The Dark Knight Rises

[Archer Vonn]

Bane may have been superior to Bruce physically, but the Joker was superior mentally. The Joker's influence was everywhere in the Dark Knight Rises, and I think he had a part in Bane breaking Batman as well. Let's not forget that because taking the fall for Harvey Dent's death forced Bruce into an eight year retirement -wheels set in motion by the Joker- left Bruce far past his prime. If Bane had been the villain in The Dark Knight, I think the fights would've been very different than they were in Rises.I like the Joker better because he was more interesting. He was philosophical and he was driven and he was very much demented. His goal, as I've said many times, was to beat Batman. And he did it. To Bane, Batman was just an obstacle, the real goal was Gotham. To the Joker, it was the other way around. He came a lot closer to destroying Gotham than Bane did, and ultimately he would've if Lucius hadn't agreed to use the machine. He destroyed Harvey Dent, and he destroyed Batman's symbolism to all except John Blake. And he did it in a way that was so much more interesting than with a bomb, or with muscles.

[Tilius]

.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Tilius

[Archer Vonn]

So? I can still say I like the Joker more even if they're different

[Tilius]

.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Tilius

[Shadow Kurahk]

If you guys see the Joker from Arkham Asylum and Arkham City (the games), you would weep at how Dark Knight butchered the character.And I still stand by the fact that Bane should have been a hulking brute with a luchador mask, and if you argue that Nolan tries to make movies more realistic, then try to explain

the nuclear bomb not causing any real damage to Gotham even though it was probably within 6 miles of the city...

-SK

Edited August 7, 2012 by XII. Larxene

[Archer Vonn]

Jesus, don't 'SO?!?!' me when I say something mildly intelligent which you've missed the point of. I mean, I was basically being on your side there, yet I get a confrontational tone in response.The 'SO?' of my post is that arguing about who is better is pointless because they aren't comparable. You can like who you like, but there's no point trying to argue for/against either one because they're entirely different. That's the point of what I'm saying, to diffuse a pointless argument. You can like whoever you want - my post never, ever, ever said you couldn't. It just said that you can't (well, shouldn't) try to compare characters that serve different purposes.- Tilius

So?I think Nolan did the Joker better, Mark Hamil just got to have a lot of fun so he was more Joker-y. Edited August 7, 2012 by ~JC~

[Tilius]

.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Tilius

[Jean Valjean]

The problem is, if Bane had worn a Lucador mask I think that some people would have been offended. Even for those who wouldn't be offended, the racial undertones would have distracted from the rest of the film, making it a little more difficult for the average audience member. So Nolan does the smart thing, and he avoids the issue altogether because it wouldn't have contributed to the storytelling.Merida

[Brickeens]

Changing the subject completely, there was one other thing in the film I didn't get:

What was that weapon Batman pulls out during his first appearance? It looked like a floodlight on the end of a gun or something.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Brickeens

[Linsanity]

It was an EMP rifle.http://oyster.ignimgs.com/mediawiki/apis.ign.com/the-dark-knight-rises/thumb/a/a4/Batman_EMP_rifle.jpg/468px-Batman_EMP_rifle.jpg

Edited August 7, 2012 by King James

[Archer Vonn]

You get mad pretty easy, Tilius xP

[HAZMAT]

The problem is, if Bane had worn a Lucador mask I think that some people would have been offended. Even for those who wouldn't be offended, the racial undertones would have distracted from the rest of the film, making it a little more difficult for the average audience member. So Nolan does the smart thing, and he avoids the issue altogether because it wouldn't have contributed to the storytelling.Merida

Offended from what? Bane is from a fictional Caribbean island, there's no social stigmas about wrestling masks and Caribbean people, at least not that I'm aware of. Bane's mask is the most recognizable part of his appearance (well besides the HUGE BODY), and removing it for some lame respirator was pointless. And the whole "wouldn't have contributed to the storytelling" comment doesn't make any sense to me, at all. His jacket doesn't contribute to the storytelling.Even disregarding that, the biggest issue is that Nolan completely changed Bane's back story, including removing what makes Bane, well, Bane. Venom not only gave Bane his huge appearance but is also the primary driving factor of his character. Nolan's Bane shares no similarities with the real Bane. He just made up his own villain and slapped a pre-existing name on it.Also, I really hated how Bane broke Batman's spine, BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY DONE. You can only do something like that once, then it completely loses it's wow factor. )I honestly didn't expect Nolan to copy it, I thought he was better than that.) Then again most people don't know anything about Batman other than what was in the Nolan films. :IIt really upsets me how so many people praise the movie, because it really was just an OK movie, and a terrible Batman movie. Not only did it completely disregard an established character so Nolan could do what he wanted, it was barely even about Bruce/Batman.It should've been called Some-Cop-That-Doesn't-Matter-at-All Rises.On the bright side, Catwoman was well written and I was pleasantly surprised by Anne Hathaway's performance, even though her character was completely pointless in the movie.

[Axilus Prime]

The "real" Bane, Hazmat? Really? You're gonna bring a GEEWUN-esque feeling to this?It's a reboot. It is an entirely different continuity. Like the loads of Transformers reboots, the Marvel movies, etc.There is no "real" version of any character. It depends on your perspective. Personally, I loved this movie the best out of the trilogy, better than the original version of Batman, and you don't have to if you don't want to.But saying that it isn't Batman, or Bane, is like saying that anyone with the name Bob other than the first person ever to be named Bob isn't really Bob.

Edited August 8, 2012 by TNG Prime

[HAZMAT]

I have no idea what GEEWUN is but my point still stands. With other reboots and whatnot the character is still the same at the core. (this applies to separate continuities as well) Nolan's Bane is such a drastic change that there are no hints of the original.Bane is one of favorite villains and Nolan did not do him justice, at all.

[Archer Vonn]

Nolan said [according to the guys in this thread lol] that the comics are irrelevantNolan made the movie he wanted to make me wasn't trying to bring any happiness to fanboys. The fanboys already shell out a lot of money to DC, they want him to reach the general audience.

[Axilus Prime]

http://tfwiki.net/wiki/GEEWUNI believe you get my point, Hazmat.A reboot can share no similarities with the original other than color scheme, and even then, that can be missing. (I'm looking at you, Movie Starscream.) Look at Transformers Animated. Everything is re-imagined. No one is like they used to be except for some roles. (Like being a medic, or a leader.) So, yeah. If you want the old Batman, watch the old Batman. If you want a new version, then go in without expecting anything to be the same! Bane did actually have one similarity. Strong guy.One defining trait, color, role, personality, manner of speech, how they cough, is enough for a rebooted character. The rest can be from scratch.

[Stryker055]

The problem is, if Bane had worn a Lucador mask I think that some people would have been offended. Even for those who wouldn't be offended, the racial undertones would have distracted from the rest of the film, making it a little more difficult for the average audience member. So Nolan does the smart thing, and he avoids the issue altogether because it wouldn't have contributed to the storytelling.Merida

Offended from what? Bane is from a fictional Caribbean island, there's no social stigmas about wrestling masks and Caribbean people, at least not that I'm aware of. Bane's mask is the most recognizable part of his appearance (well besides the HUGE BODY), and removing it for some lame respirator was pointless. And the whole "wouldn't have contributed to the storytelling" comment doesn't make any sense to me, at all. His jacket doesn't contribute to the storytelling.Even disregarding that, the biggest issue is that Nolan completely changed Bane's back story, including removing what makes Bane, well, Bane. Venom not only gave Bane his huge appearance but is also the primary driving factor of his character. Nolan's Bane shares no similarities with the real Bane. He just made up his own villain and slapped a pre-existing name on it.Also, I really hated how Bane broke Batman's spine, BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY DONE. You can only do something like that once, then it completely loses it's wow factor. )I honestly didn't expect Nolan to copy it, I thought he was better than that.) Then again most people don't know anything about Batman other than what was in the Nolan films. :IIt really upsets me how so many people praise the movie, because it really was just an OK movie, and a terrible Batman movie. Not only did it completely disregard an established character so Nolan could do what he wanted, it was barely even about Bruce/Batman.It should've been called Some-Cop-That-Doesn't-Matter-at-All Rises.On the bright side, Catwoman was well written and I was pleasantly surprised by Anne Hathaway's performance, even though her character was completely pointless in the movie.

I would just like to point out that you're criticizing Nolan Bane for not being enough like comic Bane, yet at the same time criticizing Nolan Bane for doing the same thing comic Bane is famous for.

[HAZMAT]

The characterization is all wrong which just makes the fact he copied such a huge moment for that character even worse.

[Crunchyn]

I believe that Nolan's version of Bane works in his movie on the basis that it slightly ties with the previous movies in the trilogy.

[Stryker055]

If breaking Batman's back was an act that so hugely relied the comic backstory and character of Bane, then I would agree with you. But, for all intents and purposes, breaking Batman's back is the core of Bane's character. That's what he's known for.Besides, this Bane is not the Bane from the comics. It's an original reimagining of the character, same as Scarecrow and even The Joker, to a degree. I fail to see the problem in doing something original with the character, really.

[HAZMAT]

I believe that Nolan's version of Bane works in his movie on the basis that it slightly ties with the previous movies in the trilogy.

How do you mean?

If breaking Batman's back was an act that so hugely relied the comic backstory and character of Bane, then I would agree with you. But, for all intents and purposes, breaking Batman's back is the core of Bane's character. That's what he's known for.Besides, this Bane is not the Bane from the comics. It's an original reimagining of the character, same as Scarecrow and even The Joker, to a degree. I fail to see the problem in doing something original with the character, really.

The thing is though, Scarecrow and Joker were actually like the original characters. Scarecrow wanted to make everyone live in fear (which he did in the film) and Joker wanted to cause all kinds of crazy havoc (which he did in the film). Bane just wanted to beat Batman, really, and rule Gotham. But in the film he was just

some lovesick terrorist being used by his girlfriend to destroy Gotham because his girlfriend wants him too, basically. (gotta love the power of LOOOOOOOOVE) Sure he did end up beating Batman, but it was just a side effect of the main plan. Had Catwoman not led him into a trap they may have never actually fought hand to hand. And again, fighting him was simply to keep their plan in motion.

With all the changes made to Bane and his backstory (seriously, no Venom at all? what's up with that?), he felt like a completely new character. It broke my nerd heart.

[Axilus Prime]

You didn't even read my post did you?And even the most unusual reboots WILL have a one-liner or most famous move ever reference.

[HAZMAT]

You didn't even read my post did you?And even the most unusual reboots WILL have a one-liner or most famous move ever reference.

I did but didn't get any of your comparisons because I'm not into Transformers.

[Axilus Prime]

Basic idea is they're so different yet they did things the originals were famous for. People like you, the ones described in the GEEWUN article, were angry about it. In other words, it's utter foolishness and stupidity to dislike TDKR for the reasons you gave.

[HAZMAT]

Basic idea is they're so different yet they did things the originals were famous for. People like you, the ones described in the GEEWUN article, were angry about it.In other words, it's utter foolishness and stupidity to dislike TDKR for the reasons you gave.

I don't think it's foolish or stupid to be disappointed that one of your favorite characters has been completely rewritten for the worse. Especially when the first two films proved that the Batman universe could be shown in a darker, more realistic tone while still being true to the source material. I just feel like the third movie really dropped the ball on that last part, especially since it's the last film in the series.Even completely disregarding all the complaints I have about it as a Batman movie, I still found it to be pretty mediocre overall. The pacing felt off throughout the entire movie. Some scenes where unnecessarily long, or just plain unnecessary, while others were too short. The movie could've easily been at least half an hour shorter and it still would've made sense.

[Zulu Yankee Kilo Echo]

Okay, I would just like to point out that when I watched the trailers where Bane's name wasn't mentioned a single time, I could still recognize him as Bane. While I do agree that the movie version isn't very similar to the original, I still think he's an excellent character.

[Shadow Kurahk]

Um, it's not a reboot, it's based off of Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight" series. And even then, it's not faithful. In that series, Wayne was in his fifties and returning from a long retirement. In the movies, Wayne is still in his prime.Both the Joker and Bane were butchered in the Nolan films, and I can't overlook that. They're still fun movies, brilliantly acted, smartly written, and overall a fun ride, but my inner comic book geek is against the plots and the characters because they're totally not who they should be in any sense. Even as a reboot and putting their original characters aside, they were rather weak besides their psychological fixations on Gotham's destruction and Batman and terrorism-driven actions.Let's look at the Joker, for example. In the movie, he's portrayed as a criminally insane psychopath with scars on his face that twist his mouth into a grotesque smile. We have nearly no backstory or origin story other than the three entirely different (and fabricated) family histories he shares that resulted in his facial scars. He also wears white face makeup and green hair dye to achieve his clown-like persona. His goal is to destroy Gotham, and all the while he feeds off of Batman's agony.In the comics, Joker is still insane, but to a point that is just fun to read and watch. You're so engrossed by his broken psyche that the disturbed and frightening nature of his actions are simply fun to explore. It's rather sadistic, but there's a beauty in that aspect of the character. Meanwhile, he once fell into a vat of chemicals, which resulted in the distortion of his mouth, the white tainting of his skin, his permanently green hair, as well as his lips, which were forever stained red. The chemicals also gave him a constant need to laugh. His trademark cackle is etched into history.So, in many ways, and even though Heath Ledger did a phenomenal job, TDK Joker is just inferior to any other iterations of the character. There was no real meat to TDK Joker's character.And Bane should be a hulking brute with a luchador mask, not a built man with scars and a mask that pumps pain-relieving gas into his system and a jacket from the big & tall rack from a Burlington one-day sale.To see really good versions of these characters (and possibly the best, and also my favorite), refer to the Arkham series of video games by Rocksteady Games.-SK

Edited August 8, 2012 by XII. Larxene

[Axilus Prime]

Completely rewriting a character is used in all reboots. They'll keep 1-3 things, being color, a single trivial personality trait, etc. And the rest is rewritten. Depends on your preference. I liked the rewriting here, personally, but that's just me.Clear example:http://tfwiki.net/w2/images2/thumb/1/13/Tud3_starscream_smirkiest.jpg/220px-Tud3_starscream_smirkiest.jpghttp://starscream101.webs.com/starscream14.jpgGuess what? They're the same guy.

[Grey Snow]

I recall reading something like Venom wasn't used because a steriod of that power would pretty much instantly kill you in the real world, since Nolan was setting up a more realistic world.As for reboots, Kamen Rider: The Next had a rebooted V3/Kazami Shiro. An IT company president with a sister, turned by the terrorist organization Shocker into a new model cyborg soldier. In the original V3 series he was mortally wounded and rebuilt by the first two Riders into a cyborg to keep him alive. What's the same? Driven by revenge; the movie for his sister whom Shocker basically caused to commit suicide, and in the show for (if I'm not mistaken) for the deaths of his family. Same character? Yes, even if only motivated by revenge and using the same fighting style.

[Jean Valjean]

I guess he didn't have Venom, but he still suffered from a chemical dependence. They didn't "completely" change his backstory. According to him, he was in prison the entirety of his early life and only saw the light of day when he was a grown man. The geographical location was different, but the core of the backstory stayed the same. He was also portrayed as extremely intelligent, which is a huge step up from his depiction in Batman and Robin where he was virtually a caveman. Bane also broke Batman's back, which is huge to the identity of the character (his alternate title is "the man who broke the bat") and, I feel, in order to write a truly dramatic depiction, it's an obligatory gesture, just like Spiderman's uncle Ben simply must be shot in a Spiderman origin story.I still say that the Lucador mask would have offended Hispanics. The country may be fictional, but the ethnicity is still itentified as Latino. Making him a Latino and putting a Lucador mask on him uses a stereotype, and you don't want to use an ethnic stereotype for a villain.Zyke also brings up a legitimate point. I was able to recognize Bane right away from the trailers. The imagery was essentially the same: a face-concealing mask, tubes leading into him, and a dome of a head. Then, even though his backstory was different, overall he had what to me was the same persona, and fills a very Bane-like role in the way he challenges Batman.And I know, I know, the original Joker was a guy who fell into a vat. It was very involuntary. It's been done multiple times. But comic book characters, especially villains, have a way of constantly reinventing themselves to fit new storylines within new continuities. The Heath Ledger version was a new take on the character, one that fit much better into the type of story that Nolan was trying to tell. In The Dark Knight trilogy, basically everyone looks different from the comic versions, even Batman, who doesn't wear tights but instead actual armor. A lot of looks were changed, since this was one of the incarnations of a hero universe finds more realistic alternatives to costumes when it can. Edited August 8, 2012 by Michael Phelps

[Laughing Man]

Um, it's not a reboot, it's based off of Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight" series. And even then, it's not faithful. -SK

"inspired by" =/= "based off of"nowhere has it been said that Nolan's films were based on Frank Miller's series. They were reimaginations, not adaptions, and only took influence from various Batman comics and graphic novels. And not even strictly from Miller's work, either - heck, "The Killing Joke" and "The Long Halloween" were probably the biggest influences for The Dark Knight. Edited August 8, 2012 by Orino Ryuujin

[Shadow Kurahk]

I don't see how a Luchador mask on Bane would have offended the Hispanic crowd, but let's end that subject here.And I understand that the characters were redone. My argument was that other iterations of the characters were better and that Nolan shouldn't have changed as much as he did. I think that as redone characters, they just weren't all that successful.And stop showing me/telling me about other reboots where characters were changed. We're talking about Batman here, not Transformers or Kamen Rider. -SK

[Jean Valjean]

But they were successful .I know what you mean, though. Financial success and popularity aren't the be-all and end-all of determining success and quality. Still, if you think about it, the characters ended up filling their place in the Batman narrative. No matter what, when you get to the core of who the Joker is, he's the extreme opposite of Batman's lawful good by being chaotic evil, which The Dark Knight delivered the quintessential depiction, especially when transforming the Joker so that it was evidently his choice. The core of Bane's character is his superiority over Batman in all the things that Batman is good at, always one step ahead of him, only he's evil and vicious in such a way that could only come from someone born in prison. At least, those are my interpretations of these characters from the comics I've read. A lot of other details can be changed so long as the character represents the same idea, and what I'm getting from Nolan is that his interests were in representing ideas in a much purer context in such a way that translated into a close look-alike of reality.

[Wyrd Bid Ful Araed]

Given how often the Joker has been reinterpreted and reimagined in the comics I don't really see how TDK version of him was 'butchering' the character. Compare how he appears in say, Arkham: A Serious House on Serious Earth with how he appears in Batman 66 from 1951

[Brickeens]

It was an EMP rifle.http://oyster.ignimgs.com/mediawiki/apis.ign.com/the-dark-knight-rises/thumb/a/a4/Batman_EMP_rifle.jpg/468px-Batman_EMP_rifle.jpg

I've looked them up here but I'm not sure if I get what they actually do. They fire some sort of electromagnetic pulse which messes with electronics or something?

[Takatu]

Pretty much, Brickeens. Probably just trying to mess with the motorcycle and the tunnel lights above it to catch the guy off guard. Not that it mattered much, since he only had it for about eight seconds.

[Shadow Kurahk]

When volume is 11, you have my permission to ROCK.-SK

[Archer Vonn]

I still say that the Lucador mask would have offended Hispanics. The country may be fictional, but the ethnicity is still itentified as Latino. Making him a Latino and putting a Lucador mask on him uses a stereotype, and you don't want to use an ethnic stereotype for a villain.

This is so stupid! People scream racist at everything! Why haven't the comics been protested, then, hmm? Bane is not a new character!EMP is like it overloads electrical items which disable them for a temporary period. Or, in Fallout, they blow up robots. Neato! Edited August 9, 2012 by ~JC~

[Linsanity]

Anyone interested in The Joker's whereabouts during TDKR?

Here is the exact quote from the novelization .“Now that the Dent Act had made it all but impossible for the city’s criminals to cop an insanity plea, it (Blackgate Prison) had replaced Arkham Asylum as the preferred location for imprisoning both convicted and suspected felons. The worst of the worst were sent here, except for the Joker, who, rumor had it, was locked away as Arkham’s sole remaining inmate. Or perhaps he had escaped. Nobody was really sure. Not even Selina.”And here's another thing I found: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-N8Jjy2MK3L0/T8mHFfljNGI/AAAAAAAAQHg/9gHKhJV1Py0/s640/TDKR_JOKER.jpeg

Edited August 9, 2012 by King James

[Takatu]

Christopher Nolan said he didn't feel right really mentioning the Joker at all, out of respect for Heath Ledger. I didn't think it detracted from the movie any, so I'm okay with it.