. He never wanted Batman to be a permanent fixture that just harasses Street Crime while the city continues to rot. He wanted to elicit an actual lasting change.

In TDK, His desire to stop had nothing to do with "wanting to get laid", he truly saw Harvey Dent as the culmination of everything he was trying to accomplish as Batman. In Rises, He succeeded in what he set out to do (turn Batman into something more than just one man) and rewarded both Alfred and Rachel's faith that he"d be able to move on with his life.

Yeah, and I don't care for that idea for the character either, I guess

I'm fine with the concept of Bats wanting to quit eventually somewhere down the line but not within like months of being Batman just cause his childhood crush tells him it makes her sad, gimme a break lolol. He should be obsessed with this mission/war that he spent most of his life preparing to set out to do, it should consume his life. That's what Pattinson and Reeves nailed already with their first movie, like I said there were some vague lines from Alfred thrown in now and then about how he's getting lost in this monster and he should find a life beyond the cave etc etc but to me it was a lot more telling than actually showing. And the whole "let's immediately just pawn this whole thing off to pretty much anyone else" idea just leaves a bad taste in my mouth

"The batman... can be anybody" yeah maybe if you're a billionaire with years of training lol

 

[The Batman]

Bale’s Batman seemed pretty obsessed to me. At the very least, he consistently put Batman above romantic entanglements.

Rachel straight up told him that if he wasn’t Batman, they could be together. Truth be told, he could’ve just quit being Batman right then and there.

Instead, he keeps on being Batman, keeps on being Batman for so long; Rachel has the time to develop a relationship with another man, one that’s almost at the “engagement” stage.

At one point, Bale’s Bruce tells Rachel he’s going to turn himself in. Then instead of actually turning himself in, Bruce lets Dent lie about being Batman, so that he can continue being Batman.

Bruce continually put being Batman above actually being with Rachel.

Even in TDKR, when he had no reason to be Batman, Bale Bruce still rebuilt the Batcave and went there on a regular basis, looking for an excuse to fight crime again.

 

[RokMeAmadeus]

At one point, Bale’s Bruce tells Rachel he’s going to turn himself in. Then instead of actually turning himself in, Bruce lets Dent lie about being Batman, so that he can continue being Batman.

That was kinda on the spot tho, he was genuinely just taken aback that Harvey would even do that

 

[RokMeAmadeus]

Even in TDKR, when he had no reason to be Batman, Bale Bruce still rebuilt the Batcave and went there on a regular basis, looking for an excuse to fight crime again.

In a way, I'm aware of all this and I agree, I just think that the way it plays out it really does come off like he really just doesn't wanna do this at ANY capacity and at the end of the day he just kinda half asses it. Even his big "sacrifice " wasn't real since he survived it.

 

[The Batman]

That was kinda on the spot tho, he was genuinely just taken aback that Harvey would even do that

The fact is, he let Dent do it. Rachel even complains to Alfred that he just stood by and let Dent do it.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

While they’re not as bad as Batman and Robin, that’s not saying much. That’s like saying Domino’s is better than Little Caesar’s. My big problem with the DK trilogy is that they feel almost nothing like Batman. It feels like Christopher Nolan and company wanted to make a movie that had a few qualities of Batman but was a completely original idea only for the script to be bought by Warner Bros., have a couple more elements from Batman thrown in and then slap the Batman name on it. I usually don’t mind it when adaptations make changes from the source material but I personally feel that the Dark Knight trilogy was one of the many examples of adaptations that went too far with their changes. Also, I’ll never get why people got on Hugh Jackman’s case for not being the same height as Wolverine but gave a free pass to the movies for white washing Bane the Al Ghul family. Also, as a huge fan of Scarecrow and Two Face, I’m offended with how they were completely wasted in this movies (though I will say Cillian Murphy and Aaron Eckhart did a great job with what they were given). ****, even Batman Forever handled Two Face better. Overall, if people love these movies, that’s perfectly fine and more power to them. I personally, however, can’t stand this trilogy.

alright. I've thought about posting in this thread, so here's my two cents.

lemme just start off by saying that while TDK isn't perfect, it is still a masterpiece and one of the greatest comic book movies of all time. after repeated watches since 2008, it is largely due to Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker.

As @Venom 1988 pointed out, you already made a thread about Hugh Jackman being too tall to play Wolverine so I am not getting into that. However, I am with you with the whitewashing. It happened twice in Nolan's trilogy and I feel like he just got away with it because of his high status as a director in Hollywood. Not with me, though. There are plenty of Arab actors that could have been cast, but of course we get another high profile white Hollywood actor to star as Ra's al Ghul. I suppose he did do a good job, but still it was an opportunity to cast an actor of Arab or Middle Eastern descent and that was taken away by casting someone white.

Outside of that, the movie is overall okay. Batman films were never high grossers until TDK. No film crossed even $500 million worldwide, and BB was no exception. Without getting into all of my criticisms, the one nitpick I'll have with this movie is that when the League gassed the entire city, when they looked at Batman, they didn't see him the same way Scarecrow saw him when he specifically got gassed.

So that's BB.

TDK on the other hand...I would have liked to have seen Gambol a little more and I think Michael Jai White even said he filmed more scenes but they decided to cut him out. I liked how the OG Wayne Tower was incorporated in this film but I don't know if that was intentional. Then on top of that, the dumbest part was why Batman & Gordon didn't just blame Dent's deaths on the Joker. Honest Trailers got into this for their TDK video.

and then we got DKR. Back when I was in my 20s when this movie was coming out, I was absolutely obsessed. So obsessed that I looked up this forum and registered (look at the date, look at my username lol) on it. Before getting into my criticisms of it, I'll just start with the thing already discussed: the whitewashing. Tom Hardy claimed that he based Bane's voice on his comic book origins, but later he went on to say he based it on Bartley Gorman, an Irish boxer...which has nothing to do with Bane's comic heritage.

Marion Cotillard being cast as Talia is an extension of the whitewashing that happened with Ra's al Ghul's. But as far as that villainy goes, the worst offense is that Bane was revealed to not be the main villain all along; he was doing everything for a woman, Talia. And even though Ra's made the League sound like some Illuminati organization in BB "we sacked Rome, loaded ships with plague rats, burned London to the ground..." Bane & Talia are out here not only for revenge but to say that destroying Gotham is supposed to be the last job the League ever needs to do.

But the biggest offense to me about DKR is how it is essentially the same movie as BB. It is Batman vs. the League of Shadows, and the League of Shadows steals a device from Wayne Enterprises and uses it as a superweapon to destroy Gotham.

my post is already super long so I'll leave out everything else I feel unless folks wanna engage with me on my thoughts

 

[Awest66]

But the biggest offense to me about DKR is how it is essentially the same movie as BB. It is Batman vs. the League of Shadows, and the League of Shadows steals a device from Wayne Enterprises and uses it as a superweapon to destroy Gotham

Movies repeat plot points from their predecessors all the time (Return of the Jedi brings back the Death Star, Age of Ultron is also about the Avengers figting a drone army while trying to stop a doomsday machine, Captain America Civil War has Cap become a fugitive again, All three original Indiana Jones movies are about Indy trying to secure an ancient relic from hostile forces). Rises mirroring Begins was completely intentional and there was nothing wrong with that.

Ras Al Ghul is ethnicity is meant to be ambiguous, Bane is actually half-english on his fathers side and it was never said at any point in the movie that he was "doing it for Talia".

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Movies repeat plot points from their predecessors all the time (Return of the Jedi brings back the Death Star, Age of Ultron is also about the Avengers figting a drone army while trying to stop a doomsday machine, Captain America Civil War has Cap become a fugitive again, All three original Indiana Jones movies are about Indy trying to secure an ancient relic from hostile forces).

this was way more than just repeating plot points. it was repeating the whole entire plot period. same initial conflict, same end result.

Rises mirroring Begins was completely intentional and there was nothing wrong with that.

I disagree. There was plenty wrong with that. It made me feel like I was watching the same movie again, it was just too similar.

Ras Al Ghul is ethnicity is meant to be ambiguous,

no it isn't. this almost sounds like you're excusing the whitewashing. Ra's al Ghul has always been depicted as being of Middle Eastern or Asian descent. Casting Liam Neeson was making him European instead. and if you're trying to say that this version of Ra's was supposed to have an ambiguous ethnicity, then that's a vision of Nolan's I do not respect.

Bane is actually half-english on his fathers side

I know that, but the character was always in touch with his Latino side in the comics and in other adaptations. This adaptation decided to ignore all of that, and not even acknowledge that he's half Latino. His half English side isn't even important either.

it was never said at any point in the movie that he was "doing it for Talia".

so what if it was never said? the twist at the end just shows that his motivation all this time was just being somebody working for Talia. after he gets killed off, the movie then focuses on her as if she was the main villain the whole time.

 

[Filmfreak]

Every Nolan Batman movie focuses on one villain and then has a "secret" one for the final act. Begins was mostly about Scarecrow before Ra's got "resurrected", Knight featured Joker and finished with Two Face and Rises having Talia at the end doesn't change the fact that Bane was the main villain for 2,5 hours.

I know I won't use a fresh argument about this but it still stands. Darth Vader was working for Paplatine and he is still considered one of the most iconic villains of all time in any medium, so who was the main boss really means little to nothing. Bane being under the command of Talia doesn't change how great of a villain he was for the entirety of the movie and him having feelings for her doesn't mean he didn't believe in the cause.

This kind of criticism feels kind of superficial to me in a similar vein to the "Bruce disappeared for eight years because Rachel died". There is some truth to it but it's a hyperbole taken out of context.

 

[Awest66]

it was repeating the whole entire plot period. same initial conflict, same end result.

It really wasn't at all. Bane is trying to destroy Gotham, Yes but he's forcing Bruce to helplessly watch while slowly tears it apart, forcing him to experience the depths of his failure in trying to make it a better place. That's different enough to set it apart from Begins.

I was watching the same movie again

Bane's whole taking over Gotham as a fascist dictator was markedly different from what Ras tried to do.

Ra's al Ghul has always been depicted as being of Middle Eastern or Asian descent.

Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams have both stated that they've always sought to make both Ra's and Talia ambiguous in terms of ethnicity. They don't belong to anyone ethnic group.

I know that, but the character was always in touch with his Latino side in the comics and in other adaptations.

Most other adaptations are content to play Bane as a glorified lucahdor hitman whose motivation for fighting Batman is a paycheck. It's a credit to Rises that it finally got Bane away from that stereotype.

Bane's ethnicity is not usually so exaggerated in the comics, He's not a luchador wrestler, He doesn't use words like "bruja" or "amigo" and he's usually drawn with Caucasian skin tone

the twist at the end just shows that his motivation all this time was just being somebody working for Talia.

What about working with Talia? Equal partnerships exist

 

[The Joker]

Every Nolan Batman movie focuses on one villain and then has a "secret" one for the final act. Begins was mostly about Scarecrow before Ra's got "resurrected", Knight featured Joker and finished with Two Face and Rises having Talia at the end doesn't change the fact that Bane was the main villain for 2,5 hours.

I don't think that applies to TDK. Dent wasn't really a secret villain. We saw him become a villain. It was literally an arc of his rise and downfall. I get what you're saying that a new villain comes into the mix for the final act. But the way Two Face was done was quite different to the Al Ghuls in my opinion.

With Ra's and Talia where it was presented that Neeson was Ducard not Ra's. He disappears for the middle section of the movie, but this big threat that's coming to Gotham that Scarecrow and Falcone are working for is constantly mentioned and finally revealed to be Ducard as Ra's in the final act. With Talia she was a complete wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Every Nolan Batman movie focuses on one villain and then has a "secret" one for the final act. Begins was mostly about Scarecrow before Ra's got "resurrected",

I disagree...I wouldn't call any of them "secret" except maybe Talia, but the execution of each "secret" villain is different. I wouldn't say BB was mostly about Scarecrow; he was always the secondary villain and he doesn't even show up until halfway through the movie and is always just someone working for the League. Ra's al Ghul was the main villain through and through.

Knight featured Joker and finished with Two Face

TDK featured Joker and finished with both Two Face and Joker. The Joker pretty much created Two Face and caused him to be the villain he ended up being, but Joker remained relevant all throughout the film up until the very end; Batman and Gordon were discussing how Joker won, with the death of Two Face. I wouldn't call him "secret" either.

and Rises having Talia at the end doesn't change the fact that Bane was the main villain for 2,5 hours.

I absolutely disagree. that changes everything. it was bad enough that the movie had the audience thinking that Bane was doing everything for Ra's, and it got even worse when it was revealed he was doing everything for Talia. he dies, and the plot goes on.

I know I won't use a fresh argument about this but it still stands. Darth Vader was working for Paplatine and he is still considered one of the most iconic villains of all time in any medium, so who was the main boss really means little to nothing. Bane being under the command of Talia doesn't change how great of a villain he was for the entirety of the movie

still continuing to disagree here. he would have been a great villain if he had his own motivation instead of just doing everything for someone else's cause. not getting into the Star Wars stuff, that's unknown territory for me.

and him having feelings for her doesn't mean he didn't believe in the cause.

unless we just use it as head canon, there is no reason to think he believed in the cause other than him having feelings for Talia.

This kind of criticism feels kind of superficial to me in a similar vein to the "Bruce disappeared for eight years because Rachel died". There is some truth to it but it's a hyperbole taken out of context.

well that's your opinion. you wanna call it superficial? go right ahead. these defenses aren't doing anything to change my mind, though.

It really wasn't at all.

Yes it was.

Bane is trying to destroy Gotham, Yes but he's forcing Bruce to helplessly watch while slowly tears it apart, forcing him to experience the depths of his failure in trying to make it a better place. That's different enough to set it apart from Begins.

key words right there in the bolded. Batman fights The League of Shadows, the league steals a device from Wayne Enterprises and uses it as a superweapon to destroy Gotham. That's the plot of both of the films, making them too similar to me to feel like DKR was a good followup in the trilogy.

Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams have both stated that they've always sought to make both Ra's and Talia ambiguous in terms of ethnicity. They don't belong to anyone ethnic group.

source? each time I look into it I always see evidence of him always being of Middle Eastern or Asian descent.

Most other adaptations are content to play Bane as a glorified lucahdor hitman whose motivation for fighting Batman is a paycheck. It's a credit to Rises that it finally got Bane away from that stereotype.

no it's not a credit, it's a disservice. I would have much rather had DKR feature Bane with a Latino background. his origin in the comics also didn't involve money as motivation either, it was his own personal vendetta. not money, and not some other evil organization's cause.

Bane's ethnicity is not usually so exaggerated in the comics, He's not a luchador wrestler, He doesn't use words like "bruja" or "amigo" and he's usually drawn with Caucasian skin tone

...you can have a light skin tone and still identify as Latino. I've seen him speaking Spanish words in the comics, and he had the tragic upbringing in Santa Prisca so if things were comic book accurate, Spanish would be his first language.

What about working with Talia? Equal partnerships exist

not in this movie it didn't. Bane was taking orders from Talia the whole time, just like everyone else.

 

[Filmfreak]

I don't think that applies to TDK. Dent wasn't really a secret villain. We saw him become a villain. It was literally an arc of his rise and downfall. I get what you're saying that a new villain comes into the mix for the final act. But the way Two Face was done was quite different to the Al Ghuls in my opinion.

With Ra's and Talia where it was presented that Neeson was Ducard not Ra's. He disappears for the middle section of the movie, but this big threat that's coming to Gotham that Scarecrow and Falcone are working for is constantly mentioned and finally revealed to be Ducard as Ra's in the final act. With Talia she was a complete wolf in sheep's clothing.

I know that's why I had the word secret in quotation marks. There are different cases, Cotillard and Neeson being the villains was presented as a plot twist, that is a big thing they have in common, as well as who the face of the league of shadows was, whether we knew there was one or not. Dent was a much different case but I included him in the sense that the film starts off with the focus on one villain and the last moments have another one, emphasizing that Talia wasn't the only one, it happened in every movie and it doesn't change the narrative as a whole or how important each main villain was for the film's structure.

still continuing to disagree here. he would have been a great villain if he had his own motivation instead of just doing everything for someone else's cause. not getting into the Star Wars stuff, that's unknown territory for me.

unless we just use it as head canon, there is no reason to think he believed in the cause other than him having feelings for Talia.

I seriously don't remember but is there actually a moment where he says or is implied otherwise? If not, thinking that because he has feelings for her he doesn't believe in the cause as a whole is kind of a big leap. One doesn't necessarily negate the other. If it was explained that he did would you still have a problem because he wasn't calling the shots though? Also, did you take issue with the fact that Bane was selling the people of Gotham a revolution narrative while they were planning on blowing them up regardless what? Because that also showed that Bane was full of crap and had different plans than the ones he was revealing.

well that's your opinion. you wanna call it superficial? go right ahead. these defenses aren't doing anything to change my mind, though.

You may be relieved to know that I wasn't planning to.

 

[The Batman]

Batman films were never high grossers until TDK.

Batman '89 was the highest grossing film of 1989 in America. It broke the opening weekend record at the time. It was the highest grossing superhero film for 13 years.

And that's just Batman '89.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I seriously don't remember but is there actually a moment where he says or is implied otherwise? If not, thinking that because he has feelings for her he doesn't believe in the cause as a whole is kind of a big leap.

I don't think it's a leap at all, I think it fills in the gaps. He starts his arc by saying "I'm here to fulfill Ra's al Ghul's destiny!" and by the end of his arc, Talia is speaking for him saying "Bane was banished from the League of Shadows, his only crime being that he loved me..." so I have all the reason to believe he got to come back for the League of Shadows only for her.

One doesn't necessarily negate the other.

well the thing is, Bane has no other backstory other than being an ex-communicated member of the League. how he got to the Pit, where he's from, everything he's done before that, why he would follow in Ra's' footsteps, none of that is ever really explored. only that he was too extreme for the League and took over it and (before the Talia twist) just wants to exact what Ra's wanted on Gotham.

If it was explained that he did would you still have a problem because he wasn't calling the shots though?

yeah I would. I think I said it earlier, but basically it was bad enough that Bane was just Ra's 2.0 in terms of just another movie of the League fighting Batman to destroy Gotham, it only got worse that he was really just motivated by love.

Also, did you take issue with the fact that Bane was selling the people of Gotham a revolution narrative while they were planning on blowing them up regardless what? Because that also showed that Bane was full of crap and had different plans than the ones he was revealing.

yeah we knew Bane was full of crap and the whole thing about him being a revolutionary is that the underlying mission of his is just to eventually destroy Gotham. that was really what my issue was, and why I keep harping on it being the same film as BB.

like, it makes TDK feel like the odd one out for having nothing to do with the League storyline at all. it was completely standalone. if this Dark Knight trilogy was always meant to be Batman vs. The League of Shadows, then why not tie the second film into it? having the second film be standalone gave me the impression back in 2011 that DKR was also going to be another standalone film, with Bane having a completely unrelated backstory to the previous two films.

You may be relieved to know that I wasn't planning to.

lol well fair enough then. we can agree to disagree.

Batman '89 was the highest grossing film of 1989 in America. It broke the opening weekend record at the time. It was the highest grossing superhero film for 13 years.

And that's just Batman '89.

I will concede that I shouldn't have said Batman films were never high grossers. I have always been one to say that a film shouldn't have to make a billion dollars just to be considered a box office success.

I wasn't really comparing 89 to other comic book movies, but just coveted Hollywood franchises in general. with all of those in mind, it is important to note that there was no Batman film that grossed higher than $500 million until TDK, and by then there were plenty more comic book movies out too.

 

[Awest66]

That's the plot of both of the films, making them too similar to me to feel like DKR was a good followup in the trilogy.

Except Bane is using the stolen WE device in an entirely different way. Hes taking over Gotham as a facist dictator and just using the device to keep the military from intervening. There only the same in extremely broad strokes, its like saying Age of Ultron is the exact same movie as the first Avengers.

What would have been a "good follow-up"?

Middle Eastern or Asian descent.

You realize this credits my "ambiguous nationality" stance because youre basically saying that the source never makes it clear between these two?

no it's not a credit, it's a disservice

I disagree passionately. Bane's ethnicity has never been his defining quality. His combination of strength and intelligence, his position as a dark reflection of Batman. Those are what's important and Rises captured them pretty perfectly.

not in this movie it didn't.

Talia is never shown to give Bane orders on-screen and it's never said anywhere that he doesn't actually believe in the League's philosophy and is only doing this for Talia.

Bane even had a deleted quote where he flat-out says he's doing this to avenge Ras Al Ghul out of gratitude to him for rescuing him from the pit.

 

[Herofan]

I can imagine a movie with an Arabic Ra's in 2005 being pretty rejected, disapproved of as too politically incorrect/insensitive or even incendiary, it also could have worked and been accepted, even liked, but I think understandable Nolan wanted to just avoid the risk.

I think most people think it was a mistake to have a second Death Star, there should have been some better way to make a new even bigger/more impressive, conclusive victory rather than just redo that part, understandable to feel that way about other series too. Not sure how a movie could have both Bane and League without it overall feeling like just fighting League again (although Bane on own was an impressive fighter) but that's probably a reason to just not try to bring back League again in third film, have Bane with his own different goals and not connected to them.

Except Bane is using the stolen WE device in an entirely different way. Hes taking over Gotham as a facist dictator and just using the device to keep the military from intervening.

But we don't really see who other than League members and released prisoners is supporting Bane and why (and even with the released prisoners that was underexamined) and even with the released prisoners he eventually wants to just kill them also so him having that ideology/support/rule was basically just a ruse.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Except Bane is using the stolen WE device in an entirely different way.

Except nothing. The fact of the matter is, he did the same exact thing Ra's did, which was steal a device from Wayne Enterprises. Then he used it as a superweapon to destroy Gotham.

Hes taking over Gotham as a facist dictator and just using the device to keep the military from intervening.

The fascist dictatorship was all just a show for the world...his end goal was the same as Ra's'. To destroy Gotham.

There only the same in extremely broad strokes, its like saying Age of Ultron is the exact same movie as the first Avengers.

Nope. Av1 featured Loki as the main villain who wanted to rule Earth. Av2 featured Ultron who was created to destroy life. Neither villain had anything to do with one another, nor did I feel like I was watching the same movie twice. And this is coming from someone who loved Av1 and was really let down by Av2.

You realize this credits my "ambiguous nationality" stance because youre basically saying that the source never makes it clear between these two?

I'm not "basically saying" that the source never makes it clear between these two. I literally said "each time I look into it I always see evidence of him always being of Middle Eastern or Asian descent." That's the opposite of ambiguity, that's specificity. also, there is no source. I asked you for a source and you didn't provide one.

I disagree passionately. Bane's ethnicity has never been his defining quality. His combination of strength and intelligence, his position as a dark reflection of Batman.

I didn't say anything about Bane's ethnicity being his defining quality. but in a world where minorities still struggle to find roles in high profile Hollywood projects, his inclusion in the plot of a Batman film was definitely an opportunity to give a Latino actor a huge breakthrough role. yet instead, the role was given to a white actor while the character's origins are completely brushed to the side.

Those are what's important and Rises captured them pretty perfectly.

what Rises captured was him using his strength and intellect all to fulfill the wishes of woman that he loves.

Talia is never shown to give Bane orders on-screen and it's never said anywhere that he doesn't actually believe in the League's philosophy and is only doing this for Talia.

wrong. after she stabbed Batman, Talia looked Bane in the eyes and said "don't kill him." she also said that Bane was exiled from the League and his crime was that he loved Talia...he returns to the League thanks to Talia and the twist of the film is that she was the one orchestrating the destruction of Gotham the whole time. hence, she, the daughter of Ra's, was the true leader of the League. everyone was following her orders including Bane.

Bane even had a deleted quote where he flat-out says he's doing this to avenge Ras Al Ghul out of gratitude to him for rescuing him from the pit.

as I said, that does not make things any better. for me, it was bad enough that Bane's motivation was to do everything Ra's wanted (not his own original goal as a villain like the Joker had in TDK), it just got worse when it was revealed he was doing everything out of love for Talia.

 

[Awest66]

his end goal was the same as Ra's'. To destroy Gotham

Bane having the same motivation as Ras is kind of the point. He's presented as a dark reflection of Batman, who Bruce could have become if he didn't turn his back on the League.

Nolan was trying to go for a "past comes back to haunt us" vibe which most traditional film trilogies incorporate.

nor did I feel like I was watching the same movie twice

and Batman Begins wasn't about a terrorist taking control of a city to torture it for the sake of forcing one man to realize the depths of his failure in trying to protect it or make it a better place. That's completely different from Batman Begins.

" That's the opposite of ambiguity, that's specificity.

But you're not citing just one ethnicity here. If it were specific, It would just be "middle eastern" or just be "Asian" not "Middle Eastern" or "Asian". I don't have a source for what O'Neil or Adams said but I've never read them as saying he was based on one specific nationality either.

his inclusion in the plot of a Batman film was definitely an opportunity to give a Latino actor a huge breakthrough role.

Again, We are trying to get away from the "luchador wrestler" stereotype here.

what Rises captured was him using his strength and intellect all to fulfill the wishes of woman that he loves.

His desire to "fulfill Ra's Al Ghul's destiny" is entirely his own. There is absolutely nothing that says that he's doing it just because of Talia.

"I never escaped, Ra's Al Ghul rescued me. That's why I must avenge his murder and fulfill his destiny"

Talia looked Bane in the eyes and said "don't kill him.

That felt more like a request than an "order".

Bane is absolutely the main villain of the Dark Knight Rises. The militaristic vibe of the movie is a direct result of his character, his men fear and revere him (HIM, not Talia), It's his movie just as much as The Dark Knight's was the Jokers. The revelation that he's not really the son of Ra's Al Ghul (which was hinted at earlier in the movie) changes none of that.

not his own original goal as a villain like the Joker had in TDK

Again, as I've said before, "Past comes back to haunt us". Nolan didn't want to make a "villain of the week" series. He wanted a film that would tie back to both movies.

What do you think Bane's "original goal" should have been? Just take over the Gotham crime families like in the comics? Nolan would probably view that as being small potatoes compared to what came before.

 

[Spider-Fan]

My opinion on these movies is all documented. Love TDK. Like BB but have issues with it that bog it down from being great for me. Hated TDKR. I have been in enough of these that I aint going too far into the weeds, so this is where I leave it