Was Bane charismatic in Dark Knight Rises?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Star Trek doesn't have much to do with anything. Nobody's really rooting for Star Trek to be dark and edgy that's just something the producers are doing to keep up with the times. Star Trek as a 90's sitcom was known for being kinda sterile in social attitudes given how detached they are from the 20th century on purpose and the uniforms looked like an elementary school for adults.

[Mecha82]

That's the thing. Star Trek has been changing. It's just that Trekkies (I admit I never have been one) tend to want it stay way they remember it when they discovered franchise. And that's what it is, franchise. Why else they would keep making more. Of course then there those that are just against it by principle and don't really care about Star Trek beyond using it as way to wage "culture war" but those people don't matter.

And Batman has as well. Remember 60's Batman show staring Adam West that made Batman part of pop culture? That version was based on more lighthearted silver age version. Before that during golden age Batman killed criminals and it was end of that golden age that brought with it no-killing rule for him.

Sure I admit that Burton isn't comic book fan either just like Nolan isn't but difference is that Burton them didn't try to make realistic crime movie featuring Batman and instead went with more stylished gothic look for his take. Something that IMO payed off and works much better than trying to be realistic.

That and Keaton's performace as Batman and Wayne are reasons why I can still watch Batman 1989 and Batman Returns while I haven't watched Dark Knight Trilogy after I watched it originally. Yes, those two movies are only Batman movies that I can still watch even now when I am no longer fan of character and I am more into some other DC characters.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

That's the thing. Star Trek has been changing. It's just that Trekkies (I admit I never have been one) tend to want it stay way they remember it when they discovered franchise. And that's what it is, franchise. Why else they would keep making more. Of course then there those that are just against it by principle and don't really care about Star Trek beyond using it as way to wage "culture war" but those people don't matter.

And Batman has as well. Remember 60's Batman show staring Adam West that made Batman part of pop culture? That version was based on more lighthearted silver age version. Before that during golden age Batman killed criminals and it was end of that golden age that brought with it no-killing rule for him.

Sure I admit that Burton isn't comic book fan either just like Nolan isn't but difference is that Burton them didn't try to make realistic crime movie featuring Batman and instead went with more stylished gothic look for his take. Something that IMO payed off and works much better than trying to be realistic.

That and Keaton's performace as Batman and Wayne are reasons why I can still watch Batman 1989 and Batman Returns while I haven't watched Dark Knight Trilogy after I watched it originally. Yes, those two movies are only Batman movies that I can still watch even now when I am no longer fan of character and I am more into some other DC characters.

The 60's Batman and TAS are specifically family friendly or directly for kids. That's as far as general entertainment goes as stuff on TV. It's channeled to the audience that's going to feed the most off of it. Every Batman movie has stayed consistent with a dark tone and captivates movie audiences as a spectacle. The nuance of what he's doing is equally elusive and believable, in the same fashion as steampunk, but instead just for the basic superhero genre. The setup itself gives practically limitless bend into realistic nuance and it rewards for that.

This is consistent I believe with you saying that it has nothing to do with what comic fans necessarily want, but I respectfully think that that's where the party's at with Batman @ the movies, especially theaters (which are almost forgotten art in favor of what Nolan would call an assassination on cinema). Plus tell me where the difference is with principles of the fandom menace wanting it to be faithful to the EU and stuff. Not to bite or anything, but the nuance approach isn't worse than Disney's handling of Star Wars. Granted comix should be given more reverence than the EU.

Now, the Snyderverse does not do much for the cause, in my opinion for this specific matter. It's too far, and goes in a direction that both types of people start to fizzle over, that being the realism and the sensibility, respectively speaking. As Machiavelli said, it's better to be realistic and dry than sweet and cartoonish.

The thing finally is also that people can watch The Dark Knight movies over and over too. It's not very radical or anything as that's being exhibited in this thread. It's like going from a sharp #2 pencil to a dull #2 pencil, and it's somewhat headcanon to assume that this guy just aint all that and a bag of chips. He's not a particularly heartless person, and he sure doesn't execute people in the same fashion as Keaton, which btw is a moral that comes back around to bite Bale Wayne in the ass.

[Mecha82]

That's the thing. Star Trek has been changing. It's just that Trekkies (I admit I never have been one) tend to want it stay way they remember it when they discovered franchise. And that's what it is, franchise. Why else they would keep making more. Of course then there those that are just against it by principle and don't really care about Star Trek beyond using it as way to wage "culture war" but those people don't matter.

And Batman has as well. Remember 60's Batman show staring Adam West that made Batman part of pop culture? That version was based on more lighthearted silver age version. Before that during golden age Batman killed criminals and it was end of that golden age that brought with it no-killing rule for him.

Sure I admit that Burton isn't comic book fan either just like Nolan isn't but difference is that Burton them didn't try to make realistic crime movie featuring Batman and instead went with more stylished gothic look for his take. Something that IMO payed off and works much better than trying to be realistic.

That and Keaton's performace as Batman and Wayne are reasons why I can still watch Batman 1989 and Batman Returns while I haven't watched Dark Knight Trilogy after I watched it originally. Yes, those two movies are only Batman movies that I can still watch even now when I am no longer fan of character and I am more into some other DC characters.

The 60's Batman and TAS are specifically family friendly or directly for kids. That's as far as general entertainment goes as stuff on TV. It's channeled to the audience that's going to feed the most off of it. Every Batman movie has stayed consistent with a dark tone and captivates movie audiences as a spectacle. The nuance of what he's doing is equally elusive and believable, in the same fashion as steampunk, but instead just for the basic superhero genre. The setup itself gives practically limitless bend into realistic nuance and it rewards for that.

This is consistent I believe with you saying that it has nothing to do with what comic fans necessarily want, but I respectfully think that that's where the party's at with Batman @ the movies, especially theaters (which are almost forgotten art in favor of what Nolan would call an assassination on cinema). Plus tell me where the difference is with principles of the fandom menace wanting it to be faithful to the EU and stuff. Not to bite or anything, but the nuance approach isn't worse than Disney's handling of Star Wars. Granted comix should be given more reverence than the EU.

Now, the Snyderverse does not do much for the cause, in my opinion for this specific matter. It's too far, and goes in a direction that both types of people start to fizzle over, that being the realism and the sensibility, respectively speaking. As Machiavelli said, it's better to be realistic and dry than sweet and cartoonish.

The thing is that people can watch The Dark Knight movies over and over too. It's not very radical or anything as that's being exhibited in this thread. It's like going from a sharp #2 pencil to a dull #2 pencil, and it's somewhat headcanon to assume that this guy just aint all that and a bag of chips. He's not a particularly heartless person, and he sure doesn't execute people in the same fashion, which btw is a moral that comes back around to bite Wayne in the ass.

You might ignore fact that 60's Batman show was pretty much based on silver age in comic books that had similar tone. Also TAS is well written series and doesn't talk down at it's audience making it enjoyable for adults as well. Like Doug Walker said in one of his videos that was about TAS it took us seriously and because of it we took it seriously.

It was Burton who introduced that darker tone to general audience that inspired TAS. It was really Frank Miller with his Dark Knight Returns who along side with some other comic book writers that brought that darker tone that most versions since then has followed. But really that wasn' t always the case in comic books either.

What Nolan did was trying to make Batman realistic and he pretty much ended making Batman secondary character in movies that are supposed to be based on him. Not only that but he ignored certain sides of character making him just white rich guy who likes beating up people and acts like jerk when among other people. That world's greatest detective who is compassionate and helps people was no were to be found. That's also something that I feel that Burton's movies have over Nolan's. I guess I would need to be Nolan fan to like his movies.

Well that's true. Snyder went totally overboard with making Batman dark. Then again Snyder isn't known to be subtle making it far more comical than he intended. Sure he did good job with Watchmen but it did fit his style better than any of mainline DC properties. I mean he doesn't even seem to understand those characters. Plus whole "save Martha"-scene haunts DCEU.

I didn't say that. I only said that I can't watch those over and over like I can do with Burton's. I can only talk for myself after all.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The 60's Batman and TAS are specifically family friendly or directly for kids. That's as far as general entertainment goes as stuff on TV. It's channeled to the audience that's going to feed the most off of it. Every Batman movie has stayed consistent with a dark tone and captivates movie audiences as a spectacle. The nuance of what he's doing is equally elusive and believable, in the same fashion as steampunk, but instead just for the basic superhero genre. The setup itself gives practically limitless bend into realistic nuance and it rewards for that.

This is consistent I believe with you saying that it has nothing to do with what comic fans necessarily want, but I respectfully think that that's where the party's at with Batman @ the movies, especially theaters (which are almost forgotten art in favor of what Nolan would call an assassination on cinema). Plus tell me where the difference is with principles of the fandom menace wanting it to be faithful to the EU and stuff. Not to bite or anything, but the nuance approach isn't worse than Disney's handling of Star Wars. Granted comix should be given more reverence than the EU.

Now, the Snyderverse does not do much for the cause, in my opinion for this specific matter. It's too far, and goes in a direction that both types of people start to fizzle over, that being the realism and the sensibility, respectively speaking. As Machiavelli said, it's better to be realistic and dry than sweet and cartoonish.

The thing is that people can watch The Dark Knight movies over and over too. It's not very radical or anything as that's being exhibited in this thread. It's like going from a sharp #2 pencil to a dull #2 pencil, and it's somewhat headcanon to assume that this guy just aint all that and a bag of chips. He's not a particularly heartless person, and he sure doesn't execute people in the same fashion, which btw is a moral that comes back around to bite Wayne in the ass.

You might ignore fact that 60's Batman show was pretty much based on silver age in comic books that had similar tone. Also TAS is well written series and doesn't talk down at it's audience making it enjoyable for adults as well. Like Doug Walker said in one of his videos that was about TAS it took us seriously and because of it we took it seriously.

Ignoring it? I don't think it has any necessary bearing for what's going to be adapted. They didn't make the comics like that because that's what people wanted, it was an obtuse regulation that put that into place. The TV show was picked up because advertisers were willing to fork over millions of dollars to the broadcast network. Reverence for the show today is retro. They adapt whimsical zaneynous into modern adaptations all the time that clash with the dark atmosphere. A good example is the direction Joel Schumacher went with for Batman and Robin and Batman Forever. And it buried the franchise. And it's not as if the comix industry was on fire when Batman wore light blue and grey. It turned back dark when it started picking back up.

What Nolan did was trying to make Batman realistic and he pretty much ended making Batman secondary character in movies that are supposed to be based on him. Not only that but he ignored certain sides of character making him just white rich guy who likes beating up people and acts like jerk when among other people. That world's greatest detective who is compassionate and helps people was no were to be found. That's also something that I feel that Burton's movies have over Nolan's. I guess I would need to be Nolan fan to like his movies.

The charge that Batman is a secondary character in these movies is nebulous or loaded. He's undoubtedly the chief protagonist in the movie. Batman as a universe is renowned for giving character to the villains and Gotham itself. I'm not sure where secondary character is coming from or going to.

I didn't say that. I only said that I can't watch those over and over like I can do with Burton's. I can only talk for myself after all.

That's fine. Then I will reposite my point that you make Nolan Batman out to be more radical in tone than it is. The whole admiration for his take is not that he blunted Bruce Wayne that the TAS fans loved, it's 'cause he blunted the Frank Miller version and gave a portrait of someone who's mentally shattered but believable as a very high-functioning and honest person in society.

I don't think pointing to TAS and the 60's show and the silver age of comics holds a candle to Nolan's trilogy despite how proxied it is away from progressive think.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

And Nolan concluded the trilogy anyway. He stepped away from it to let it go to your animated preference.

[Beastro]

Remember 60's Batman show staring Adam West that made Batman part of pop culture?

Batman was already well a part of pop culture by then. The wartime serial was well loved, and so much so in replays into the 50s, it's unintentional camp could be argued to have laid the groundwork for the TV series intentional camp.

The amusing thing is that the 60s series was so much more popular it completely overshadowed the serial and it largely faded out of people's memories. I personally didn't know about it until Rifftrax did a series on it.

[Madner Kami]

That's the thing. Star Trek has been changing. It's just that Trekkies (I admit I never have been one) tend to want it stay way they remember it when they discovered franchise. And that's what it is, franchise. Why else they would keep making more.

Then how do you explain the success of DS9? How do you explain the complete failure of Voyager?

I didn't say that. I only said that I can't watch those over and over like I can do with Burton's. I can only talk for myself after all.

That's fine. Then I will reposite my point that you make Nolan Batman out to be more radical in tone than it is. The whole admiration for his take is not that he blunted Bruce Wayne that the TAS fans loved, it's 'cause he blunted the Frank Miller version and gave a portrait of someone who's mentally shattered but believable as a very high-functioning and honest person in society.

I don't think pointing to TAS and the 60's show and the silver age of comics holds a candle to Nolan's trilogy despite how proxied it is away from progressive think.

I otherwise completely agree with BridgeConsoleSmasher. Your take on Nolan-Batman, Mecha, is one of someone who complains about it not being campy enough. You completely miss the point of the nuanced "darker" version of Batman and I think nothing quite nicely points your misunderstanding out as much, as your complaint that this Batman is not compassionate. Granted, you have to look a bit closer and read between the lines, as it's not as on the nose as other iterations, but this Batman helps rebuild the Barrens after the fiasko in Batman Begins. This Batman actually destroys the super-surveillance equipment, because he realizes how bad it truely is. This Batman guarantees a better life for the orphans of Gotham in the end.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

And so we want some on-the-nose compassion with this Batman. Like, fair enough, I suppose. But this guy is purposed to provoke literal fear in his enemies. Why don't we have him do hospital visits and public displays of buying ice cream cones on the weekend for kids? He could give signed photos out to his fans before he goes and breaks Falcone's legs by dropping him off a building.

I mean, that is what Wonder Woman does even in the New 52 adaptation movie, but that works with her as an international diplomat with no secret identity.

[Mecha82]

If that is what you got from this then so be it. But it's not what I meant so you understood it wrong and you pretty much went to extreme conclusions. Batman being compassionate doesn't mean that he should do things like that. But he doesn't need to be jaded jerk like Nolan version either. I know that anything other than extremes can be difficult for Americans to understand but at least try to see that middle ground.