For me it just seemed to be recycling the storyline of Batman Begins onto a bigger and even less realistic scale. It also made Bane less unique than what he could have been if he had his own separate agenda for Batman and Gotham instead of just finishing off and completing the legacy of Ra's Al Ghul to restore balance through the destruction of Gotham. Talia should have been carrying on the legacy of her father but Bane should have had his own angle which although aligned to the interests of the League of Shadows was also independent and separate to their aims.

The storyline seemed to completely undermine Bane by making his plan essentially the same as Ra's Al Ghuls albeit using different methods also making Bane part of the League of Shadows himself and making Talia his equal. I personally would have found Bane more interesting had he not been leading the League of Shadows and if he had an original motive to resurface Batman and then to undermine the unequal class system and usurp the corrupt hierarchies in Gotham but done it in a more ingenious and plausible way than taking over a city and occupying it only to destroy it months later.

Surely occupying the city for that amount of time before the bomb finally exploding is inviting opposition that would threaten the plan? The main storyline of the film was just a retread of Batman Begins I would have preffered it if the final part of the trilogy had of focused on something else entirely tied back to the story back to the first film in a subtle way instead of using a simillar plot as BB.

And overall I think the League of Shadows where overused in the trilogy and while I'm not discounting their importance to Batman's origin story I would have preferred it if their influence had of been more understated in BB and TDKR. For instance I would have found it more interesting if the League of Shadows had of been acting from the periphery of events such as in Batman Begins when it is mentioned that they previously tried to overwhelm gotham using economics. However when we saw the League of Shadows trying to destroy Gotham in Batman Begins and TDKR using such ridiculous methods as a 'water vapourizer' and 'neutron bomb' the realism and plausibilty of the films was lessened.

No.

I agree, I wasn't a fan of their overall goal at all. I wish Bane also had a more personal reason for hating Batman.

Avatar Korra wrote:I agree, I wasn't a fan of their overall goal at all. I wish Bane also had a more personal reason for hating Batman.

Agreed entirely it would have been so much more interesting if Bane had of had his own personal grievance against Batman/Bruce and Gotham. Instead Bane's motivation seemed to simply be to complete Ra's Al Ghuls plan to destroy Gotham and even worse he was doing it all out of love for Talia!

We waited four years to see this film.

Oh yay, another one who thinks his opinion is superior to how the movie actually runs.

ventman wrote:For me it just seemed to be recycling the storyline of Batman Begins onto a bigger and even less realistic scale. It also made Bane less unique than what he could have been if he had his own separate agenda for Batman and Gotham instead of just finishing off and completing the legacy of Ra's Al Ghul to restore balance through the destruction of Gotham. Talia should have been carrying on the legacy of her father but Bane should have had his own angle which although aligned to the interests of the League of Shadows was also independent and separate to their aims.

The storyline seemed to completely undermine Bane by making his plan essentially the same as Ra's Al Ghuls albeit using different methods also making Bane part of the League of Shadows himself and making Talia his equal. I personally would have found Bane more interesting had he not been leading the League of Shadows and if he had an original motive to resurface Batman and then to undermine the unequal class system and usurp the corrupt hierarchies in Gotham but done it in a more ingenious and plausible way than taking over a city and occupying it only to destroy it months later.

Surely occupying the city for that amount of time before the bomb finally exploding is inviting opposition that would threaten the plan? The main storyline of the film was just a retread of Batman Begins I would have preffered it if the final part of the trilogy had of focused on something else entirely tied back to the story back to the first film in a subtle way instead of using a simillar plot as BB.

And overall I think the League of Shadows where overused in the trilogy and while I'm not discounting their importance to Batman's origin story I would have preferred it if their influence had of been more understated in BB and TDKR. For instance I would have found it more interesting if the League of Shadows had of been acting from the periphery of events such as in Batman Begins when it is mentioned that they previously tried to overwhelm gotham using economics. However when we saw the League of Shadows trying to destroy Gotham in Batman Begins and TDKR using such ridiculous methods as a 'water vapourizer' and 'neutron bomb' the realism and plausibilty of the films was lessened.

I concur with everything in bold. To separate Bane from the LOS, there would have to have been some different dialogue (though I'd hate to lose the "I AM the League of Shadows" line). Instead, Bane sort of ended up being a more brutal version of Ra's Al Ghul and they had the same motive: destroy Gotham, but before that happens, let the people eat each other. And both of their plans were executed by using a stolen and weaponized Wayne Enterprises device. And of course Talia dies the same exact way her father does. The plot and climax of Rises were very much a rehash of Begins; there's no denying that.

The thing about Bane is, it would have been very easy to remove the LOS angle for him. Because let's face it- his mercenaries were very different from the badass ninjas that Ra's worked with in Begins. Back when Begins came out, I actually thought that maybe one day the LOS would come back in a future movie (and it happened lol) but I was kind of let down when I saw the LOS in TDKR because they were nothing like the LOS from Begins. I was expecting more of the footninja type of LOS members (wouldn't it have been interesting to see this older Bruce take on these types of ninjas?). But the LOS mercenaries in TDKR were pretty much just men with assault rifles who were terrible fighters - it would've been easy to scrap the LOS angle from Bane because they could've kept his men the same, but just called them mercenaries and not the LOS.

Regarding the "Bane should have had a more personal reason to hate Batman" thing, I agree. And again, it would have been very easy to portray this without really changing too much. He could have hated Bruce for trying to protect a city that is and always has been inherently corrupt, for trying to fight injustice in a merciful way (so to speak), and for upholding a broken system that favors the rich and screws over the poor. Yet the only anger Bane had towards Bruce in TDKR was for betraying the LOS. Thematically, a more personal conflict between Bane and Bruce would've been more thrilling and the whole "breaking the Bat" thing would have resonated more.

Breck12 once said, "I felt that the league's time had passed and bringing them back after the Joker in an attempt to bring things full circle locked the story in a box and prevented it from challenging the imagination and setting a new standard. Sure Bane was intimidating but having him connected to the league, not being the one who escaped the pit and wanting to fulfill Ra's destiny made him all too predictable and unoriginal." And I totally agree with that. Bane and Batman were just in each other's way in TDKR. I remember posts in the past that discussed this topic and some people said something along the lines of "Bane was just an obstacle in Bruce's way, albeit a big one". And that's the problem for me - IMO you don't end the trilogy with a guy who was "just in Bruce's way" - they should have made Bane be the greatest force Bruce ever faced, and on all levels: physically (which he was), mentally (no, that was Joker), and personally (no, that was Joker/Dent/Ra's). Yet I thought they really could have done so, had they made Bane hate the very symbol of Batman, hate the very existence of Batman who tries to fight corruption rather than destroy it, and hate the "fascistic implications of what Batman truly represents" as ventman once put it.

FWIW, I loved the movie the way it was, but I agree with the title of this thread.

It'd be better if Nolan did what I wanted him to do instead of what he actually did.

Cilogy wrote:It'd be better if Nolan did what I wanted him to do instead of what he actually did.

I know, right?


My interest in Bane slowly declined as the movie went along but everyone has to remember that terrorism is a group effort and that sometimes you need to work towards a common goal.

Cilogy wrote:It'd be better if Nolan did what I wanted him to do instead of what he actually did.

Discussion is all about opinions. No one here is claiming superiority over Nolan, or at least I'm not.

SomeFrenchToast wrote:Oh yay, another one who thinks his opinion is superior to how the movie actually runs.

God forbid someone shares their opinion on a message board.

That being said, I disagree with the original poster. The movie would be much less tightly linked with BB if Bane's motive hadbeen original. It allows the series to go full circle.