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.