• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

The Bad Guys Never Win: Bane

TriflinThomas

Bitch, don't kill my vibe...
Local time
Today 1:13 AM
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
637
-->
Location
Southern California
I watched the new Batman a couple days ago. And, (as usual) even though Bane was a veritable genius, and physically stronger than Batman,
he was killed(?) through a deus ex machina where cat woman shows up out of nowhere and blasts him off the screen.

I had originally thought that the triumph of the good guys through unimaginable hardships was a product of the American ego, but now I'm not so sure. What do you guys think?
 

Absurdity

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 1:13 AM
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
2,359
-->
I watched the new Batman a couple days ago. And, (as usual) even though Bane was a veritable genius, and physically stronger than Batman,
he was killed(?) through a deus ex machina where cat woman shows up out of nowhere and blasts him off the screen.

I had originally thought that the triumph of the good guys through unimaginable hardships was a product of the American ego, but now I'm not so sure. What do you guys think?

Throughout the film I couldn't help but feel as though Goyer and the Nolans got lazy trying to wrap the story up so they cut corners.

Bane was clearly stronger than Batman and should have killed him the first time. Even the second time, it seems unlikely that someone as skilled at fighting as Bane would have left his one weak spot, his mask, consistently unprotected as Batman smashed the shit out of it.

Every time I see a movie I find myself rooting for the villain, in hopes that one day the movie will make a real twist and the he or she will emerge triumphant. In a sense, the Joker did in Dark Knight, (although Gotham never found out) which might be why I liked that movie so much.

As far as the good guys triumphing through hardship, I think a lot of that comes from America's history, or at least the citizenry's popular perception of it, from the Revolution to WWII. Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq/Afghanistan have created some serious cracks in this narrative. Perhaps that is why this theme in TKDR wasn't very effective (at least to me).

There's always more than one way to read a film, though. Amid popular backlash against Snyder's 300 for its alleged anti-Persian under(and over)tones, Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek suggested that is was really about a small band of men attempting to rebuff an imperial power. In other words, a parallel story to those resisting the US occupations of various Middle Eastern and other countries.
 

Jennywocky

Tacky Flamingo
Local time
Today 4:13 AM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,736
-->
Location
Charn
I agree.

Most people seem completely enamoured with the movie, but I felt little while I was watching it -- often because of like issues raised here. I felt like it was all "paint by numbers." Even the twists weren't that profound or unexpected. And there were just so many, "Srsly?" moments. Just very scripted. Didn't feel organic like much of Nolan's other work.

I think I really only felt something in the last five minutes, and the occasional appearance of Alfred. (Michael Caine did a wonderful job with the few crumbs he was thrown in the movie.)

I just felt like he wanted to play it safe.

I found TDK intriguing... finally, an "amoral" villain who was unpredictable, and did exactly what he promised -- threw a kink into everything, rocked the boat, made people look at their own horrific reflections in the mirror. He was a catalyst for change, good or bad... and he didn't even really care which, himself.

I would have found this movie more interesting if they had explored what it would really mean to be a "dark knight" in such a city... where every one of his actions would be misunderstood and make batman look worse and worse. And they should have let GOtham become totally corrupt just as al Ghul said it was, and what it would mean for Batman to become like them to take them down in terms of his own morality.

Instead, it was a conventional, "Good guy tries to save day; good guy is beaten; good guy rebuilds himself; good guy wins" story... a western of "good guy" vs "bad guy" and batman was the lone gunslinger who rides in to save the day and then rides out again.

I thought the twist about his gf was out of the blue, but her character wasn't. I don't know who here is familiar with the 1970's batman comics, but Talia Al Ghul was R'as' daughter and Batman was always in this weird dance of fear and seduction with her....
 

Agent Intellect

Absurd Anti-hero.
Local time
Today 4:13 AM
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
4,113
-->
Location
Michigan
Bane seemed like kind of an uninspired bad guy to me (although he did make kind of a cool badass type character). I didn't really care that much about his back story, which they seemed to like to repeat several times, and he didn't really seem to have much motivation for what was happening in the actual plot (his actions didn't logically follow from his back story).

It also seemed like Batman/Bruce Wayne was barely in the movie and that he was somewhat of a pinball protagonist. I'd almost say that "Robin Rises" would have been a more appropriate name for the movie at times.

I've never read the comics so I don't really have a basis to compare it to, but I kind of liked the Catwoman character, even if I didn't think her motivation (wanting to erase her past) was believable enough that she'd sell Batman out to Bane. Maybe that plus something heinous in her past that someone was threatening to reveal?

I agree that the way Bane was killed was also a bit uninspired, but I guess that moment was supposed to be more of a character moment for Catwoman coming back even though she said she wasn't going to. Maybe the scene would have been better if the two of them fought Bane together and their combined strength was what defeated him instead of just having him blown away? But maybe that fight wouldn't have fit because of the ticking time bomb? I don't know.

In conclusion, I thought the movie worked decently as a mindless action movie, even though it was trying hard to differentiate itself from a mindless action movie. In that regard it failed.
 

ProxyAmenRa

Here to bring back the love!
Local time
Today 6:13 PM
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
4,668
-->
Location
Australia
I was wondering why they were simply boxing throughout the movie. There are many other better martial arts out there...
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 9:13 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
10,562
-->
I think the Joker worked so well because in many respects he was the protagonist of the story, not the "good guy" instead he was the one who drove the plot by reacting to Batman's actions, it was Batman's game from the start and the Joker sought to break it, to break him and the double standard inherent to what he does.

Simply put, Joker and Batman are both criminals who prey upon other criminals and the Joker wanted Batman to see that, to see that despite his code and his intentions that being the Batman makes him no less the violent, self entitled, terrorising fuck that the Joker is, and that it's okay, because the people were never worth saving anyway.

As for the latest movie, meh, Bane was the star of the show up until the last hour when the story relegates him to a henchman role and turned it's focus onto Batman's personal development, which can never have any drama because let's face it, he's the fucking Bat-Man, well all knew as soon as the fight with Bane start that he was going to climb out of the damn hole.

I would have liked to see (and this will probably happen in the reboot, mark my words) Batman's issues to actually drive him over the edge and he goes on a killing spree (likely due to insurmountable corruption as Jenny said), not just hardcore criminals, I'm talking corrupt cops, politicians, bodyguards, good cops, anyone who gets in his way.

Then he can do a whole redemption arc and more interesting he will be forever stained by his actions, after this he will never truly be a hero because his debt will never be repaid and people, all people, will have legitimate cause to be scared of him, I think it would fit the "dark, brooding, loner" character beautifully.

From then on we will always wonder, is Batman about to go batshit? :smiley_emoticons_mr

Edit: Better yet end it on the end of his massacre, have no redemption arc, simply have the ending metaphorically say "he won, but at what cost", his black gloved hands dripping blood.
 

Jennywocky

Tacky Flamingo
Local time
Today 4:13 AM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,736
-->
Location
Charn
I was wondering why they were simply boxing throughout the movie. There are many other better martial arts out there...

I didn't really see it as "boxing." Real fighting (like, for keeps) isn't about grace and beauty, it's about punishing the other person and taking them out as fast as possible. No "Princess Bride" or fancy martial arts here.

Has anyone ever read David Morrell's books, like "The Brotherhood of the Rose?" I thought the first Bane/Batman fight in the movie was like that... any amount of damage to oneself is acceptable as long as it doesn't occur to the vitals, and you get no points for being fancy or pretty.

Many of those hits looked bonecrushing.
 

ProxyAmenRa

Here to bring back the love!
Local time
Today 6:13 PM
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
4,668
-->
Location
Australia
I didn't really see it as "boxing." Real fighting (like, for keeps) isn't about grace and beauty, it's about punishing the other person and taking them out as fast as possible. No "Princess Bride" or fancy martial arts here.

It does not need to be fancy. I liked the rawness of it. They just need to make it look like they're not mindlessly throwing punches at each other. Bring it up to the quality of UFC or something.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 9:13 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
10,562
-->
They didn't block much, which is odd, I wouldn't try punching someone with bladed forearms because either their arms are up and I'm punching directly into the blades or they'll take the hit and swipe the inside of my forearm (where the smaller bone is) with the outside of theirs (where the larger bone is) which can easily break that part of the arm, and again there's the spikes.

But I suppose in a realistic fight it would all go one way with the first strike, if you make a fist with the middle knuckle of your middle finger sticking out you may risk breaking or dislocating the finger if you hit something hard, but if you hit muscle the force will cause deep bruising and the muscle will go into a spasm, effectively disabling it.

A guy with two arms vs a guy with one good arm and one crippled arms is a very short fight.
 

ObliviousGenius

Life is a side scroller, keep moving.
Local time
Today 3:13 AM
Joined
Sep 8, 2011
Messages
344
-->
Location
Midwest
Caution Spoilers.

Just saw it and I thought it was really good. I don't feel it was as psychological as the second movie but I liked it for other reasons. The acting was good and I liked each character especially Alfred. I always respect the voice of reason and he was willing to be completely upfront with Bruce.

Yeah, I agree with Cog about Bane becoming a henchman all of a sudden. He was such an alpha up to that point, and he being a member of the League of Shadows (if that's the correct name) you would think that his actions reflected his own views more. He was stronger than Batman too, practically kicked his ass in that first fight. I love a strong villain but I also like how the hero finds some way to overcome the odds in a seemingly impossible situation.

Poor cops in the little mini war. Don't they know you don't lead the pack in a fight like that? The guys in front always die first lol. Especially when they're running right in front of gunfire.
 

ObliviousGenius

Life is a side scroller, keep moving.
Local time
Today 3:13 AM
Joined
Sep 8, 2011
Messages
344
-->
Location
Midwest
I was wondering why they were simply boxing throughout the movie. There are many other better martial arts out there...

That's funny I noticed the exact same thing. I don't even think they threw in a single kick in there. Just straight up fist on fist boxing, except the one body slam by Bane. There was a couple times too when Bane was throwing "WWE" punches (if you know what that looks like) lol.

I guess Batman doesn't have as much mobility as he would like with that suit and cape. He's all about the gadgets anyway and the new "Bat" was pretty cool.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 9:13 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
10,562
-->
Catwoman had a nice ass too, you can't help but notice, in a couple of scenes it took up half the screen for a few seconds, half a movie screen, that's one massive sexy ass.

And arching her back on the bike, I swear they made extra scenes just to get more footage of her in that catsuit riding that bike with her ass in the air.

Not complaining ;)
 

Deleted member 1424

Guest
UNMARKED SPOILERS!

They dumbed down the Villains (and Catwoman) for the sake of propaganda placement (should be a tvtrope). Tell me the whole flimsy premise of a sealed off Gotham certainly wasn't a pretense to take allegorical pot shots at the occupy movement; comparing them to terrorists and impling they'd release violent criminals.... It's so damn thick over the whole film. Dark Knight could be forgiven for it's transparent propaganda plot devices, due to the sheer charm of the Joker and a few clever screens. This movie is just painful and jarring.

Bane doesn't just let the police officers live.... he keeps them alive. *face/palm* All so they can have their heroic last march! Why do movies insist on lobotomizing brilliant villains or make them monologue?
Oh Talia.... Your blade is slow and cliche.

The 'Rise from the Pit' theme they insistently repeat.... just ugh....



Though I did like the batcopter and Catwoman; flimsy motivations aside,
she has style and homoerotic subtext.
 

pjoa09

dopaminergic
Local time
Today 3:13 PM
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
1,857
-->
Location
th
I thought Bane was going to be intelligent.

In comparison to the Joker, Bane comes off as stupid.
 

Absurdity

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 1:13 AM
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
2,359
-->
Tell me the whole flimsy premise of a sealed off Gotham certainly wasn't a pretense to take allegorical pot shots at the occupy movement; comparing them to terrorists and impling they'd release violent criminals.... It's so damn thick over the whole film. Dark Knight could be forgiven for it's transparent propaganda plot devices, due to the sheer charm of the Joker and a few clever screens. This movie is just painful and jarring.

I read an article that said that the script was written before the movement, and that it was inspired by A Tale of Two Cities. It seems plausible either way.
 

Deleted member 1424

Guest
And scripts are never changed during filming? to satisfy 3rd parties?

That makes sense to me. The narrative would have fit far better within itself if that had been the design from the start. I think there's a reason the film feels like it's been cut to pieces and put back together poorly with sore bits jutting out every whichway.
 

Jennywocky

Tacky Flamingo
Local time
Today 4:13 AM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,736
-->
Location
Charn
Bane doesn't just let the police officers live.... he keeps them alive. *face/palm* All so they can have their heroic last march! Why do movies insist on lobotomizing brilliant villains or make them monologue?
 
I'm expecting the response to be out of the movie -- he wanted to keep them alive so that he could crush their hope. Durrrr.....

But honestly... I'm glad to hear some other people had issues with this picture. I felt pretty alone the first few days after I saw it. For me, it's on the level where I don't know if I could rewatch it, it just holds little interest for me, which is very different than the first two movies which I'll rewatch every so often. As glowy as American culture is getting about this picture, I don't think it'll be discussed in twenty years, whereas I think TDK is much more likely to still be in circulation.
 

snafupants

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 3:13 AM
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
5,007
-->
I enjoy movies with messy or nihilistic morals (e.g., Henry: Portrait of a Killer) or mere ideas (e.g., Primer). There are some movies that are able to blend these two aspects via fairly rational analysis (e.g., Contact or Taxi Driver or 2001: ASO) but those are exceedingly rare. To be fair, the first Dark Knight was an allegory for the military industrial complex in the United States; thus, the evangelizing needed to slip into a certain stream. Preachy movies, especially documentaries (e.g., Waiting for Superman) drive me bonkers, especially when I disagree with the basic premise. As an aside, I should add that I appreciate some films that are basically pure aesthetic and character development, like Belle De Jour or American Beauty or Stand By Me.
 

Jennywocky

Tacky Flamingo
Local time
Today 4:13 AM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,736
-->
Location
Charn
As an aside, I should add that I appreciate some films that are basically pure aesthetic and character development, like Belle De Jour or American Beauty or Stand By Me.

Just for reference of where I'm coming from, American Beauty's always been in my top ten list (along with things like Endless Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, The Prestige).

I wanted to like Contact more than I did -- coming from a religious background, I felt like the faith exploration was just very superficial. But the film was evocative, and I thought Elle's response to things in the wormhole very much reflected her personality as the rational, intuitive scientist faced with a situation beyond her experience. I still prefer the story that Stand By Me was based on (The Body, from "Different Seasons"), but it was easily one of the better Stephen King conversions ever produced.

Primer's on my "must see" list, I just haven't snagged a copy yet. I remember seeing PI some time ago, and would like to rewatch that when I get a chance.
 

snafupants

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 3:13 AM
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
5,007
-->
Just for reference of where I'm coming from, American Beauty's always been in my top ten list (along with things like Endless Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, The Prestige).

I wanted to like Contact more than I did -- coming from a religious background, I felt like the faith exploration was just very superficial. But the film was evocative, and I thought Elle's response to things in the wormhole very much reflected her personality as the rational, intuitive scientist faced with a situation beyond her experience. I still prefer the story that Stand By Me was based on (The Body, from "Different Seasons"), but it was easily one of the better Stephen King conversions ever produced.

Primer's on my "must see" list, I just haven't snagged a copy yet. I remember seeing PI some time ago, and would like to rewatch that when I get a chance.

@Jennywocky

Essentially I dig Sam Mendes' aesthetic. Revolutionary Road was slammed by dozens of critics but I felt it was completely brilliant; Road to Perdition was decent whereas Jarhead was a veritable stinker. I guess Mendes' oeuvre is a mixed bag. Anyway, King's fountainhead source material is almost always better than subsequent adaptions, although comparing two mediums is somewhat artificial. I enjoyed the campy Pet Sematary, tolerated Cujo, relished Shawshank Redemption, laughed at Christine, appreciated Carrie, adored The Shining, and savored Stand by Me. In high school I read through Different Seasons twice; my math teacher recommended that novella collection. As you perhaps already know, Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption and Apt Pupil (book > movie) accompany The Body and Breathing Method in Different Seasons. King was firing on all cylinders during the early eighties. Every author seems to be granted eight golden years a la William Faulkner. I've also noticed that most writers pen their magnum opus around age thirty two. My apologies for sidetracking/hijacking this thread. Please carry on.

For the record, I would award Contact with 3.5/5 stars. The movie just happened to illustrate a point I was making. :king-twitter:
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 9:13 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
10,562
-->
I'm expecting the response to be out of the movie -- he wanted to keep them alive so that he could crush their hope. Durrrr.....
Admittedly I would do that, sure it's stupid but if you're going to take an entire city hostage, that's not crime, that's a work of art and artists doesn't limit themselves to practicality.

That said I'd still have bombs, gas canisters and auto-guns set up, but then again I wouldn't stay in the city I'm blowing up so I guess you can afford for everything to go wrong if in actual fact the worst case scenario is exactly what you want, especially if the bomb's going of in an hour and it can't be defused, at that point complacently enjoying the moment is understandable.
 

Jennywocky

Tacky Flamingo
Local time
Today 4:13 AM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,736
-->
Location
Charn
@snafupants:

 
Essentially I dig Sam Mendes' aesthetic. Revolutionary Road was slammed by dozens of critics but I felt it was completely brilliant; Road to Perdition was decent whereas Jarhead was a veritable stinker. I guess Mendes' oeuvre is a mixed bag.

I generally concur. I think Road to Perdition was worthwhile, just not on par with American Beauty; never saw Jarhead; and I want to see Revolutionary Road again. That last movie was not what I expected, but that was a good thing; and for me it was the first movie where I actually perceived DiCaprio as a grown man, rather than as a boy.

Anyway, King's fountainhead source material is almost always better than subsequent adaptions, although comparing two mediums is somewhat artificial.

I think that is the main issue. King's a great writer, and his stories work well on paper (well, most of them -- I think his work got more "hit or miss" as he aged) but aren't necessarily well-adapted to film... or at least not by the directors and writers that typically end up covering them. It's his style that seems so effortless and that pulls the audience in; the movie doesn't really have access to that.

I think for movies I most appreciated Shawshank (despite some deviations, it captured the "essence" of the story very very well, including the ending -- and the ending is actually the emotional mix that King pulls off so well in his work, and that people who categorize him as a "horror" writer really sometimes miss... it's not the horror that makes his work good but the struggle for hope and the moments of grace that punctuate even his darkest works).

Different Seasons was a solid bit of work on his part, all of the stories (although Breathing Method didn't really do much for me) were solid and memorable.

King was firing on all cylinders during the early eighties. Every author seems to be granted eight golden years a la William Faulkner. I've also noticed that most writers pen their magnum opus around age thirty two.

He really was. He really started to kick in, 2-3 books into his career (The Shining was probably the first book he really nailed) and he was consistent through much of the 80's, until he started releasing stuff like "The Eyes of the Dragon" and things began to vascillate a bit. I still have a warm space in my hard for The Tommyknockers, again because of that mix of "hope shining against the dark," but I also found the notion of transformation against one's will (and eventually changing so much that you no longer fight the change) to be rather horrifying. The digging out of the ship is also a metaphor for his style of writing.

Anyway... then things went to crap. You just don't know what you'll get from him nowadays, he's written too much. Even with The Dark Tower, probably some of his best work I've ever seen was in books #2-4, and then #5 was probably one of the worst, most boring titles I've seen from him and the series never quite approached what it had been when he was writing ten years earlier on it.

Occasionally he's still spot on. I thought his novella spin on the BTK killer (the story revolves around a wife discovering her husband was a serial killer, and how she responds to that horrific reality) was engrossing and well done.

oh yeah. Batman. Forgot about him. Heh.
I pity da foo' who tries to do the next iteration of The Joker.
Maybe they should stick with Clayface and the Riddler.
 

Agent Intellect

Absurd Anti-hero.
Local time
Today 4:13 AM
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
4,113
-->
Location
Michigan
I'd say most people don't want to see the bad guy win in any movie. Having the bad guy win creates a sense of hopelessness and darkness-induced audience apathy that most people would rather avoid.
 

Jennywocky

Tacky Flamingo
Local time
Today 4:13 AM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,736
-->
Location
Charn
I think the trick is to make it a victory for the good guys, but at deeper cost, not simple, not with a "happily ever after in all ways" ending, and spurring some sense of further enlightenment on the part of the character. (For example, American Beauty and Endless Sunshine are two examples of that... stuff happens, victory is not painless or simple, yet there's still some fulfillment there over what was learned along the way.)
 

TriflinThomas

Bitch, don't kill my vibe...
Local time
Today 1:13 AM
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
637
-->
Location
Southern California
I read an article that said that the script was written before the movement, and that it was inspired by A Tale of Two Cities. It seems plausible either way.

Yes, I think the Occupy movement happened to close to the release of the movie for it to be such a big part. I believe it to be an interesting coincidence.
 

travelnjones

Active Member
Local time
Today 1:13 AM
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
259
-->
That movie seemed to be more about wrapping up comic book threads. Not reading comic books i was a little confused and forced to just accept things.

what about se7en the bad guy wins in that. They could even make a batman seven movie. Say use the Riddler as a guy who is sending riddles to bat man so he can or cant stop crimes. No suit just have the guy carve question marks into his skill all over the place. That would make for a more serious tone
 

DreamMancer

Member
Local time
Today 8:13 AM
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
94
-->
Location
Kentucky
I think the trick is to make it a victory for the good guys, but at deeper cost, not simple, not with a "happily ever after in all ways" ending, and spurring some sense of further enlightenment on the part of the character. (For example, American Beauty and Endless Sunshine are two examples of that... stuff happens, victory is not painless or simple, yet there's still some fulfillment there over what was learned along the way.)


Yes. Or better yet, have a film where there are no clearly delineated "good guys" or "bad guys" at all, where everyone is in various shades of gray.

AMC's two popular dramas, Mad Men and Breaking Bad, both do an excellent job of this, IMHO (though they do it in very different ways). All of the characters in both shows are morally ambiguous; they all have traits that the audience can like and even identify with, but they also all have traits that are problematic or simply downright unsavory. It makes for very interesting and engaging shows; and in general I often find that an episode of either of those shows is much more complex and entertaining than anything that's being shown at the movie theater.

Another example might be the films of Hayao Miyazaki, like Princess Mononoke or Spirited Away. In these films there is usually not a clearly defined "evil"; the movies are more about the protagonists' struggle to find their place in the world, or to bring balance to the world. There are usually antagonists but they are rarely portrayed as being "bad guys"; often they are simply an aspect of nature or the world, or perhaps a faction forced into making tough decisions.
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 3:13 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
-->
Resurrectio.

I just watched the the movie for the first time today. It wasn't the pinnacle of cinematic artistry, but I got a lot out of it. It reincarnated some of my spirit. The apparent self-crucifixion was heartening, and so was the end. I don't know. Maybe I am a cliche myself. But it did inspire me.
 

Jennywocky

Tacky Flamingo
Local time
Today 4:13 AM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,736
-->
Location
Charn
Is that related to this three-years-dead thread?
 

Jennywocky

Tacky Flamingo
Local time
Today 4:13 AM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,736
-->
Location
Charn
I resurrected it because I just saw the movies and knew that people did not like similar threads.

Oh. I thought you were referring to a movie called Resurrectio (and you said nothing about Batman to give other context), so I couldn't figure out why you posted here. *doh*
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 9:13 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
:elephant: hm; if the bad guy wins he may change history to write that he is the good one. :elephant:
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 9:13 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
Oh. I thought you were referring to a movie called Resurrectio (and you said nothing about Batman to give other context), so I couldn't figure out why you posted here. *doh*

i'm glad your conflict has been mitigated
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 5:43 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
6,614
-->
I personally was a big fan of the media hype behind bane.

They took a villain that was no more than 'roids personified and turned him into an intelligent, dispassionate, calculating force of revolution.

The movie however... -> they turned him back into a henchman in short order. Boring.

I'm now recognising the same structure of villain hyping as a trope in a lot of movies, and that destroys my excitement somewhat.

Nice link btw TBerg, worth a gander ;)
 

Jennywocky

Tacky Flamingo
Local time
Today 4:13 AM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,736
-->
Location
Charn
i'm glad your conflict has been mitigated

Oh, it has been. Life is too short to walk around bewildered over the status of a movie thread on INTPf.

A nice little review on the film: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/tdkr

Read the comments sections for the full extent of the insight.


I'm glad they could salvage something insightful out of it. I've seen very little that makes sense about the movie, even after rewatching it again a few months ago (after seeing it in the theater when it came out), and as a story it was still a train wreck.

But as a political theory analysis? Sure, I could appreciate the discussion there.
 

The Grey Man

τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει
Local time
Today 3:13 AM
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
859
-->
Location
Canada
I personally was a big fan of the media hype behind bane.

They took a villain that was no more than 'roids personified and turned him into an intelligent, dispassionate, calculating force of revolution.

The movie however... -> they turned him back into a henchman in short order. Boring.

This is very much what happened with Bane in the comics. He started out every bit as intelligent as he was physically formidable, a mastermind in his own right. He served nobody, and came to Gotham to defeat Batman because of the dark bat creature that terrorized him in his dreams even as he dominated the prison where he was born. He was the very definition of dispassionate; even in prison, his surroundings were an effortless playground to him.

However, over time he became misunderstood. Writers came to see him as a gimmicky roid-monster, which is simply not the case. Bane's venom steroid-infused state is comparable to Maleficent's dragon form (a hidden power held in reserve for the inevitable grand finale), but people conflate it with the character himself.
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 3:13 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
-->
In a way, I don't abandon Batman in his quest for justice. I know of all of the unforeseen consequences of his actions and his mission creep, but I think intentions matter a lot. Our law codifies this reality distinguishing manslaughter and murder. I mean, if no one ever considered intent, then we in fact deconstruct the whole system of justice down into convicting people for the butterfly effect, which would be hell for everyone.

Another aspect to clarify is the rule of law and its role in society. In our society, it is incumbent upon us all to follow the law, especially those sworn to uphold it. When those sworn to uphold it neglect their duties or in fact act against the law, then there must be a way to redress this. The more this contract with the public is violated, the more the public has the right to push for enforcement of the contract. The government in fact pushes society into a revolutionary situation that calls for outsiders to restore the rule of law.

This also begs the question: What do we mean by "law"? It can mean two things, depending on your perspective. When our Founders discussed law, they saw it as coming from nature and not a pure contrivance of human ingenuity. In this way, they said that there was a "natural law" to which everyone including the government is ultimately accountable. It could be that a government would pursue the enactment of an unnatural law, in which case nature will rebel against the government. That was the basis of the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson. In this way, it is only the specter of the revolution of nature that keeps the government from violating natural law. Batman could have been the result of an order that did not abide by natural law.

The other school of law (no pun intended) is legal positivism, in which the law is said to be whatever the authorities say it is. In this way, you could say that the law is the law and that one must abide by it no matter how unnaturally unjust. You could say that you have to abide by all of the decisions of all of the judges, juries, administrators, and legislators. The law is a mere contrivance of those sworn to uphold it, thereby giving the public no real content to abide. It could have been that Batman looked at the law and saw that no one was really following anything.

This also begs the question: Who is sworn to uphold the law? If the public is sworn thereto, then they have an obligation to hold the law against everyone, including the government. If only the government is, then only law enforcement is obligated to hold the law against everyone.

I don't know. This makes sense to me. There might be a few shortcomings in here.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 9:13 AM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
-->
Location
our brain
Any political system (of which the law is an extension), that is viable has shortcomings.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Local time
Today 9:13 AM
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
2,026
-->
Location
germany
batman got to beat up superman in frank millers 'the dark knight returns' (1986). i have had a paper copy of this graphic novel since childhood and it's why i really liked batman, despite what tim burton made out of him in those days.

he doesn't exactly "win" in this book. he barely get's away.


hotlinking two screenshots from the graphic novel
[bimgx=250]http://cdn3.denofgeek.us/sites/denofgeekus/files/styles/insert_main_wide_image/public/batman-wins.png?itok=NcwAt5Yv&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=4782&page=1&start=0&ndsp=10&ved=0CDcQMygCMAI[/bimgx]
[bimgx=250]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/58/de/7b/58de7bea192bd143c94f8b82f003f134.jpg?iact=rc&uact=3&dur=5790&page=1&start=0&ndsp=10&ved=0CEAQMygFMAU[/bimgx]
 

Pyropyro

Magos Biologis
Local time
Today 4:13 PM
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
4,044
-->
Location
Philippines
The movie however... -> they turned him back into a henchman in short order. Boring.

The movie might have been better off without too much Talia al Ghul subplot. I see Bane's mindset as a balance somewhere between Batman's orderly mind and The Joker's chaotic one.
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 3:13 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
-->
That's interesting, because I see more conflict in the spirit of Batman than in the spirit of Bane. As Bane said, he never knew the light, and it threatened to blind him. Bane wanted nothing but complete overthrow of everything. But Batman grew up in a mixture of despair and privilege, creating the conflict between ends and means.
 
Top Bottom