Can I talk about the Dark Knight Rises?

[Guffe]

I actually like the whole trilogy.
They are all entertaining movies with good villains (in my opinion) and we get to see Batman kick some ass in a more "mature" way, which is cool.

 

[omega 616]

Not really, Bane in the the DCUO was a big hulking dude, in the comic he was a big hulking dude, in Batman forever he was a big hulking dude ... then you make him about the same size as batman? Why?

But this wasn't DCUO or Arkham City or Batman Forever. And really, that last one is probably a good thing.

So, I'm curious where the "not really" comes in.

I said "not really" 'cos everything is open to artistic interpretation.

If a character is known for being something you can't really play around with it too much, there is artistic interpretation and there is down right changing the character. Imagine if the Riddler was in the next film, played by Emma Stone?

I Do agree that a little movie magic to make Hardy A little bigger would have been a Nice thing for Comic Fans. Although You have to give it to Tom Hardy he made a beast out of himself for this film.

Not ignoring the rest, just can't argue against it.

From what I heard Tom had to wear platforms to even be the same height as Christian. Yeah, Tom was scary big, not just muscle like in warrior, he was chunky as well ... like those "worlds strongest man" guys.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

I actually like the whole trilogy.
They are all entertaining movies with good villains (in my opinion) and we get to see Batman kick some ass in a more "mature" way, which is cool.

Agreed, they did well enough for my suspension of disbelief and were entertaining to my friends and I, and when you get down to it, half the stuff he manages to pull off in the comics is pretty outlandish. Yet Batman seems to get a pass on that, things like going several days without sleep and still being able to do what he does with precision. That said, I don't mind it, because it's fiction and he's a cool character.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

So am I just shitting on the film or what?

No. It's a below-mediocre film that's almost saved by the characters being kind of fun to watch. It has plotholes the size of jupiter and hollywood physic, it was incredibly underwhelming.

Not really, Bane in the the DCUO was a big hulking dude, in the comic he was a big hulking dude, in Batman forever he was a big hulking dude ... then you make him about the same size as batman? Why?

Bane's defining features are his strength (via muscles) and his intelligence, not his height or stature, he's just well built. The recently concluded Young Justice followed this as well where he wasn't bulky unless he was using the venom drug, and since Nolan goes the pseudo-realistic approach (despite the fucking hollywood physics in Rises) he probably didn't want to include venom.


Batman TAS: he was only slightly bigger.
The New Batman Adventures character designs were more stylized (to make the villains look more inhuman), and so they made Bane bigger.

In all, it's acceptable to have him be normal sized. If they made him lanky or small there would be issues and all the DC fans would be mad (hell, I'd be kind of mad)

 

[Rawberry101]

It's interesting that people complain when the movie starts to resemble a comic book more than ever. As in it has questionable plot devices and character motivations. It's a fun movie, but not when you analyze it, for better or for worse.

 

[Something Amyss]

I said "not really" 'cos everything is open to artistic interpretation.

I'm assuming you mean "isn't" or you're arguing with yourself.

If a character is known for being something you can't really play around with it too much, there is artistic interpretation and there is down right changing the character. Imagine if the Riddler was in the next film, played by Emma Stone?

How would that be worse than Jim Carrey as Edward Nigma? Is the Riddler's penis really so integral to his character that he couldn't vex the World's Greatest Detective without one?

Stone's pretty talented. I have no reason to believe she would do a bad job, do you? What, other than the restroom Nigma uses and the first name, would be changed?

Honestly, I find it incredibly telling that you're more concerned with the physique than the character, who has been changed a ridiculous number of times. Bane has been everything from warrior-philosopher to mindless brute. You've even used examples with some pretty big divergences, yet the only thing that seems to be of issue is his physique.

 

[Lethos]

It's the weakest part of the trilogy, but it's still amazingly good. I don't really get your criticisms about the fights though. Sometimes when I watch boxing matches I think that I could block the punches in my head, but then I realise that it's incredibly easy for me to think that when I'm not the one taking the punches.
Just my opinion, at least.

 

[omega 616]

I said "not really" 'cos everything is open to artistic interpretation.

I'm assuming you mean "isn't" or you're arguing with yourself.

If a character is known for being something you can't really play around with it too much, there is artistic interpretation and there is down right changing the character. Imagine if the Riddler was in the next film, played by Emma Stone?

How would that be worse than Jim Carrey as Edward Nigma? Is the Riddler's penis really so integral to his character that he couldn't vex the World's Greatest Detective without one?

Stone's pretty talented. I have no reason to believe she would do a bad job, do you? What, other than the restroom Nigma uses and the first name, would be changed?

Honestly, I find it incredibly telling that you're more concerned with the physique than the character, who has been changed a ridiculous number of times. Bane has been everything from warrior-philosopher to mindless brute. You've even used examples with some pretty big divergences, yet the only thing that seems to be of issue is his physique.

No, I mean "is", I am not talking in absolutes here.

If you write a character that is what the character is, you define gender, rough age, physique etc and then you write the rest of the story. Somebody else picks up the character and makes some small changes, a different person will make different changes but surely there must be a point when you're not taking a character and changing it, you're creating a whole new character.

In this context of Batman I am saying "why get Tom Hardey who is a short bloke, when you could get somebody more fitting in height to play Bane?" ... probably would have been a few million cheaper to boot.

The Riddler is a man, the same way Bane, Penguin and Scarecrow are ... why make male characters female if they are male in the source material? It's why Batman is never played by a woman 'cos that would be Batgirl.

If you make too many changes you do what dragon age series did. The first dragon age was awesome, then the second one was released and it was totally different. If the second one had been called something else it would have been fine, it would have been a new IP ... instead it took just about everything and changed it but still called it a sequel.

It's why Batman is being reworked to be less dark. Imagine if it wasn't rebooted and without the studio saying anything the next Batman was like forever, it would be like culture shock.

From what you're saying it's like everything and everyone is subject to total change at any time, "fuck yeah, Riddler is now a chick and his colours are now blue question marks on an orange suit, Mr. Freeze is now called Subzero and two face is sometimes normal and other times like Harley Quinn."

Imagine the nerd rage ....!