The Dark Knight Rises Why did they wait 5months to blow up the city

[MAKAVELI25]

This is why Bane's siege is so pointless. It was all for nothing. He spent 5 months talking bull. At least Joker and Ra's believed in what they were saying.

Quoted for emphasis

 

[TheBat812]

Quoted for emphasis

Do you guys have any proof that he DIDN'T believe in the LOS cause? The only reason he didn't want to kill Batman was because Talia wanted him to see that he'd lost. Once Talia has gotten that satisfaction, Bane is all for getting Batman out of the way. To me it seemed Bane was helping Talia get revenge but also trying to achieve their goal.

 

[MAKAVELI25]

Do you guys have any proof that he DIDN'T believe in the LOS cause? The only reason he didn't want to kill Batman was because Talia wanted him to see that he'd lost. Once Talia has gotten that satisfaction, Bane is all for getting Batman out of the way. To me it seemed Bane was helping Talia get revenge but also trying to achieve their goal.

The use of the word that I bolded in your post points to the problem with the character. You state that it "SEEEMED" to you. I bet you have no problem clearly defining what motivated Ra's and The Joker in the first two films. Some parts of their characters are debatable, but as an audience we can clearly identify why they are doing what they are doing. Why do we have such a hard time clearly defining what motives (Other than because Talia said so) that Bane would have for destroying Gotham? The character is just badly written IMO

 

[TheBat812]

The use of the word that I bolded in your post points to the problem with the character. You state that it "SEEEMED" to you. I bet you have no problem clearly defining what motivated Ra's and The Joker in the first two films. Some parts of their characters are debatable, but as an audience we can clearly identify why they are doing what they are doing. Why do we have such a hard time clearly defining what motives (Other than because Talia said so) that Bane would have for destroying Gotham? The character is just badly written IMO

They make it clear that what is most important to him is Talia. I need to see it again to make sure, but it felt pretty clear that they both believed in the LOS and their goal.

 

[BatLobster]

Neither of these moments explicitly show disdain for the rich. The first just shows incredulity/disdain for the person he's speaking to at the moment, and the second shows more his disdain for Daggett (who's a despicable person anyway) than for rich people in general. I don't disagree with your interpretation, but the fact that there is any ambiguity about his motives (other than Talia) shows that he is not a well written character. There's not too much of a debate about Ra's motives or the Joker's, why are we having so tough of a time identifying Bane's?

I dunno man. The look of pure hatred and disgust in Bane's eyes when he asks Daggett, "And you think this gives you...power over me?" said it all for me. It seems very much like Bane's indictment of a power hierarchy based on money, rather than what he sees as true strength. Daggett was a rich prick...and there are plenty of those to go around in Gotham, I have to believe. The film offers us a taste of plenty of others...the senator, the "Ibiza" guy at the masquerade ball, the trader in the stock exchange, the guy outside the stock exchange, Bruce Wayne (from Selina Kyle's original perspective). So sure, maybe I can't prove that Bane hated every rich person, but the LOS's methods both in the comics and films have always been akin to chemotherapy. They are willing to take out the many good cells to eradicate the few bad cells, so to speak. This ends up applying to their nuke endgame as well.

So Bane truly made a lot of sense to me, his motives just weren't spoonfed to us. It's not hard to see why a guy who spent a large chunk of his life in a prison where he has to fight for his survival would adopt such ideologies. You have to take the breadcrumbs they drop us throughout the film and put them together to get a full picture. That's what I really enjoyed about how he was portrayed. That, and I love how his and Talia's backstory are able to play an important role in the overall causality chain of the trilogy.

 

[The Joker]

Do you guys have any proof that he DIDN'T believe in the LOS cause?

By planning to kill a city that had crime rates so low that the Police Commissioner was going to get retired.

Look at the Ra's cameo and what he said to Bruce. He said everything he managed to achieve as Batman was based on a lie, so he should now see that Gotham is beyond saving and should be allowed to die.

That's the only real LOS philosophy we heard in the movie. Problem is that Bane had already planned to destroy Gotham before he ACCIDENTALLY learned the truth about the Harvey Dent lie. So he obviously didn't believe in their cause at all.

 

[BatLobster]

The point wasn't that Gotham had to be destroyed because of a lie, it's the idea that Gotham had always been beyond saving, and telling a big lie to save it was only a hollow and short term victory, covering up the ugliness that has always managed to surface in one form or another. To the LOS, its destruction was an absolute that had to happen. It was Ra's al Ghul's destiny.

We're talking about extremists here. At no point did I ever think the LOS would just back down because Gotham had a white knight and there was no more organized crime. If organized crime was all they wanted to get rid of, why didn't Ra's let Bruce try to save it his way back in Batman Begins when Bruce begged him for more time?

 

[The Joker]

The point wasn't that Gotham had to be destroyed because of a lie, it's the idea that Gotham was always beyond saving, and telling a big lie to save it was only a short term fix...to the LOS, its destruction was an absolute that had to happen. It was Ra's al Ghul's destiny.

But once again they did not know about this lie until after they had set plans in motion to destroy it. So what was the reason to destroy it before this when it seemed Gotham was obviously not beyond saving when it was in a peace time?

Either Bane is a fool or he doesn't care about the ideals of the LOS. Ra's justified to Bruce in his cameo that Gotham had to die because all Batman's achievements were based on the Dent lie. So what was Bane's justification before this truth came out?

 

[BatLobster]

But once again they did not know about this lie until after they had set plans in motion to destroy it. So what was the reason to destroy it before this when it seemed Gotham was obviously not beyond saving when it was in a peace time?

I know. My point was that the lie has no bearing on the League's original decision to return to Gotham. I don't think they ever had a moment where they even considered, "Woah...Gotham is getting better?" That kind of compassionate and reasonable thinking doesn't really go hand in hand with the whole genocidal terrorist thing they have going. They have a fanatical cult-like worship of Ra's and want to honor his mission. One that they clearly think is a just one, since they love Ra's so much.

In short...the end of TDK, the Dent coverup, that's one storyline. The LOS's desire to carry out the will of Ra's al Ghul, that's another. Those two disparate threads converge the moment Bane learns of the coverup, but this only strengthens the convictions they already had about Gotham based on decades (and indeed, centuries) of indoctrination. I don't think Bane was all that surprised to learn the truth. He looked over Gordon's speech very nonchalantly (although to be fair, everything he did was badass and nonchalant).

 

[The Guard]

I think its pretty clear that Bane has some disdain for the rich in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. There are several clues and overt actions to indicate this in the film. And so what? This isn't a particularly compelling motivation, because his hatred of the rich is not based in anything reasonable. He apparently just hates the rich because they're rich.

Yes, we're shown that Dagget and his lackey are corrupt. That's two people in a city of millions. And so Bane feels justified to try and kill all the rest of the rich based on that?

And that, I think, is the heart of the issue people have with the character. Bane has no compelling, and arguably no legitimate or logical motivations for anything he does. He has the same, warmed over motivations we saw in BATMAN BEGINS. He's basically just a terrorist who believes that creating a lot of terror and destruction will lead the world to change. That was interesting the first time. The second? Not so much, especially since it wasn't explored any differently, or really at all in TDKR.

Any interesting element that can be attributed to Bane or Talia in terms of motivation comes from the ideals of Ra's Al Ghul, or is derivative of said ideals. So they don't even have their own motivations, they are just extensions of Ra's Al Ghul's. Oh, and revenge. That's fairly lazy writing.

You completely misunderstood what I was saying regarding what was black and white. I'm just saying they can have two separate motivations - revenge for Ra's death and wanting to support the LOS's cause. They can use one goal to the advantage of the other. Both lead to the destruction of Gotham, but one leads to them specifically finding a way to torture Bruce.

You said:

Bane's motivation isn't stupid, it's actually way more interesting than him being strictly an idealist. He was an idealist for pride (to prove to Ra's that he was worthy of his daughter, and then to prove it to Talia), as was Bruce initially. Excellent parallel. Talia also seemed to have renounced her ideals in anger towards her father, only to use them later to avenger her father's death. These things aren't black and white, and that's why they're so well done. They are contradictory only in the sense that the character is or evolving.

You said "These things aren't black and white"...but you described something that very much WAS presented as black and white. There weren't really any contradictory elements in Bane's motivations or Bane's plan, or in Talia's Bane very clearly said that his "plan" was a lie, and revealed that he had another aim for Gotham. If you were referring to them having two seperate motivations at the same time...you were less than clear. And you based your argument on conjecture.

Not when the points deliberately lead to a certain conclusion.

No, it's really only not conjecture when points that can be considered actual EVIDENCE leads to a certain conclusion. Not vague points you pull out of nothing or your imagination.

Maybe some of the specifics we ARE making up, but the point is that none of the characters had "no reason" for what they were doing. It's all in the movie. Bane would do anything for Talia. Ra's kicked them out. Ra's picked Bruce. Bruce killed him. Talia wants revenge. How do they do that? Use the LOS, who's cause they still believe in, to finish Ra's work. They made a point of letting us know they believed in the cause, but they only tried to pull it off the way they did to get at Bruce. How did they know what would hurt him the most? She's Ra's goddamn daughter, they're both LOS (where I'm sure word spread that Bruce gave up his chance as leader to save/protect Gotham), and they're badass ninjas. It's not a stretch to think they could figure that out. Things like this ARE nitpicking, because they shouldn't have to tell you this kind of **** for you to know. It's a story, not a book report. Nolan gave enough information for you to know why Bane and talia are doing it. The specifics beyond how they affect Bruce are unimportant to the story he's telling.

Let's back up a second. I know why Bane and Talia did what they did.

I think most people do.

I don't know anyone who doesn't.

Because the filmmakers told AND showed us. Basically, they are crazy enough to believe the League of Shadows' ideals, and they/she want revenge for the death of Ra's Al Ghul, and to torture Bruce Wayne.

The problem people have with their portrayal isn't that they can't understand why Bane and Talia do things, or that there's nothing there in terms of motivation.

Its that there's nothing particularly interesting there, and nothing particularly interesting done with the elements in the film, and nothing that's not derivative of another character (Ra's).

I agree that this "Bruce was both Gotham and Ra's' favorite son and both Bane and Talia resented it," is not actually represented in the film, but I don't think they would have talked about their exile otherwise.

Well...they did. And they did so without the slightest hint of any "favorite son" angle.

Sure it's still important for Bane and her relationship in terms of devotion, but it's more with the way the characters treat each other. Bane always has a chip on his shoulder for making Batman pay that seems to go beyond just because Talia told her so. It could always be backstory the actors' came up with that never was on screen, haha. Either way, that backstory does not need to be told for the story of the movie to be effective, as Bruce never gets this information either, and it would change nothing.

My point is, that's not part of the story of the movie or the characterization as written. You cannot definitively state it is part of the story, or the characterization if its not there in the writing or the execution of the film.

I don't see why people want more political commentary in there either, the films' are already riddled with them and are an integral idea/conflict for Batman. The films' weren't about the people of Gotham, it was about how they affected Bruce Wayne and how Bruce affected them. They already covered the regular folk a bit with Blake, Fogle and the people in the library and all that, but there's just not much to cover... Everybody (no matter the class) is just hiding inside waiting for it to end, with the faintest hope that somebody might be able to stop it in time. This is Bruce's worst enemy - somebody praying on the fearful. Nolan has shown us the idealist in 1, the anarchist in 2, and himself (the 'idealist' with vengeance in his heart) if his ideals had been what Ra's was hoping. Once again, I don't think the movie is without meaning or commentary, it just might not the meaning you guys are looking for.

There's just not much to cover? There's an entire CITY of people in fear and terror. Surely they're not all just "waiting for it to end". I don't think people wanted a ton of political commentary. I think they just wanted Nolan not to forget about the commentary he introduced. The movie's commentary mostly consists of melodrama, and gets lost in the shuffle because he basically forgets about it after he introduces the ideas.

 

[BatLobster]

He apparently just hates the rich because they're rich.

Oddly enough, I found that to be the most intriguing part of it all. There are people who camped out on Wall Street for months for pretty much the very same reason. It allows Bane to be a villain "for the people", even though he's definitely not. Bane was definitely a walking Deus ex Machina in this film, but I enjoyed that. It seemed to fit the character of Bane like a glove, considering he was created for the sole purpose of breaking the bat. The pure evil of his intentions were appropriate for an apocalyptic final chapter.

Just because his motivations might be base and commonplace, it doesn't make him any less terrifying or compelling. In my opinion, of course. I am well aware that you are arguing this was not handled in an interesting way.

 

[TheBat812]

Oddly enough, I found that to be the most intriguing part of it all. There are people who camped out on Wall Street for months for pretty much the very same reason. It allows Bane to be a villain "for the people", even though he's definitely not. Bane was definitely a walking Deus ex Machina in this film, but I enjoyed that. It seemed to fit the character of Bane like a glove, considering he was created for the sole purpose of breaking the bat. The pure evil of his intentions were appropriate for an apocalyptic final chapter.

Just because his motivations might be base and commonplace, it doesn't make him any less terrifying or compelling. In my opinion, of course. I am well aware that you are arguing this was not handled in an interesting way.

Not to mention, this rich person is clearly pulling strings, meaning he's directly part of the corruption the LOS is trying to destroy. Bane doesn't just hate the rich to hate them, he hates them because they are the corrupt.

 

[BatLobster]

Not to mention, this rich person is clearly pulling strings, meaning he's directly part of the corruption the LOS is trying to destroy. Bane doesn't just hate the rich to hate them, he hates them because they are the corrupt.

Exactly. Without the mob, sharks like Daggett were at the top of the totem pole and were completely willing to play dirty to get what they wanted. As the old saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[The Joker]

I know. My point was that the lie has no bearing on the League's original decision to return to Gotham. I don't think they ever had a moment where they even considered, "Woah...Gotham is getting better?" That kind of compassionate and reasonable thinking doesn't really go hand in hand with the whole genocidal terrorist thing they have going. They have a fanatical cult-like worship of Ra's and want to honor his mission. One that they clearly think is a just one, since they love Ra's so much.

That makes it worse. Ra's was not a genocidal terrorist just because. He believed he was serving a positive purpose for Gotham. He believed it was beyond saving. Truly hopeless. He scoffed at Bruce's idea that the city wasn't beyond saving. In TDKR it was seemingly saved.

You're just calling Bane a psycho who is in love with the guy who kicked him out of his gang. So he ignores what he was really about and just finishes something he tried to do 8 years ago.

Do you not see how poor of a villain that makes Bane look?

In short...the end of TDK, the Dent coverup, that's one storyline. The LOS's desire to carry out the will of Ra's al Ghul, that's another. Those two disparate threads converge the moment Bane learns of the coverup, but this only strengthens the convictions they already had about Gotham based on decades (and indeed, centuries) of indoctrination.

That's one of the flaws of it. What would have strengthened it was if they learned about the cover up and that was what prompted them to go and finish the work of Ra's. Just like what Ra's said to Bruce in his cameo.

 

[TheBat812]

Do you think Ra's would have left Gotham alone in its Dent Act state? I think not.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Bane's motivations may not bold well with a section of fans but, to me, his perception and convictions were enough for a man of his stature. Bane was an autocratic and ego-centric figure who viewed the world as one giant pit. While his ideals didn't match Ra's, Bane still felt compelled to honor Ra's (after saving his life). Albeit, Bane's resentment towards Bruce likely stemmed from the fact that he betrayed The League, and was at one point named the successor to Ra's al Ghul.

 

[The Joker]

Do you think Ra's would have left Gotham alone in its Dent Act state? I think not.

Yes, why not? It was free of crime. Criminals locked up. Peaceful times.

Why would Ra's be against that?

 

[BatLobster]

Do you not see how poor of a villain that makes Bane look?

Does it make Bruce a poor hero that he adopts ideals from Alfred and Rachel? That he adopts crime fighting methods from Ra's?

If you compare Bane to the Joker, then sure, it makes him seem weaker and less original in his motivations. But he shouldn't be compared to The Joker, he should be compared to Bruce Wayne. And I think he works just great as a dark mirror for Bruce. A battle between Ra's two greatest students.

 

[TheBat812]

Yes, why not? It was free of crime. Criminals locked up. Peaceful times.

Why would Ra's be against that?

Free of street crime =/= not free of corruption. Did you really not get a sense of something not being right in Gotham despite it being free of crime? That's the point of the line about all criminals being denied parole. That's all the info you need to know they're basically going against civil liberties, which reeks of corruption/police state. I'm sure Ra's would love that.

 

[The Joker]

Does it make Bruce a poor hero that he adopts ideals from Alfred and Rachel? That he adopts crime fighting methods from Ra's?

Not at all. He has to learn from somewhere. In the comics he travels the world learning from ninja experts and escape artists and so forth.

I don't see the problem with making that expert Ra's. His fighting methods were sound, it's his extreme ideals that he rightfully rejects. Bruce still thinks for himself.

If you compare Bane to the Joker, then sure, it makes him seem weaker and less original in his motivations. But he's not meant to be compared to The Joker, he's meant to be compared to Bruce Wayne. And I think he works just great as a dark mirror for Bruce.

I'm not even comparing him to Joker. Joker's and Bane's ideals clash completely. Yes, he was essentially a knock off of Ra's with another destroy the city plot, but even that was done wrong. Ra's wouldn't do what Bane did. At least not prior to the Dent lie being uncovered.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Perhaps because Bane wasn't Ra's?

 

[The Joker]

Free of street crime =/= not free of corruption.

You mentioned this before. What corruption? That they managed to find one greedy CEO to bribe that means the city needs to be nuked?

Did you really not get a sense of something not being right in Gotham despite it being free of crime?

Yeah, there was an underground army planning to blow up the city.

That's the point of the line about all criminals being denied parole. That's all the info you need to know they're basically going against civil liberties, which reeks of corruption/police state. I'm sure Ra's would love that.

That's not corruption. That's a law that was legally passed. A law that made no sense since I still cannot fathom how denying criminals in jail parole would eradicate crime altogether, but still a law that wasn't passed by corrupt means.

The only ones who know about the Dent Act being based on a lie is Gordon and Bruce.

Perhaps because Bane wasn't Ra's?

"I am here to fulfill Ra's Al Ghul's destiny"

Someone forgot to tell Bane that then.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

"I am here to fulfill Ra's Al Ghul's destiny"

Someone forgot to tell Bane that then.

That still doesn't make Bane (in any shape or form) Ra's al Ghul. Bane's tactics and methods never gave the impression that he was Ra's.

That's like comparing Michael Vick to Cam Newton.

 

[The Joker]

That still doesn't make Bane (in any shape or form) Ra's al Ghul. His tactics and methods never gave the impression that Bane was Ra's.

That's like comparing Michael Vick to Cam Newton.

Yeah, that's the whole point. The obvious contradiction. Bane says he's there to do the work Ra's wanted to do, yet his methods and goal conflict with that entirely. The LOS never mentioned laying siege to cities, and they never intended to kill a city in peace time.

 

[TheBat812]

You think that a city that denies parole to all criminals (and presumably other similarly unjust things) is a fair and just city that has redeemed itself of corruption? I guess we have different definitions. IMO, Ra's would still have found that city worthy of destruction because while it was pristine on the surface, it was still rotting from within. What do you want, Bane to read a list of reasons why Gotham is corrupt enough for their extremist group to destroy it?

And it cleans up streets by not allowing anybody who gets caught back out, leaving those who don't commit crimes not in jail... Does it get much simpler?

And yes, Bane WAS trying to fulfill Ra's destiny of destroying Gotham, thanks for providing that proof that he does in fact hold to the beliefs of the LOS, which I guess makes him a well written character now...