Why does Bane talk like that?
Why does he talk weird?
btchs b crzy
Because he's wearing a mask.
No one cared who he was until he started talking like that.
MovieChat Forums > The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Discussion > Why does Bane talk like that?
Probably because he's always in extreme pain because of his injuries. He therefore talks like a wheezy old man or a wounded animal. The mask provides anasthetics that keep it at bay, allowing him to communicate somewhat coherently but it still sounds off. We also don't know what's underneath the mask, there may be some massive disfigurements.
Also, he's a brainwashed member of an ancient Ninja cult. The way he talks actually reminds me of his former mentor, Ra's Al Ghul, which may be of influence. Finally he probably read a lot of books on strategy, war and history after his escape from the Pit. He's extremely well-read and intelligent, resulting in unusual word use and speech patterns not common to brutal hulks.
Damn you Lindelof!
Because Irish gypsy boxer Bartley Gorman was Tom Hardy's inspiration for the voice.
shareBecause he's et up with the awesome
shareBecause that voice is freaking awesome.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
Because he's a big guy for you.
shareThey could have got Vin Diesel or Dave Bautista, or some other big dude with a deep, gravelly recognizable voice to play Bane...but they went with Hardy instead, who went on to provide his own flair which included a very unorthodox voice to an otherwise forgettable performance.
shareThey could have got Vin Diesel or Dave Bautista,
Thank goodness they didn't, I fail to see how either would've made Bane a more memorable character than Hardy did. share
They could have got Vin Diesel or Dave Bautista
Thank goodness they didn't, I fail to see how either would've made Bane a more memorable character than Hardy did.
Agreed, because having Bane sound less silly would have made him less memorable.
I'm glad those two chose a GOOD movie to star in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kkcvHaiG_M
Fabricati Diem, Pvnc !
RIP Terry Pratchett share
because having Bane sound less silly would have made him less memorable.
Bane sounded no more silly than he did in anyone of his Animated/Video Game appearances (Would you prefer he had a stereotypical spanish accent instead?).
He was also a hell of a lot more memorable in a good way, than most given MCU villains. share
He was also a hell of a lot more memorable in a good way, than most given MCU villains.
How ? What was his motivation ? Other than the DC equivalent of 'he had a bad childhood', there was nothing. He became the pet of a girl that grew up with him, and ended up dying like a dog for her. What else was there, that ridiculous mask ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kkcvHaiG_M
Fabricati Diem, Pvnc !
RIP Terry Pratchett share
What was his motivation ?
To complete the objective of LOS out of gratitude to the man who saved him from the pit and his daughter who he cared for in a platonic way. It's pretty simple motivation but Bane has always been a pretty simple character at his core.
What else was there
He was brutal, ruthless and efficient, He inflicted real damage to both Batman and Gotham city, He was every bit as intimidating as he was in the trailer (unlike say Ultron) share
He was every bit as intimidating as he was in the trailer (unlike say Ultron)
... who turned out to be a lot more than just brutal, ruthless and efficient. He inflicted real damage to the Avengers on a personal level, and actually had the goods to wipe out all life as we know it. He also turned out to be very interesting to watch as opposed to this lackey with the silly voice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kkcvHaiG_M
Fabricati Diem, Pvnc !
RIP Terry Pratchett share
He inflicted real damage to the Avengers on a personal level,
How? Are you talking about Scarlet Witchs mind games? Because the Avengers got over that pretty quickly.
actually had the goods to wipe out all life as we know it.
Scale isn't everything, Banes occupation of Gotham city felt way more like a tangible threat than Ultron's flying country plan.
He also turned out to be very interesting to watch as opposed to this lackey with the silly voice.
Bane had real presence to him though, He felt real because he was real. Ultron was just a special effect.
How do you think Bane should be portrayed than? share
How? Are you talking about Scarlet Witchs mind games? Because the Avengers got over that pretty quickly.
Ehh... not really. They're supposed to be the good guys but had to hide from the world, and they're still fixing Johannesburg after Hulk plowed through. Banner lost pretty much everything he worked towards over the years, he'll never be the same again.
Scale isn't everything, Banes occupation of Gotham city felt way more like a tangible threat than Ultron's flying country plan.
Bane had real presence to him though, He felt real because he was real. Ultron was just a special effect.
But that's a matter of suspension of disbelief, in their respective universes they (and their threats) were very much real.
I never felt Bane had presence in that movie. All I hear about it is based on reputation from other sources, but the movie never really conveyed that. All we see is him doing someone else's job, fulfilling someone else's mission. And a lot doesn't even make any sense. For instance, he has an army of mercenairies whom he randomly sends to their deaths. Why ? And why don't these guys just leave ?
How do you think Bane should be portrayed than?
No idea, never was interested enough in that guy, mainly for reasons I just named.
But an interesting villain is someone who gets very close and personal to the protagonist, and never gives him the option of getting away from him. Bane does and is none of these things, in the end he's just a thug with a big stick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kkcvHaiG_M
Fabricati Diem, Pvnc !
RIP Terry Pratchett share
Bane had one of the strongest backstories out of any villain and he carried out the plan that almost resulted in the deaths of 12 million people. He was a lot more than "just a thug with a big stick" and I'm sorry you're too stupid to realize that.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
They're supposed to be the good guys but had to hide from the world
Didn't really seem to affect them that much, They were back in the saddle as soon as they had a little down-time with Hawkeye's family.
As for the Hulk's situation, That's more Scarlet Witch's fault than Ultron.
All I hear about it is based on reputation from other sources, but the movie never really conveyed that.
Like hell they didn't. Bane had plenty of intimidating moments throughout TDKR, Intimidating and killing Daggett was far more intense than anything Ultron did as was how he crippled Gotham with just a push of a button.
All we see is him doing someone else's job, fulfilling someone else's mission.
I's his mission too. Hes fully indoctrinated into the League and its beliefs.
But an interesting villain is someone who gets very close and personal to the protagonist, and never gives him the option of getting away from him
How on earth does that not apply to Bane?. He utterly destroys Batman in their first physical confrontation, traps him in a pit where only one person has ever escaped from and tells him straight-up that he plans to make Bruce experience the depths of his failure in trying to make Gotham city a better place.
Better question, How does that apply to Ultron? share
As for the Hulk's situation, That's more Scarlet Witch's fault than Ultron.
And whose idea was it ?
Like hell they didn't. Bane had plenty of intimidating moments throughout TDKR, Intimidating and killing Daggett was far more intense than anything Ultron did as was how he crippled Gotham with just a push of a button
Like a common terrorist. There's plenty of those.
I's his mission too. Hes fully indoctrinated into the League and its beliefs
So, your basic religious zealot. Plenty of those too.
Still looking for that edge above the mediocre here.
How on earth does that not apply to Bane?
What's he to Bruce other than the next threat to the city ? Granted, he's more personal than any of the other villains in this series because of his ties with the LOS, but still.
Better question, How does that apply to Ultron?
Seriously ?
A few of the Avengers CREATED him, which makes them directly responsible for everything he does. It can't get more personal than that !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kkcvHaiG_M
Fabricati Diem, Pvnc !
RIP Terry Pratchett share
And whose idea was it ?
Ultron: "Hey you know those powers you have? How about you use them? preferably on the guys were going against"
Like a common terrorist. There's plenty of those.
So, your basic religious zealot. Plenty of those too.
Plenty of AI's gone bad in movies too, Whats your point? What exactly puts Ultron above any of them, that hes sarcastic?
What's he to Bruce other than the next threat to the city ?
He's a dark mirror to Bruce Wayne, He represents what Bruce could've become if he allowed himself to be consumed by the Leagues teachings.
A few of the Avengers CREATED him, which makes them directly responsible for everything he does.
That idea's not as much in the forefront is it could've been though. I'd say Ultron is more of a "next threat to the world" type villain than Bane was. He doesn't have much of a relationship with the Avengers, once he's created, He immediaely turns evil. share
Plenty of AI's gone bad in movies too, Whats your point? What exactly puts Ultron above any of them, that hes sarcastic?
Not AI for one thing. And in movies, sure. But religious zealot terrorists are pretty common in real life, but there's never been an actual living robot, so there's that...
He's a dark mirror to Bruce Wayne, He represents what Bruce could've become if he allowed himself to be consumed by the Leagues teachings.
Dark mirror like Ultron/Stark or even Ultron/Vision ? Gotcha.
A few of the Avengers CREATED him, which makes them directly responsible for everything he does.
That idea's not as much in the forefront is it could've been though. I'd say Ultron is more of a "next threat to the world" type villain than Bane was. He doesn't have much of a relationship with the Avengers, once he's created, He immediaely turns evil.
.... I don't know what to say here. You DID see the movie, right ? Because the whole friggin' thing was about this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kkcvHaiG_M
Fabricati Diem, Pvnc !
RIP Terry Pratchett share
never been an actual living robot,
You mean like Johnny 5 from Short Circuit?
Dark mirror like Ultron/Stark or even Ultron/Vision ?
I suppose. Pity both those ideas aren't really at the forefront of the movie.
Because the whole friggin' thing was about this.
Umm No, The movie was about setting up more movies, characters and plot beats for said characters to the point where Ultron himself became an afterthought.
share
You mean like Johnny 5 from Short Circuit?
Hate to break it to you, but that was only a movie. I was talking about real life.
The movie was about setting up more movies, characters and plot beats for said characters to the point where Ultron himself became an afterthought.
Nah, that's just something haters say when they run out of arguments, you should take that for the jealous whinge that it is. For some reason they can't stand knowing that, since the MCU is so successful and universally loved, more movies are always on the way. So they go in, desperately trying to ignore that all of these are completely self-contained stand alone movies, but at the same time smart enough to mostly keep the connective MCU tissue out of the main story line.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kkcvHaiG_M
Fabricati Diem, Pvnc !
RIP Terry Pratchett share
I was talking about real life.
Really? I thought we were taking about movies.
Nah, that's just something haters say when they run out of arguments,
No not really. A lot of people who enjoyed Age of Ultron still say that the movie felt more like a series of scenes and plotpoints rather than a cohesive whole. share
Really? I thought we were taking about movies.
We were, but to quote me:
And in movies, sure. But religious zealot terrorists are pretty common in real life, but there's never been an actual living robot, so there's that...
So, yeah...
A lot of people who enjoyed Age of Ultron still say that the movie felt more like a series of scenes and plotpoints rather than a cohesive whole.
Which is a valid criticism (also the main complaint for a lot of people about the Dark Knight movies, by the way), but that's still a long way from saying "the movie was about setting up more movies, characters and plot beats for said characters to the point where Ultron himself became an afterthought", because that's venturing beyond objectively criticizing something and moving into hater territory. Which I'd like to avoid no matter what our preference is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kkcvHaiG_M
Fabricati Diem, Pvnc !
RIP Terry Pratchett share
(also the main complaint for a lot of people about the Dark Knight movies, by the way)
What? That has never been a complaint aimed at TDK trilogy. All three movies are cohesive as a whole, They never get bogged down in set-up or universe building.
But religious zealot terrorists are pretty common in real life, but there's never been an actual living robot, so there's that
If were talking real life then that means Bane, and by extension Ras Al Ghul and the Joker, are all scarier than Ultron because of the possibility of people like them actually existing.
share
What? That has never been a complaint aimed at TDK trilogy. All three movies are cohesive as a whole, They never get bogged down in set-up or universe building.
Neither are (most of) the Marvel movies. All the universe building stuff mostly happens in references that don't distract from the main plot.
The Dark Knight movies, the last two anyway, get very much bogged down by all the side plots, too much focus on minor characters' (in some cases, glorified extras') arcs, and numerous unnecessary exposition scenes, making the whole thing a very top-heavy convoluted mess. There are entire plotlines that can be cut from these movies without having any effect on the story, the drama, or the character developments.
Which is a shame, because the first one actually was a very good movie. I've always felt Christopher "I don't do sequels" Nolan should have stuck with his principles. Because he couldn't make the follow up movies better, so he made them bigger, and that's not necessarily a good thing.
If were talking real life then that means Bane, and by extension Ras Al Ghul and the Joker, are all scarier than Ultron because of the possibility of people like them actually existing.
Quite the opposite, since guys like these actually exist, the threats they represent are real and very much normal these days. The only thing the movies do to set them apart is give them a comic twist in appearance.
What we end up with is some larger than life characters that go out of their way to accomplish what random schmucks have already managed in real life, making the audience wonder what's up with all the theatrics. In a world where terrorists fly a couple of planes into some towers in the most prolific city in the world, it's hard to be impressed by a nutjob blowing up a hospital or a football stadium. Why would I care about a movie that shows me less than what I'm used to ? Why would I pay to see a movie that hammers home all the reasons to be affraid in real life, when I can just turn on the news and get the same ?
Ultron on the other hand is something completely alien to us, and his threat represents the end of life on Earth as we know it. Global extinction, which he goes about by lifting up a complete city, turning it into a massive comet, and smashing it back down. But not before becoming pretty much omnipresent. And this threat was created by the GOOD guys to boot, so lots of potential drama there as well.
That's some interesting stuff to watch.
In their respective universes, their threat levels are severely lobsided in favour of the Marvel villains.
In real life, only one of them shows me something new. 2-0 for team Marvel.
At least there's one thing I think we can agree on, at least these two franchises are the best the genre has to offer. And I feel the reason is, because they focus on the characters themselves, not just on what they can do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kkcvHaiG_M
Fabricati Diem, Pvnc !
RIP Terry Pratchett share
The Dark Knight movies, the last two anyway, get very much bogged down by all the side plots, too much focus on minor characters' (in some cases, glorified extras') arcs, and numerous unnecessary exposition scenes, making the whole thing a very top-heavy convoluted mess.
Nope. This description applies far more to Age of Ultron than any of TDK movies. AOU's plot structure is a bit on the messy side.
. I've always felt Christopher "I don't do sequels" Nolan should have stuck with his principles.
But then we wouldn't have The Dark Knight (arguably the best superhero movie there is)
Ultron on the other hand is something completely alien to us, and his threat represents the end of life on Earth as we know it. Global extinction, which he goes about by lifting up a complete city, turning it into a massive comet, and smashing it back down. But not before becoming pretty much omnipresent. And this threat was created by the GOOD guys to boot, so lots of potential drama there as well.
The scope of a threat doesn't necessarily make it more compelling. The Joker from TDK brought the city to the brink of complete chaos with "a few bullets and drums of gasoline" and he was way scarier not to mention more memorable than Ultron ever was. Ultron's plan was pretty uninspired honestly and while the character was entertaining, The movie didn't even scratch the surface on how big a threat the character could really be and the "drama" of the good guys being responsible for his creation isn't delved into very deeply.
Look at the interrogation scene in TDK, The Joker gets up close and personal with Batman in a way Ultron never did with any of the Avengers. share
Nope. This description applies far more to Age of Ultron than any of TDK movies. AOU's plot structure is a bit on the messy side.
At least AoU had everything in the movie connect to everything else in an organic fashion. Everything directly served the main narrative.
TDK had that dreadful faux-dramatic subplot with the two ships shoe horned in there for no other reason as to try and establish yet again what a rascal that Joker was. And why the hell did they make such a big deal about William Fichtner's character, before never mentioning him again ? And that guy blackmailing Morgan Freeman ? Or those countless people TELLING the audience what's going on, as if we're too dumb to follow it. Bogged down, that's what this was.
There was a lot going on in AoU, but it had laser-like focus on its story compared to what those two TDK movies were trying.
But then we wouldn't have The Dark Knight (arguably the best superhero movie there is)
It wasn't even a good Batman movie, unlike Batman Begins. It was desperately trying NOT to be a superhero movie, and it succeeded.
Affleck's portrayal of Batman (certain lethality-issues aside) turned out a lot closer to the mark than what was done here. Which is kind of ironic, considering that terrible waste of celluloid dungheap of a movie he performed it in, but that's beside the point.
The scope of a threat doesn't necessarily make it more compelling.
I guess that boils down to a matter of preference. For me, it's not the scope of the threat but the scope of the characters that counts.
The Joker from TDK brought the city to the brink of complete chaos with "a few bullets and drums of gasoline" and he was way scarier not to mention more memorable than Ultron ever was.
Not at all. What's memorable about the Joker in this one is the intense way he was portrayed by the actor, but not the character itself. The actor was briliant and ruthless, the character was a run-of-the-mill nutjob who CLAIMED he was all about chaos, but was contradicted by his own actions and the staggering amount of planning ahead these events must have taken. In short, normal terrorist, but one with a kooky style. Jeeey...
Ultron was compelling because he had a lot going for him, because he was methodical, cold and ruthless, because of what he was and where he came from, and because there was no doubt in anyone's mind that he could make good on every single threat he makes. And because there never was anything quite like him before.
Ultron's plan was pretty uninspired honestly and while the character was entertaining, The movie didn't even scratch the surface on how big a threat the character could really be
Determining (correctly) that humans are the biggest problem on this planet, then succeeding in finding a way to wipe them all out, this you find 'uninspired', yet holding a city hostage with a good old-fashioned nuke because reasons is a stroke of briliance ?
And how is global extinction not even scratching the surface on how big a threat to us the character could really be ? Doesn't get much bigger than that, and they literally scratched the surface. Left a city-wide hole too. But I see your point, there wasn't even anyone playing football at the time they made that hole, because that would have made it exponentially more interesting.
and the "drama" of the good guys being responsible for his creation isn't delved into very deeply.
No, it only turned the entire world against the Avengers, almost tore the team apart, chased Banner back into hiding, and made such a big impact repercussions became a main focal point of an entirely different movie. No biggie.
Look at the interrogation scene in TDK, The Joker gets up close and personal with Batman in a way Ultron never did with any of the Avengers.
Avengers like Wanda ? Or Steve ? Natasha ? Thor ? Vision ?
If memory serves, Gordon had Joker locked in a cage and had his bully Batman hiding in the dark, who then proceeded to shout at the guy. Yeah, intense stuff. Both of them came out of that interrogation the same as when they went in, so it meant precisely dick. Personal does not equal proximity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kkcvHaiG_M
Fabricati Diem, Pvnc !
RIP Terry Pratchett share
At least AoU had everything in the movie connect to everything else in an organic fashion. Everything directly served the main narrative.
You mean like Thor's pool scene? How exactly did that service the narrative? Or the sluggish Hawkeye family scene?
TDK had that dreadful faux-dramatic subplot with the two ships shoe horned in there for no other reason as to try and establish yet again what a rascal that Joker was
That wasn't a subplot or a detour from the story, That was the climax and it was and is still one of the most intense scenes in a superhero movie ever filmed.
And why the hell did they make such a big deal about William Fichtner's character, before never mentioning him again ?
What do you mean? The bank manager was no more an important character than Klaue was.
It wasn't even a good Batman movie,
Considering that its actually about Batman, his impact on Gotham city and the consequences of his actions, I vehemently disagree.
It was desperately trying NOT to be a superhero movie,
Has a guy dressed in a costume, fighting crime. Seems like a superhero movie to me.
the scope of the characters that counts.
And TDK has AOU beat there.
the character was a run-of-the-mill nutjob who CLAIMED he was all about chaos, but was contradicted by his own actions and the staggering amount of planning ahead these events must have taken.
That's the point though. He intentionally contradicts his own nature, setting up a number of elaborate plans that have no real goal in sight aside from spreading chaos and eroding law. He creates a truly anarchistic atmosphere and brings out the worst in Gotham and its citizens. He comes off like a demon that can't be destroyed and makes it seem like he shouldn't be destroyed, like hes part of the natural order, the fully realized perception of humanity. The chaotic tone of the movie is a direct result of his character and he puts every single main character in TDK through the ringer.
And because there never was anything quite like him before.
Thats exactly how the Joker is treated in TDK except it applies to him far more.
Ultron by comparison is just another villain of the week, another stock bad guy with daddy issues.
then succeeding in finding a way to wipe them all out, this you find 'uninspired',
Why go to all the trouble of raising a country into the air when he could just nuclear launch codes like Skynet?
No, it only turned the entire world against the Avengers,
I guess he did technically but that plot point went by so fast, I completely missed it the last time I saw it and it didn't really impact the team in any way.
And how is global extinction not even scratching the surface
Compare what he did in AOU to what he did in Avengers Earths Mightiest Heroes. He turned the Avengers technology against them (not just a few Iron Man suits), held his own against the entire team without an army of disposable drones and nearly destroyed the world with nuclear missles all at the same time.
almost tore the team apart,
They got over it pretty fast. Yeah there was a lot of bickering, but there was no actual threat of the team splitting up.
Avengers like Wanda ? Or Steve ? Natasha ? Thor ? Vision ?
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes.
Both of them came out of that interrogation the same as when they went in,
Just like all the Avengers you said Ultron got close too.
The Joker mocking and taunting Batman, shrugging off his punches while laughing, revealing he has Rachel and Dent both set up to die and saying Batman has nothing to threaten him with, That's far more personal than anything Ultron did. share
You mean like Thor's pool scene? How exactly did that service the narrative? Or the sluggish Hawkeye family scene?
I agree about the pool scene, which could have been reworked completely, or made a bigger deal of (I would have preferred elaborating on it). In the end, it served to get Thor out of the way for one battle while swaying opinion on the creation of Vision at a crucial point. But it could have been handled better.
The Barton family scenes on the other hand are an integral part of the narrative from a character standpoint. A major theme from the movie is "what's everyone's place in the world".
*) Natasha feeling (actually saying) she has no place in the world.
*) Banner, exactly the same, which is also why these two so very naturally fit together.
*) Steve trying to figure out what 'home' means for him, feeling he'll never get there. (did you notice this shot of Steve ? http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2015-11-23-1448302924-3834633-the_searchers.jpg)
*) Thor and his insecurities about being away from Asgard and not having his eye on the ball, causing the deaths of everyone back home. From his first line it was clear he did NOT want to be here any longer than he had to.
*) Tony, whose drive to protect Earth (and the reason he needed Ultron in the first place), because he desperately wanted to stop fighting and go home.
*) the Maximoff twins, who always did everything they could to protect their home.
*) Ultron, who wanted to re-create the whole world in his image.
And along comes Clint, who actually has a normal home, wife, family, the whole nine yards. To paraphrase the the movie, in a team of both real and virtual gods, he's the tiny guy with the bow and arrow, yet he's the only one that actually has what everyone else wants, even needs; a home, a place in the world.
That wasn't a subplot or a detour from the story, That was the climax and it was and is still one of the most intense scenes in a superhero movie ever filmed.
The entire plot could have been cut with no impact on the rest of the story. The performances were being phoned in, and the whole thing was so incredibly predictable that I kept waiting for some twist that never came. Even the usually welcome addition of Tiny Lister only served to ram home the point they were about to make looooong before they actually made it. If you call that a climax, well.... I'm not even going there.
What do you mean? The bank manager was no more an important character than Klaue was.
Precisely, but they have him give a speech like he was the president in Independence Day.
the scope of the characters that counts.
And TDK has AOU beat there.
Not even remotely, so you might want to elaborate on that statement in your response below.
That's the point though. He intentionally contradicts his own nature, setting up a number of elaborate plans that have no real goal in sight aside from spreading chaos and eroding law. He creates a truly anarchistic atmosphere and brings out the worst in Gotham and its citizens. He comes off like a demon that can't be destroyed and makes it seem like he shouldn't be destroyed, like hes part of the natural order, the fully realized perception of humanity. The chaotic tone of the movie is a direct result of his character and he puts every single main character in TDK through the ringer.
That's indeed what the character is all about. I only wish the movie conveyed that a little more, since it looked like they pretty much banked on the audience having previous knowledge of this character, just so they could skip all that (or get other characters to exposition it away) and get to the "good" stuff.
Thats exactly how the Joker is treated in TDK except it applies to him far more.
Now you're just being silly.
Ultron by comparison is just another villain of the week, another stock bad guy with daddy issues.
You seem to understand characters in written (drawn) form pretty well, which I why I don't understand how you can miss all these things in movie versions of them. Maybe you should actually watch the movie again sometimes, and without any preconceived ideas about how bad everything non-DC is.
Why go to all the trouble of raising a country into the air when he could just nuclear launch codes like Skynet?
Because JARVIS was blocking him from doing so. You must have missed those numerous times they explained it throughout the movie. It was a complete plotline.
I guess he did technically but that plot point went by so fast, I completely missed it the last time I saw it and it didn't really impact the team in any way.
Not too fast for anyone actually watching the movie.
Compare what he did in AOU to what he did in Avengers Earths Mightiest Heroes. He turned the Avengers technology against them (not just a few Iron Man suits), held his own against the entire team without an army of disposable drones and nearly destroyed the world with nuclear missles all at the same time.
Is Avengers Earths Mightiest Heroes a cartoon or comic ? Is it a single story in which he was created as well ? My point is, the more time you have to tell a story the fuller it will be, but the movie is only so long.
Besides, narratively speaking nukes are lame, cop-out plot devices for anyone who can't think of a real threat to fit the characters.
They got over it pretty fast. Yeah there was a lot of bickering, but there was no actual threat of the team splitting up.
Is that why they split up at the end ? Because Banner left, Stark and Barton retired, Thor went home. That's most of the team walking away over this. And I'm not even going to mention the dead guy.
Avengers like Wanda ? Or Steve ? Natasha ? Thor ? Vision ?
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes.
Thank you.
Both of them came out of that interrogation the same as when they went in,
Just like all the Avengers you said Ultron got close too.
Yeah, Wanda was a scared girl, ashamed of what she'd done. Because of Ultron she lost her brother whom he shot while singing. In her rage she unleashed a lot more of the full potential of her powers, got really up close to Ultron, looked him in the eyes and ripped his core out. Yeah, pretty much the same...
The Joker mocking and taunting Batman, shrugging off his punches while laughing, revealing he has Rachel and Dent both set up to die and saying Batman has nothing to threaten him with, That's far more personal than anything Ultron did.
Why is holding your not-girlfriend and her boyfriend hostage more personal than having your only remaining family shot down ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kkcvHaiG_M
Fabricati Diem, Pvnc !
RIP Terry Pratchett share
And along comes Clint, who actually has a normal home, wife, family, the whole nine yards. To paraphrase the the movie, in a team of both real and virtual gods, he's the tiny guy with the bow and arrow, yet he's the only one that actually has what everyone else wants, even needs; a home, a place in the world.
The scenes still feel obligatory, mainly because they are.
The entire plot could have been cut with no impact on the rest of the story. The performances were being phoned in, and the whole thing was so incredibly predictable that I kept waiting for some twist that never came. Even the usually welcome addition of Tiny Lister only served to ram home the point they were about to make looooong before they actually made it. If you call that a climax,
It's the Jokers endgame. How exactly can you cut that from the story, It would be like they cut Ultron's flying country plan. Not only is it one of the most tense scenes in the movie, It's important to the Jokers overall philosophy of supposedly good people doing horrible things when the chips are down . I didn't find it predictable at all especially when the thug threw the detonator out the window.
So yeah, I do call it a climax and a damn good one at that.
but they have him give a speech like he was the president in Independence Day
So? That doesn't mean they make a big deal out of him.
so you might want to elaborate on that statement in your response below.
All of the characters in TDK have more interesting things to do then in Age Of Ultron.
Bruce has to deal with the consequences being Batman has brought to Gotham City, Harvey Dent sees his entire world destroyed and is shaped into a grotesque simplistic parody of himself, Gordon has to work on a unit with corrupt cops that eventually comes back to bite him in the ass, The Joker, inspired by Batmans example, spreads chaos while propagating than anyone can be just as bad as him when put in the right conditions.
Whats the point of Age of Ultron? What are the character arcs? who learns what in that movie? and more importantly whats the movies heart? Is it Hawkeyes family, the Hulk-Black Widow love story? It was entertaining but it really didn't feel like anything too important happened in it except for paying lip service to the themes that were explored in Civil War.
I only wish the movie conveyed that a little more
The movie conveyed that perfectly fine through the characters actions.
Now you're just being silly.
No, the whole "we've never seen anything like him before" mentality applies completely to the Joker from the characters in TDK. He's a new class of criminal, who doesn't want anything tangible and he caches everyone completely off guard.
Maybe you should actually watch the movie again sometimes, and without any preconceived ideas about how bad everything non-DC is.
I've watched the movie multiple times and my opinion hasn't changed. Ultron is pretty much just another villain of the week. Yes he was created by the good guys, Yes, hes interpreting his primary objective of attaining peace as killing humanity, but neither of those things are wholly original or even inspired. The only thing that really sets Ultron apart from mos generic MCU villains is that he has more character development by comparison.
Because JARVIS was blocking him from doing so.
Wasn't Jarvis destroyed?
Not too fast for anyone actually watching the movie.
Not really. We get one newscast in he quinjet and its never brought up again.
My point is, the more time you have to tell a story the fuller it will be, but the movie is only so long.
You can easily do all of that in one movie.
Is that why they split up at the end ?
Aside from Hulk (which was completely Wanda's fault), I didn't really get the sense that any of them left because of Ultron. Those were things they wanted to do anyway.
And I'm not even going to mention the dead guy
You mean the generic Russian guy with barely any lines of dialogue or presence in the actual story?
Thank you.
I meant that the Joker way closer to Batman in a personal way than Ultron did to literally any of the Avengers you listed, especially Thor or Captain America.
Wanda was a scared girl, ashamed of what she'd done.
She was like that for less than a minute before Hawkeye gave her a pep talk. So no Ultron wasn't responsible for that at all. Yeah he was responsible for killing her brother and making Wanda flare out in anger but the Joker basically did the same thing to Batman.
Why is holding your not-girlfriend and her boyfriend hostage more personal than having your only remaining family shot down ?
Because unlike Quicksilver, Harvey and Rachel are fleshed out characters the audience cares for. share
The scenes still feel obligatory, mainly because they are.
Another word would be 'essential'. Agreed.
Not only is it one of the most tense scenes in the movie, It's important to the Jokers overall philosophy of supposedly good people doing horrible things when the chips are down.
Yes, they explicitly told us that, even before those damn ships came into frame. So the whole thing became redundant.
I didn't find it predictable at all especially when the thug threw the detonator out the window.
Really ? You didn't see that coming ?
The moment the premise of the experiment was EXPLAINED, it became very obvious to anyone who ever saw a movie before that this would be the eventual outcome. Because ofcourse it was. Misdirect 101.
Like I said before, I was constantly waiting for a twist that never came, but unfortunately I was hoping for a gutterball to jump up at the end and knock the pins down anyway, so to speak.
This 'twist' reminded me of M Night Shamdjhkejfoiusan's movie "The Happening", where for the entire movie they were going "It's the trees ! It's the trees" and in the end it... really was the friggin' trees.
So? That doesn't mean they make a big deal out of him.
Overdoing it, is all I'm saying. Completely unnecessary. It was like the bit part of the shop keeper in Wayne's World 2, where they turned to the camera and went "can't we get a better actor for this ?" and then brought in Charlton Heston. Essentially spoofing this scene twenty odd years in advance.
All of the characters in TDK have more interesting things to do then in Age Of Ultron.

Bruce has to deal with the consequences being Batman has brought to Gotham City, Harvey Dent sees his entire world destroyed and is shaped into a grotesque simplistic parody of himself, Gordon has to work on a unit with corrupt cops that eventually comes back to bite him in the ass, The Joker, inspired by Batmans example, spreads chaos while propagating than anyone can be just as bad as him when put in the right conditions.
I saw the movie. You can interchange the names of the characters with those in similar movies, and the story would be the same. Nothing new.
Whats the point of Age of Ultron? What are the character arcs? who learns what in that movie? and more importantly whats the movies heart? Is it Hawkeyes family, the Hulk-Black Widow love story? It was entertaining but it really didn't feel like anything too important happened in it except for paying lip service to the themes that were explored in Civil War.
You should either watch the movie again or re-read some of my earlier posts, because we already went over this.
The movie conveyed that perfectly fine through the characters actions.
The movie conveyed that perfectly fine through the characters EXPOSITION. They told us, instead of showed us.
No, the whole "we've never seen anything like him before" mentality applies completely to the Joker from the characters in TDK. He's a new class of criminal, who doesn't want anything tangible and he caches everyone completely off guard.
Right...
The only reason the police (most everyone, really) in this movie are caught off guard, is because the plot required them to be dense as hell.
And this is actually one of my main gripes with these movies; the director has no respect for the intelligence of his audience and treats us like we have to be spoon fed everything.
The only thing that really sets Ultron apart from mos generic MCU villains is that he has more character development by comparison.
Nothing generic about any of them, that's just something people say when they don't understand them and get distracted by splosions.
Please be better than that.
Wasn't Jarvis destroyed?
Dude.... watch the damn movie.
NO, JARVIS WASN'T DESTROYED !
Not really. We get one newscast in he quinjet and its never brought up again.
That's right, they just went to Barton's place just to help out on the farm.
That's what you get when you get used to Nolan spoon feeding you the plot; the moment people stop talking about something, it doesn't exist anymore.
You can easily do all of that in one movie.
Yes, a boring one. There are about ten other characters with arcs of their own, who wouldn't get the time to be developed.
And why would you, remember what I said about the nuke ?
Aside from Hulk (which was completely Wanda's fault), I didn't really get the sense that any of them left because of Ultron. Those were things they wanted to do anyway.
First of all, Hulk didn't leave because of Wanda at all. Romanoff was the one who eventually drove him away, but only after everyone else had a go at him. He was constantly being taken advantage of, while every single one of his friends (except for Barton) has called him a monster at one point. He also felt helping to create Ultron made them right.
Tony left because the whole thing with creating Ultron and why made him realize he had to step away.
Thor left because Ultron represented the tip of the iceberg in a much larger threat he needed to learn about.
Barton retired to be with his family after Ultron almost killed him.
I meant that the Joker way closer to Batman in a personal way than Ultron did to literally any of the Avengers you listed, especially Thor or Captain America.
Batman and Joker were never personally close. Joker was just the latest force of destruction, Batman the token guy to stop him. The fact that they had a shouting match does not make them close.
You mean the generic Russian guy with barely any lines of dialogue or presence in the actual story?
You're talking about the catalist for Wanda's personal growth ? Yes, that guy. Got killed by Ultron, which is also a way of leaving the team.
She was like that for less than a minute before Hawkeye gave her a pep talk. So no Ultron wasn't responsible for that at all.
Yeah, she was fine before. Not even bothered by the fact that she helped the bad guy in destroying the world. There's that "no words = non-existent" spoon-fed mentality again. I'm going to think of a term for that.
Nolaned. You've been Nolaned.
Yeah he was responsible for killing her brother and making Wanda flare out in anger but the Joker basically did the same thing to Batman.
....Did Batman become more powerful because of something the Joker did ? How does that work ?
Because unlike Quicksilver, Harvey and Rachel are fleshed out characters the audience cares for.
Is that why Quicksilver was used by multiple studios in a very public rope-pulling contest about rights, while what's-her-name's actress didn't care enough to return for the sequel and had to be recast ? And having people randomly say things about a character like Harvey Dent (like what they conveniently called him in school) is not the same as 'fleshing out a character'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kkcvHaiG_M
Fabricati Diem, Pvnc !
RIP Terry Pratchett share
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/4306eda3-a013-45c3-aa16-f83a5543e506
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kkcvHaiG_M
Fabricati Diem, Pvnc !
RIP Terry Pratchett share
Another word would be 'essential'
As in you could cut them out of the movie and it would make no difference whatsoever.
So the whole thing became redundant.
Its one thing to tell someone, It's another thing to implement it and actually follow through on what you're talking about. That's what the boat scene was therefore Not Redundant.
Really ? You didn't see that coming ?
Honestly No. Wish I could say the same thing or Age of Ultron. I mean, Did you really expect Quicksilver to not die?
Overdoing it, is all I'm saying.
It's not even a speech, It's just a statement, that's it. At least he didn't break into an awkward, random tangent about cuttlefish.
You can interchange the names of the characters with those in similar movies, and the story would be the same.
I don't know what movie you saw but it sure as hell wasn't TDK. The story told could only be told with those characters.
The only reason the police (most everyone, really) in this movie are caught off guard, is because the plot required them to be dense as hell.
Not even remotely. The Joker is presented as being completely different from any common criminal Batman has faced before and they're caught off guard because of that.
As opposed to the Avengers facing yet another sarcastic would-be conqueror with daddy issues and an army of disposable drones.
Nothing generic about any of them, that's just something people say when they don't understand them
Malekith, Justin Hammer, Aldrich Killian, and Cross/Yellowjacket beg to differ.
That's right, they just went to Barton's place just to help out on the farm.
They went to the farm to regroup and recover after Wanda's mind-screwing, The issue of the world turning against goes by in an instant and is never brought up again at the end.
TDK did a much better job of showing the Joker turning Gotham against Batman than AOU did.
There are about ten other characters with arcs of their own, who wouldn't get the time to be developed.
Than heres an idea, Reduce the amount of characters.
Romanoff was the one who eventually drove him away, but only after everyone else had a go at him. He was constantly being taken advantage of, while every single one of his friends (except for Barton) has called him a monster at one point. He also felt helping to create Ultron made them right.
Which would never have happened if not for Wanda.
Tony left because the whole thing with creating Ultron and why made him realize he had to step away.
Thor left because Ultron represented the tip of the iceberg in a much larger threat he needed to learn about.
Barton retired to be with his family after Ultron almost killed him.
Didn't Barton say he was going to retire before the big fight with Ultron?
Okay fine, because of Ultron, The team parted in a cordial friendly way Oh the horror.
Compare that to the Joker who destroyed Harvey Dent, turned him into a monster, pushed Batman to both his mental and physical limits and forced him to sacrifice his reputation and take the blame for several murders to preserve Harvey's reputation.
Joker was just the latest force of destruction, Batman the token guy to stop him.
Thats exactly what Ultron was to the Avengers. The Joker on the other hand is the opposing force to Batman, His complete opposite obsessed with spreading chaos to undermine Batman's attempt at establishing order. He's not just another villain of the week, He's the ultimate consequence of Bruces attempt to inspire Gotham city through Batman.
The confrontation between these characters in the interrogation room was as perfect a confrontation between the characters of Batman and the Joker as you could ask for.
You're talking about the catalist for Wanda's personal growth ?
What personal growth? Ultron kills Quicksilver, Wanda gets angry, she kills Ultron. Thats all his death amounts too.
. Not even bothered by the fact that she helped the bad guy in destroying the world.
Yes, That was the case for all of a minute before she got a Hawkeye pep talk.
Did Batman become more powerful because of something the Joker did ?
He certainly became more driven and obsessed after what the Joker did as evidenced by the Sonar machine he built.
Is that why Quicksilver was used by multiple studios in a very public rope-pulling contest about rights,
That doesn't make him interesting or fleshed out. Quicksilver in AOU was boring, the superhero equivalent of a bland saltine cracker with an obviously fake accent.
Harvey Dent was by comparison an actual character that people cared about and thus, His tragic fate at the end resonates because of that share
As in you could cut them out of the movie and it would make no difference whatsoever.
I think you're not understanding the word 'essential'.
Its one thing to tell someone, It's another thing to implement it and actually follow through on what you're talking about. That's what the boat scene was therefore Not Redundant.
It's one thing to have a character follow through on his words, over and over and, say, over, it's quite another to spend a huge chunk of the movie ramming home a point you've already made several times. Especially if you're doing it in the most predictable manner imaginable.
Really ? You didn't see that coming ?
Honestly No.
I rest my case.
Wish I could say the same thing or Age of Ultron. I mean, Did you really expect Quicksilver to not die?
Yes, since at no point in the movie they even built up that he might, not until mere moments before he actually did. There was nothing to base that prediction on, so saying you expected it can only be called an inverted digestive speech disorder. Talking crap, in layman's terms.
What the movie WAS doing was constantly foreshadowing Barton's death, only to (obvious twist) have him survive. But that never had anything to do with Quicksilver.
It's not even a speech, It's just a statement, that's it.
A statement that went on and on and on and on until the entire audience stood up from their seats and started yelling at the screen for the Joker to just shoot the bastard already.
At least he didn't break into an awkward, random tangent about cuttlefish.
So, you missed the point of that one, didn't you ? Nothing random about it, he was taking away Wanda's power over him by just telling her his worst fear.
I don't know what movie you saw but it sure as hell wasn't TDK. The story told could only be told with those characters.
The way Nolan desperately tried to stay as far away from making this a comic book movie as he possibly could, it may well have been a Die Hard movie. All they would need to do is change a few names, maybe leave out some insane wardrobe choices, and literally nothing else. Having John McClane go through all this might actually have made it a better movie.
Not even remotely. The Joker is presented as being completely different from any common criminal Batman has faced before and they're caught off guard because of that.
You mean besides the other one with the scarecrow mask ? You know, the one that was more than just ruthless and nuts, but actually had a few things going for him as well, character wise ? Or the complete asylum of insane criminals that were released onto the streets a movie earlier ? None of them compared to this one run-of-the-mill terrorist claiming to be insane ? Joker should have been a walk in the park after all these guys. Unless your police force was either corrupt or monumentally stupid.
As opposed to the Avengers facing yet another sarcastic would-be conqueror with daddy issues and an army of disposable drones.
Sure, an ACTUAL threat. That's what a real comic book movie is about.
Malekith, Justin Hammer, Aldrich Killian, and Cross/Yellowjacket beg to differ.
Congratulations, you've managed to name some villains. That doesn't make them generic, it just means that they're even memorable to people that don't even like these movies, like you.
Romanoff was the one who eventually drove him away, but only after everyone else had a go at him. He was constantly being taken advantage of, while every single one of his friends (except for Barton) has called him a monster at one point. He also felt helping to create Ultron made them right.
Which would never have happened if not for Wanda.
Wanda never had anything to do with any of this.
Didn't Barton say he was going to retire before the big fight with Ultron?
No, he didn't.
Okay fine, because of Ultron, The team parted in a cordial friendly way Oh the horror.
Yeah, Banner even threw a going away party and everything.
Compare that to the Joker who destroyed Harvey Dent, turned him into a monster, pushed Batman to both his mental and physical limits and forced him to sacrifice his reputation and take the blame for several murders to preserve Harvey's reputation.
Yep, like a true terrorist Joker took credit for what other people did to themselves. He may have been a catalyst for some changes, but both Dent and Wayne ultimately made their own choices.
They went to the farm to regroup and recover after Wanda's mind-screwing, The issue of the world turning against goes by in an instant and is never brought up again at the end.
They didn't need to, the audience is trusted to understand this without having to bring it up every few minutes. A normal audience anyway...
TDK did a much better job of showing the Joker turning Gotham against Batman than AOU did.
Just stating it doesn't make it so. How ? Because last I checked, Batman turned the city on himself when he took the blame for Dent. And as the next movie showed, even after years of absence the city is still behind him, so it didn't even work.
There are about ten other characters with arcs of their own, who wouldn't get the time to be developed.
Than heres an idea, Reduce the amount of characters.
Too much for you ?
And why, just to make the plot lamer ?
Thats exactly what Ultron was to the Avengers. The Joker on the other hand is the opposing force to Batman, His complete opposite obsessed with spreading chaos to undermine Batman's attempt at establishing order. He's not just another villain of the week, He's the ultimate consequence of Bruces attempt to inspire Gotham city through Batman.
Maybe in the comics, but sure as hell not in this movie.
The confrontation between these characters in the interrogation room was as perfect a confrontation between the characters of Batman and the Joker as you could ask for.
And seen in every decent cop movie or TV show since they started adding sound to the reel.
What personal growth? Ultron kills Quicksilver, Wanda gets angry, she kills Ultron. Thats all his death amounts too.
Before his death, she completely relies on him, doubts herself and has only begun to learn to control her powers. When he dies, she explodes in raw emotion and lets go of all control, becomes much stronger and independent, and even FLIES before the movie is over. I'd call that considerable personal growth.
Yes, That was the case for all of a minute before she got a Hawkeye pep talk.
You, well not you, but the audience could see the first bit of doubt way back when they were with Klaue. Did it really take you the rest of the movie to pick up on that ?
He certainly became more driven and obsessed after what the Joker did as evidenced by the Sonar machine he built.
Well, they had to take it somewhere if they wanted to ram home yet another morality point in a movie already bloated with them. Still, there's nothing the Joker did to warrant that than what any other terrorist could have done better.
That doesn't make him interesting or fleshed out.
No, the script did.
Quicksilver in AOU was boring, the superhero equivalent of a bland saltine cracker...
I can see how you might think that, judging by all the things you missed about him.
...with an obviously fake accent.
Well, it's a fake country. Still, having been in the region Sokovia was supposed to be myself, it actually sounded pretty accurate.
Harvey Dent was by comparison an actual character that people cared about and thus, His tragic fate at the end resonates because of that
He wasn't so much a character, but more of a liquid filling a plot hole. As with all of these 'characters', they are so bent out of shape and molded to fit the plot, everything that made them resemble a well-rounded character in the first place is lost in the translation.
At least the Marvel movies have the guts to show actual characters interact, and organically form the plot around THEM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kkcvHaiG_M
Fabricati Diem, Pvnc !
RIP Terry Pratchett share
I think you're not understanding the word 'essential'.
Mainly because they're the complete opposite of the word
it's quite another to spend a huge chunk of the movie ramming home a point you've already made several times.
When exactly has the Joker made this point several times in TDK?. He's talked about it at every opportunity but the boat scene is where he actually puts his worldview into action.
Yes,
Really?, Hes the most generic character and he barely does anything the entire movie.
A statement that went on and on and on and on
No not really, It went on maybe a couple seconds.
Nothing random about it,
Yes it was random and it went on far longer than the Bank Managers statement.
The way Nolan desperately tried to stay as far away from making this a comic book movie as he possibly could, it may well have been a Die Hard movie.
The Dark Knight is built around the consequences of Bruce Wayne's decision to put on a mask and fight criminals. You couldn't tell the same story with John McClane. Just because it didn't throw in superficial comic to movie accuracy, just because it was also a crime drama does not mean TDK isn't a superhero movie. It clearly is top to bottom just set in a more grounded world. It's just as much a superhero movie as Batman Begins was.
Joker should have been a walk in the park after all these guys.
The Scarecrow was really just a second banana and he still held tangible goals (He wanted money) The Joker has no actual motivation beyond spreading chaos and eroding law, He can't be reasoned with, He's willing to put himself in danger time and time again to make sure his goals are met, He presents himself as a force of nature, a demon that can't be destroyed.
Crane and the inmates from Arkham are literally nothing when compared to him
Sure, an ACTUAL threat.
Kind of undermined his position when he got smashed to pieces over and over by the Avengers.
The Joker was most certainly a threat, a much more compelling threat as well.
That doesn't make them generic,
No, The fact that their generic makes them generic.
Wanda never had anything to do with any of this.
So if Wanda hadn't screwed with the Hulks mind, He would've still left in the quinjet to go on his merry way?
No, he didn't.
OK fine. Still that "retirement" didn't last very long considering hes back again in Civil War.
Yeah, Banner even threw a going away party and everything.
Well considering Steve, Tony and Thor don't even mention Banner at the end.
He may have been a catalyst for some changes, but both Dent and Wayne ultimately made their own choices.
You could say the exact same thing about all the Avengers you say Ultron effected (Hawkeye, Tony Stark, The Hulk)
Difference is what the Joker put Batman and Harvey Dent through actually feels like it mattered in shaping those characters.
They didn't need to, the audience is trusted to understand this without having to bring it up every few minutes.
Again, It goes by in literally an instant and is never referenced or brought up ever again. That plot point could've not been in the movie and it would make no difference.
How ?
When the Joker begins killing the fake Batmen and stating that people will die every day until Batman reveals his identity and turns himself in.
And why, just to make the plot lamer ?
If by lamer, You mean streamlined and not messy.
Maybe in the comics, but sure as hell not in this movie.
Sure as hell Yes in the movie. What did the Joker need to do to make him more than another "villain of the week" in your eyes?
she completely relies on him, doubts herself and has only begun to learn to control her powers.
She seems pretty sure of herself and in control when she attacks Captain America and screws with Tony's and later all the Avengers heads.
but the audience could see the first bit of doubt way back when they were with Klaue.
Maybe you could but its rather presumptuous to speak for an entire audience
Still, there's nothing the Joker did to warrant that than what any other terrorist could have done better.
The Joker still pushed Batman into desperation to track down and find him before any other innocent person was hurt. I doubt a common terrorist would've warranted that.
Theres nothing Ultron did that any other evil alien conqueror or malevolent AI could've done better.
No, the script did.
Well it spectacularly failed in that regard because Quicksilver was still boring.
I can see how you might think that, judging by all the things you missed about him.
Like what? He spends most of the movie as a villain and not a very interesting or intimidating one and then once he turns good, He spends the rest of the movie running around until he finally dies.
As with all of these 'characters', they are so bent out of shape and molded to fit the plot, everything that made them resemble a well-rounded character in the first place is lost in the translation.
The characters are just as well-rounded as they were in Batman Begins. Harvey Dent in particular was one of the best, His ultimate fate was vastly more tragic because unlike Quicksilver, He was a likable, interesting well-rounded character and not some plot device with a questionable accent.
At least the Marvel movies have the guts to show actual characters interact, and organically form the plot around THEM.
And the Dark Knight did exactly that. share
Mainly because they're the complete opposite of the word
Seems you're not understanding the movie either then.
When exactly has the Joker made this point several times in TDK?. He's talked about it at every opportunity but the boat scene is where he actually puts his worldview into action.
Pretty much every scene he was in before that one.
Really?, Hes the most generic character and he barely does anything the entire movie.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, how is that foreshadowing his death ? By that rational there wouldn't be anyone left by the time the credits roll on TDKR.
Yes it was random and it went on far longer than the Bank Managers statement.
Not at all. Klaue actually made a good tactical move, the bank guy was just 'heroically' dying for about four minutes.
Just because it didn't throw in superficial comic to movie accuracy, just because it was also a crime drama does not mean TDK isn't a superhero movie.
But that's EXACTLY what they did. The movie was about a terrorist questioning the morality of man, a good guy that gets corrupted, and a hero that finds himself going back and forth within that spectrum. At no point does the movie require any one of these guys to dress up in some sort of costume.
The Scarecrow was really just a second banana and he still held tangible goals (He wanted money) The Joker has no actual motivation beyond spreading chaos and eroding law, He can't be reasoned with, He's willing to put himself in danger time and time again to make sure his goals are met, He presents himself as a force of nature, a demon that can't be destroyed.
Crane and the inmates from Arkham are literally nothing when compared to him
Oh, they are ALL lame as hell bad guys. Just not all as lame as the Joker. Only Bane was lamer.
Kind of undermined his position when he got smashed to pieces over and over by the Avengers.
You're talking about how the Avengers couldn't even touch him ?
The Joker was most certainly a threat, a much more compelling threat as well.
You're being silly again.
No, The fact that their generic makes them generic.
Whose generic was this ?
So if Wanda hadn't screwed with the Hulks mind, He would've still left in the quinjet to go on his merry way?
Yes, he would have.
OK fine. Still that "retirement" didn't last very long considering hes back again in Civil War...
...where it immediately became a plot point. what's yours ?
Well considering Steve, Tony and Thor don't even mention Banner at the end.
No, but Romanoff and Fury do. So again, what's your point ? Should all of them have said something about Banner leaving for you to pick up on it ? Well, that would be a waste of screen time.
You could say the exact same thing about all the Avengers you say Ultron effected (Hawkeye, Tony Stark, The Hulk)
Ultron wasn't a catalyst, he was the Avengers' creation, their responsibillity. He never made the Avengers act on mere suggestion. It was all personal.
Again, It goes by in literally an instant and is never referenced or brought up ever again. That plot point could've not been in the movie and it would make no difference.
Remember how Civil War was pretty much entirely based on this ? Also, remember how the Avengers were perceived as the enemy by the people in Sokovia since pretty much the first frame of the movie, way before Ultron ? Really, watch the damn movie, it was all right there.
When the Joker begins killing the fake Batmen and stating that people will die every day until Batman reveals his identity and turns himself in.
That's just something he did, something they all do. That's not better, using that old chestnut only made him even more generic and bland.
If by lamer, You mean streamlined and not messy.
If by streamlined and not messy, you mean generic, predictable and boring...
What did the Joker need to do to make him more than another "villain of the week" in your eyes?
Be less flash, more substance. Actually raise the stakes.
She seems pretty sure of herself and in control when she attacks Captain America and screws with Tony's and later all the Avengers heads.
Sure, and you can see she's not in the other scenes she's in, when she's not fighting.
Maybe you could but its rather presumptuous to speak for an entire audience
I don't, I just speak from personal experience and from what I know from the manymanymanymanymanymanymanyMANY people I spoke to about this movie. All of them picked up on this, why not you ?
The Joker still pushed Batman into desperation to track down and find him before any other innocent person was hurt. I doubt a common terrorist would've warranted that.
Why not ? Happens all the time, in movies and in real life.
Theres nothing Ultron did that any other evil alien conqueror or malevolent AI could've done better.
Those aren't exactly in the same league as your terrorist, so what's your point ?
Well it spectacularly failed in that regard because Quicksilver was still boring.
Not at all.
Like what? He spends most of the movie as a villain and not a very interesting or intimidating one and then once he turns good, He spends the rest of the movie running around until he finally dies.
See ? You missed all of the character points and just focussed on the action stuff.
The characters are just as well-rounded as they were in Batman Begins. Harvey Dent in particular was one of the best, His ultimate fate was vastly more tragic because unlike Quicksilver, He was a likable, interesting well-rounded character and not some plot device with a questionable accent.
What was well-rounded about him ? He was never even likable, the movie even made a point of alluding to his duplicitous nature. He looked over-the-top badass only because he was constantly surrounded by cowards. Which makes no sense other than the plot needing this token to stand out somehow.
And the Dark Knight did exactly that.
Nope, it made characters fit the plot, not the other way around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kkcvHaiG_M
Fabricati Diem, Pvnc !
RIP Terry Pratchett share
Seems you're not understanding the movie either then.
I get why they're there, To make Hawkeye more interesting and give him things to do, doesn't make them an integral part of the story or how dragged out they are.
Pretty much every scene he was in before that one.
Where? Again it's one thing to talk about it, It's another thing to put it into action to actually prove it.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, how is that foreshadowing his death ?
A, It is true B, It wasn't exactly foreshadowed but it was still obvious
the bank guy was just 'heroically' dying for about four minutes.
He wasn't "dying" at all. He wasn't making a speech, He was just telling the Joker that whoever hired him would do the same to him (shoot him) as he had done to his fellow bank robbers.
The movie was about a terrorist questioning the morality of man, a good guy that gets corrupted, and a hero that finds himself going back and forth within that spectrum.
And that's a story that fits the world of Batman and his characters perfectly, Also whats this bull about characters not needing costumes, Batman/Bruces entire character in TDK revolves around the fact that he fights crime wearing a mask.
Oh, they are ALL lame as hell bad guys. Just not all as lame as the Joker. Only Bane was lamer.
Wrong on all counts. Most of the MCU villlains are unquestionably lamer.
You're talking about how the Avengers couldn't even touch him ?
And yet not only did the Avengers touch him, They took him apart several times over.
You're being silly again.
If by "silly" You mean truthful.
Yes, he would have.
So the Hulk rampage under Wandas influence was pretty much pointless then as was most of Banners character development in the Avengers? Good to know
That's not better, using that old chestnut only made him even more generic and bland.
You have really twisted definitions of "generic and bland", The Joker not only turned most of Gotham against Batman he nearly got Batman himself to reveal his identity and turn himself in.
No, but Romanoff and Fury do. So again, what's your point ? Should all of them have said something about Banner leaving for you to pick up on it ?
My point is that it really doesn't feel like Ultron really put the Avengers through any paces or effected them in a long-standing way. I mean yes because of him, Tony and Thor leave and the team restructures himself but you know those characters are going to be back for more movies.
Ultron wasn't a catalyst, he was the Avengers' creation, their responsibillity.
And as we've discussed before that drama is only lightly touched on, He doesn't have a personal standing or any kind of relationship to any of the Avengers because he turns evil the second hes turned on.
Remember how Civil War was pretty much entirely based on this ?
Civil War was based on what actually happend to Sokovia in the end, not the Hulk/Hulkbuster fight that supposedly turned the world against the Avengers.
Thats another criticism AOU didn't really have a point to it. It just touched on and paid lip service to themes that were explored more in-depth in Civil War.
you mean generic, predictable and boring
AOU already is each of those to varying degrees. At the very least if it followed my suggestion we'd have an intimidating villain.
Be less flash, more substance. Actually raise the stakes.
Thats exactly what the Joker in TDK, The chaotic atmosphere bringing out the worst in Gothams citizens is all a result of his character.
What exactly do you mean by "more substance"?
Sure, and you can see she's not in the other scenes she's in,
Where exactly does she give off the impression she unsure of herself and her powers? Shes pretty sure of herself when shes giving the Avengers nightmares.
Why not ? Happens all the time, in movies and in real life.
Aren't most costumed criminals technically terrorists in a sense? How is exactly is Ultron any less of a "terrorist" than the Joker is?
Not at all.
Nope, Quiksilver's still lame. boring and completely monotone in his line deliveries
You missed all of the character points
Like what? His generic dead parents backstory you could apply to any other character?
He was never even likable,
Are you kidding me? He was arguably the most likable character in the movie, A crusading, morally upright DA with unshakable faith in the legal system who sees everything he valued torn down and is twisted into a horrible mockery of himself.
How exactly is AOU's generic, monotone russian guy a more "well-rounded character" exactly?
it made characters fit the plot, not the other way around.
Like how? The characters of TDK are literally impossible not to invest in. share
There's a saying that pops up sometimes that seems to apply to you.
Arguing with fanboys is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good you are at chess the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious.
Glad I'm not a fanboy.
Anyway, it's useless to argue with you any longer, you haven't given me any substantial facts as a basis for your opinions, just your opinions. And by themselves they mean nothing, because they are just that; your opinions.
I should have heeded all the warnings before talking to you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kkcvHaiG_M
Fabricati Diem, Pvnc !
RIP Terry Pratchett share
it's useless to argue with you any longer, you haven't given me any substantial facts as a basis for your opinions, just your opinions. And by themselves they mean nothing, because they are just that; your opinions.
Thats exactly, word for word, what you've been doing. share
I'll explain...
It's because he's BANE
Tom Hardy's Bane is quite possibly the greatest comic book villain ever except for maybe Ledger's Joker.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
Tom Hardy's Bane is quite possibly the greatest comic book villain ever except for maybe Ledger's Joker.
Bane does not touch the Joker period! share
Bane does not touch the Joker period!
Probably would be the case, no matter what villain they went with. share
I might give the edge to the Joker as well but Bane is at the very least a close second.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
Oh my god spencermalley935 & Hippo, you're both downright delusional. Unlike a lot of other posters who hate this film (TDKR), I loved TDK (particularly Joker) & Bane isn't in the same universe... you're both just as biased against Burton as you accuse others of being against Nolan - Nicholson's Joker and yes, Pfeiffer's Catwoman & DeVito's Penguin are all miles better than Hardy's Bane. So is Murphy's Crane/Scarecrow for that matter - he was creepy as hell! Bane was comical by comparison...
The way he delivered this line in particular: "I AM the League of Shadows, and I'm here to fulfill Ra's al Ghul's destiny!" I was honestly laughing my ass off! It was far more comical than scary.
And why am I not surprised that detard is too stupid to realize it's all a matter of opinion?
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
Bane isn't in the same universe
Question, How familiar are you with the character of Bane? What is the best adaptation of the character outside of the comics that you've seen?
Nicholson's Joker and yes, Pfeiffer's Catwoman & DeVito's Penguin are all miles better than Hardy's Bane.
I disagree, I found Hardy's Bane to be way more compelling than Devito's disgusting bastardization of the Penguin and Jack Nicholson playing himself in clown make-up. share
I disagree, I found Hardy's Bane to be way more compelling than Devito's disgusting bastardization of the Penguin and Jack Nicholson playing himself in clown make-up.So what if Burton changed some things? Nolan did too - I always say WHO CARES? As long as the end result is awesome! share
This is the worst Bane moment in my opinion.
https://youtu.be/R4nbMlaFOgg
Bane doing an Adam Sandler impression.
Bane doing an Adam Sandler impression.Lol, "Gotham is youuuurs!" share