As much as I liked the movie, Bane and Talia were not very good villains I feel, MOTIVATIONS and PLANNING wise.

Bane was cool, in that he had good dialogue and was a badass, but their entire plan was awful

*First off, the reasoning for their plan (corruption, all that BS, is dumb) Ras' goal was fulfilled after TDK when the police ran out the mob and basically eliminated the Gotham underworld. So Talia was just redundant and unnecessary.

*So, they wanted to keep the city hostage for 5 months, even if the bomb was going to go off, just to "Torture the world?" Already, there plan is shaky, but I'll roll with it I guess...

*But when Bane captures Batman, what does he do? Place him with a friendly inmate and the freaking DOCTOR. Who both happen to know Bane's entire history and escape plan. And he's surprised when Bruce returns?

*Hey Bane? If you wanted to torture Bruce by making him watch his city burn, why not...cut off his arm? Hell, Cut off just his fingers! He won't be able to escape!

*Okay, so Bane doesn't do that. Batman returns! Bane and Talia know! Yet...they still don't detonate the bomb? WHY? After FIVE MONTHS OF TORTURING A CITY, they can't detonate it ONE DAY EARLIER, because the person who can foil their plans returned?

*Hey Talia, ever heard of not talking so much? Classic villain mistake, but I thought Nolan was above it. You know how there was like two minutes left for the bomb before it detonated? If Talia didn't tell them she flooded the reactor, they would have flew it all the way over there, realized it's flooded, and then the bomb would destroy the city as it would then be too late to fly it past the bay.




It's hard for me to enjoy this movie when the villains make completely stupid decisions. I want to see how you guys counter and defend my points, though I'm expecting to be called a troll and be flamed.

Honestly I agree with you even though I'm fine with the movie the way it is. It did bother me that Bane sees the batsignal on the building, yet is rather surprised when he sees Batman later, although the I think that the scene with the batsignal on the building is so cool that it defies the "plot hole" surrounding it.

banepants wrote:Honestly I agree with you even though I'm fine with the movie the way it is. It did bother me that Bane sees the batsignal on the building, yet is rather surprised when he sees Batman later, although the I think that the scene with the batsignal on the building is so cool that it defies the "plot hole" surrounding it.

I found that scene pretty absurd as well. Did Batman really choose to spend his limited time painting the gasoline on a building? If he wanted to give the city hope, why not just turn on the Batsignal, which he had fixed?

Avatar Korra wrote:

banepants wrote:Honestly I agree with you even though I'm fine with the movie the way it is. It did bother me that Bane sees the batsignal on the building, yet is rather surprised when he sees Batman later, although the I think that the scene with the batsignal on the building is so cool that it defies the "plot hole" surrounding it.

I found that scene pretty absurd as well. Did Batman really choose to spend his limited time painting the gasoline on a building? If he wanted to give the city hope, why not just turn on the Batsignal, which he had fixed?

Who's to say he didn't make the bat symbol on the bridge before the first fight with Bane when he's standing on top of that very same bridge...

Law wrote:

Avatar Korra wrote:
I found that scene pretty absurd as well. Did Batman really choose to spend his limited time painting the gasoline on a building? If he wanted to give the city hope, why not just turn on the Batsignal, which he had fixed?

Who's to say he didn't make the bat symbol on the bridge before the first fight with Bane when he's standing on top of that very same bridge...

And the gasoline just stayed on the building for months?

Avatar Korra wrote:

Law wrote: Who's to say he didn't make the bat symbol on the bridge before the first fight with Bane when he's standing on top of that very same bridge...

And the gasoline just stayed on the building for months?

Who's to say Batman didn't create a shower system that sprayed gasoline on the bridge?

"Tomorrow the world will watch in horror as its greatest city destroys itself. The movement back to harmony will be unstoppable this time." Ra's Al Ghul

Their plan is simply this a second (possibly third) time, but with the added bonus of letting Bruce see his hard work come apart as the rich get their homes sacked by foolish Gotham citizens and Blackgate inmates. The thing with him in prison with a doctor isn't important, and it's a common movie villain mistake to lock away the good guy and assume everything is okay. Bane either didn't know, or underestimated both Bruce's willpower and the prisoner's willingness to help. How did he set up that Bat-signal? It doesn't matter. How do you get fingerprints off a bullet? How does fear toxin stay in the water when someone boils it to make a cup of coffee? Is anyone still analysing things like that? It's just a movie, even if some think it's perfect or amazing or whatever, movie logic is always going to appear in there. If they weren't Batman would just die - would that make it more satisfying for you?

Code_R wrote:"Tomorrow the world will watch in horror as its greatest city destroys itself. The movement back to harmony will be unstoppable this time." Ra's Al Ghul

Their plan is simply this a second (possibly third) time, but with the added bonus of letting Bruce see his hard work come apart as the rich get their homes sacked by foolish Gotham citizens and Blackgate inmates. The thing with him in prison with a doctor isn't important, and it's a common movie villain mistake to lock away the good guy and assume everything is okay. Bane either didn't know, or underestimated both Bruce's willpower and the prisoner's willingness to help. How did he set up that Bat-signal? It doesn't matter. How do you get fingerprints off a bullet? How does fear toxin stay in the water when someone boils it to make a cup of coffee? Is anyone still analysing things like that? It's just a movie, even if some think it's perfect or amazing or whatever, movie logic is always going to appear in there. If they weren't Batman would just die - would that make it more satisfying for you?

Okay, so if they wanted to just destroy the city, why did they have to make such an elaborate and complex plot that could fail in every step of the way? Why were they willing to kill themselves and the rest of the LoS for this? Just to torture Batman more?

Why would they not just detonate the bomb the instant they knew Batman was in the city? The one person who could screw up all their plans? I still don't get why they're still so insistent on destroying Gotham when organized crime was abolished for good.

Also, I love how people try to justify plot holes by bringing up plot holes from other movies....like what? Because there were some plot holes in the first two films, it's excusable now?

No that was me bringing up the point of movie logic in a movie, and villainous characters acting to type, along with that those things in the previous movies being silly and it doesn't matter, because they're just devices in the plot to move Batman along. They knew Bruce was back in the city, so what makes sense, destroying it and ending the movie? Its simply a case of narrative logic versus what is actual logic. Lots of things would make more sense, but like I said who would be satisfied if Bane and Talia won? As for your other points - firstly radicalised people are often willing to die for their cause. Secondly why does organised crime somehow reflect the corruption of the whole city, which was stated as being in every level of its infrastructure? I don't think this is by far perfect or the best in the trilogy, but for other reasons since things like this are pretty basic.

Avatar Korra wrote:Also, I love how people try to justify plot holes by bringing up plot holes from other movies....like what? Because there were some plot holes in the first two films, it's excusable now?

You say yourself "I thought Nolan was above it." What makes you think he's above that then? You want to look at his past work to justify why something should have been different, but when we go back and look at the work we see the same "problems." It's perfectly relevant to look at the double standard in breaking down these plots/villains because you brought it up yourself.