Was Bane charismatic in Dark Knight Rises?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

That is the character we see though. Dick and Alfred know him by insight, but it's very much under apparent cover to even the audience. Batman is who we're watching, and the real Bruce Wayne is someone always buried beneath all the trauma.

We see Kal-El, but we don't see Bruce Wayne.

[Jonathan101]

That is the character we see though. Dick and Alfred know him by insight, but it's very much under apparent cover to even the audience. Batman is who we're watching, and the real Bruce Wayne is someone always buried beneath all the trauma.

We see Kal-El, but we don't see Bruce Wayne.

If you think you don't see Bruce Wayne, you aren't paying attention.

I don't think many fictional characters have been psychological analysed and dissected as Bruce Wayne has, so the idea that Dick and Alfred know him but we don't is just silly. There are plenty of moments when the real Bruce Wayne shines through, and we see that whether he's interacting with his family or even when he's just by himself.

And it's especially silly to think that "yeah, his softer side is there, but we don't see it" when just a moment ago you were saying that we saw him have his moment with Ace and you thought it "doesn't fit".

In other words, "we don't see it, and all the times that we do don't count".

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

That is the character we see though. Dick and Alfred know him by insight, but it's very much under apparent cover to even the audience. Batman is who we're watching, and the real Bruce Wayne is someone always buried beneath all the trauma.

We see Kal-El, but we don't see Bruce Wayne.

If you think you don't see Bruce Wayne, you aren't paying attention.

I don't think many fictional characters have been psychological analysed and dissected as Bruce Wayne has, so the idea that Dick and Alfred know him but we don't is just silly. There are plenty of moments when the real Bruce Wayne shines through, and we see that whether he's interacting with his family or even when he's just by himself.

And it's especially silly to think that "yeah, his softer side is there, but we don't see it" when just a moment ago you were saying that we saw him have his moment with Ace and you thought it "doesn't fit".

In other words, "we don't see it, and all the times that we do don't count".

The middle ground person that talks to Alfred and Dick is still the Batman that Baestro's talking about. Alfred and Dick are usually trying to pry on his shell. Dick Grayson Nightwing is usually frustrated because he feels he knows Bruce more than anyone based on their key shared experience, and part of the reason he left is because it's an effort in futility trying to get through to him.

The idea that we saw him in the g-rated cartoon is just the point. Dick Grayson and Alfred never have issues with Bruce in the DCAU. In the DCAU he's emotionally precise as Alfred.

[Beastro]

Indeed. Nolan's Batman is far too self absorded for something like that. I do find it ironic that people are crying how Star Trek is supposingly grim dark and needs to be optimistic while admiring self absorded version of beloved hero.

I think the fundamental difference is, regardless of how one takes Batman, darkness, especially the psychological elements of darkness are fundamental to the character. Star Trek has, at best, embracing human faults that may or may not be strengths at its core. It's even something DS9 went into trying to poke at the Feds principles while remaining loyal to them.

Making Batman dark and go into shady places is something that is in the characters element whereas it needs to be very delicately handled with something like Trek.

IMO, that' the reason behind Batman's massive popularity, as he starches that un-ideal itch while remaining good.

The idea that we saw him in the g-rated cartoon is just the point. Dick Grayson and Alfred never have issues with Bruce in the DCAU. In the DCAU he's emotionally precise as Alfred.

I'd like to add: I'm not a comic book guy, at all.

The gist I get from Batman, and other superheroes, is from the early 90s cartoons and whatever media has popped up since then that I've often been dragged to see by family.

I will add that part of what stuck in my mind, and something I touched on before, was some episode of a late 90s Justice League I came across, where they're all up in their space station relaxing enjoying an unusually free period of lack of trouble eating and drinking, etc and Batman's off at the computer with his mask on dutifully going through records trying to find any hint of anything brewing, because this is just the time for trouble to happen or something.

[Mecha82]

Indeed. Nolan's Batman is far too self absorded for something like that. I do find it ironic that people are crying how Star Trek is supposingly grim dark and needs to be optimistic while admiring self absorded version of beloved hero.

I think the fundamental difference is, regardless of how one takes Batman, darkness, especially the psychological elements of darkness are fundamental to the character. Star Trek has, at best, embracing human faults that may or may not be strengths at its core. It's even something DS9 went into trying to poke at the Feds principles while remaining loyal to them.

Making Batman dark and go into shady places is something that is in the characters element whereas it needs to be very delicately handled with something like Trek.

IMO, that' the reason behind Batman's massive popularity, as he starches that un-ideal itch while remaining good.

Thing is Batman has changed during time. Way you see him know wasn't always how he was. Then again you did admit that you aren't comic book guy so its clear that your view of him is limited to what you have watched and most of those besides of TAS have only touched some aspects without giving full expression.

So why not something like Star Trek? Besides of some fans demanding that it doesn't change that is because they don't like change.

IMO his popularity comes from that he has been lot more outside comic books than other DC heroes and thus he has gotten overexposure. DC has entire rich world full of super heroes and they villains but mainstream audience that you are part of mostly just knows Batman and not even fully.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The idea that we saw him in the g-rated cartoon is just the point. Dick Grayson and Alfred never have issues with Bruce in the DCAU. In the DCAU he's emotionally precise as Alfred.

I'd like to add: I'm not a comic book guy, at all.

The gist I get from Batman, and other superheroes, is from the early 90s cartoons and whatever media has popped up since then that I've often been dragged to see by family.

I will add that part of what stuck in my mind, and something I touched on before, was some episode of a late 90s Justice League I came across, where they're all up in their space station relaxing enjoying an unusually free period of lack of trouble eating and drinking, etc and Batman's off at the computer with his mask on dutifully going through records trying to find any hint of anything brewing, because this is just the time for trouble to happen or something.

Well technically Lois calls Kal El Clark. Despite him being Kal El imo he pretty much just lives as Clark.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

That is the character we see though. Dick and Alfred know him by insight, but it's very much under apparent cover to even the audience. Batman is who we're watching, and the real Bruce Wayne is someone always buried beneath all the trauma.

We see Kal-El, but we don't see Bruce Wayne.

If you think you don't see Bruce Wayne, you aren't paying attention.

I don't think many fictional characters have been psychological analysed and dissected as Bruce Wayne has, so the idea that Dick and Alfred know him but we don't is just silly. There are plenty of moments when the real Bruce Wayne shines through, and we see that whether he's interacting with his family or even when he's just by himself.

And it's especially silly to think that "yeah, his softer side is there, but we don't see it" when just a moment ago you were saying that we saw him have his moment with Ace and you thought it "doesn't fit".

In other words, "we don't see it, and all the times that we do don't count".

I'll second this. Also, Bridge Console Masher, if we weren't under quarantine I'd hitch-hike out to egg your house for that bad take.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well when you actually want to bring substance instead of rhetorical quips left and right then I'll be here.

I responded in kind, your second is an abstract.

[Beastro]

So why not something like Star Trek? Besides of some fans demanding that it doesn't change that is because they don't like change.

There's a difference between changing and being consistent with what makes and differentiates a work from others, and no, it isn't just not all style and aesthetics. That doesn't mean to remain hidebound. Trek did with B&B and it strayed in its own dogmatic ways.

One must revitalize and reform a work and it's clear with Trek the people behind it have zero interest in that sort of thing. Look toward something like the 80s Flash Gordon movie and what Chuck highlighted as to why it's so endearing. It may not be the best film, but it's clear effort and love went into it, and I don't see anything from Trek like that since the last season of Enterprise.

Well when you actually want to bring substance instead of rhetorical quips left and right then I'll be here.

I responded in kind, your second is an abstract.

He's too busy posting news articles and ranting about the Right to do anything more.

[Mecha82]

That last remark just made me realise that I shouldn't even bother with you anymore so thank you for making this easy for me. You might realise this but I am not on same time zone as you and I tend to do other things as well like say bing watch anime than just use this message board.