[quote]devilmanVISA wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
Why gas? Because it links back to Scarecrow’s fear gas, which was developed from the blue flower Bruce Wayne was sent to harvest by Ducard in Batman Begins. If the League of Shadows have a plant that can induce fear, why is it so hard to believe that they couldn’t create a stimulant or a natural antidote to the blue flower’s toxin that when taken on its own acts as a stimulant?
If movie Bane has ties to the League of Shadows, then he could have had the same training as Bruce, thus making him his equal. BW was a grown man when he started training in Begins, if Bane was brought up from birth with the League, then he could in many ways be Batman’s “superior”.
EDIT: Being a League “lifer” echoes his upbringing in prison…
Calling the mask “hokey” is again just being beholden to the comic for the sake of it. The inhalant angle is a solid one that’ll draw out the the defining qualities of the comic Bane. But of course you’ll hate this idea because it doesn’t adhere to every single detail of the comic.
Look closely at the second photo of Bane. There is a kind of mist/vapor/smoke trailing around him, and he is in what looks like a meditative pose.[/quote]
The fear gas was over and done in the first movie. To do it again would be repetitive. The same goes for the League of Shadows. Why continue to explore the same territory in a third film? Mist surrounding him? Seriously? Find me one shot of Gotham city at night where there is not some kind of mist or vapor in the air. The mist could also be a thematic device to indicate the mysterious nature of the character. But basing an entire premise for the story on the presence of water vapor in an obviously highly edited photograph released as part of a viral campaign is thin at best.
Nolan doesn’t strip away defining characteristics in the slightest. If you pay close attention, he leaves them out entirely. Where was the Joker’s origin story detailed in Nolan’s film? Was there any proof show to the audience that Ra’s al Ghul was not immortal? Nolan does not focus on the unbelievable or supernatural aspects of the characters. He simply chooses not to as it makes them more interesting. Sometimes, especially in film, less is more. The film maker can spend more time with story and character development if he does not get bogged down in the mindless inanity of origin exposition. As a self proclaimed film geek I’m sure you are more than aware of this.
Your post has a very condescending and argumentative tone to it. This is entirely uncalled for. The goal of my detailing the the character of Bane was to hopefully illustrate the clear difference between the identity of the actual character and the identity of the pop-culture recognized character; calculating tactician versus mindless thug. The mask itself does not appear hokey, but using a gas mask or vapor inhalation system could very well be. Be that as it may I’m not in any way beholden to the comics as canon. Its blindly obvious that a significant amount of dramatic license of content is necessary to make these movies work. To demand otherwise would be both irrational and asinine.
Personally, I could care less if its a gas versus another delivery system. My knee jerk reaction to that proposal is that it will make the character look comically grotesque, very much Doctor Mindbender, and not like a calculating predator. There are also the logistics to consider. A gas would require a tank of some sort. In order to be fairly self sufficient from a tactical standpoint in the event of being away from a safe house for extended periods of time your supply would have to be fairly significant. A gas can only be compressed so much before administration would become dangerous or even fatal to a human, so this container would need to be fairly large or have some sort of complicated vapor decompression chamber prior to inhalation, otherwise the gas under pressure could blow the mask right off his face or worse. The mask itself may not obscure his vision, but if it has a hose/nozzle/dispersal pipe hanging off then it could easily impede range of motion or reaction time. In addition, if you are going to be engaging an opponent face to face, would you not want the primary delivery route of your power source to be as far from that opponent as possible, i.e. on your back? Or on your face, which your opponent will clearly be trying to strike? You engage an opponent face to face, so putting your biggest liability directly in front of him while you fight is not tactically sound.
[/quote]
Couldn’t have said it better (seriously I couldn’t have)
