could Batman: Triumphant have saved the series?

[The Dark Knight]

I've never been one of the "if it deviates from the comics it's not good" audience (the opposite, I always loved the villains in Batman Returns), but having recently re-read Knightfall and re-watched The Dark Knight Rises - the latter version comes off like a weak shadow.

I know where you're coming from. Nolan's Bane doesn't escape from prison himself (this action is instead transferred to Talia). He discovers the truth about Dent by luck, and presumably Batman's identity from second hand information. Nolan's Bane does tick most of the boxes but feels somewhat castrated from the source.

That's why I think the original Knightfall incarnation is still the best. But indeed, he still manages to break Batman, let prisoners loose on the city, have Gotham cut off from the mainland and hold everyone for ransom with a nuclear bomb. His threat level never decreased against Batman either, because in his last moments he had a shotgun to his face.

Nolan's Bane is medicated with gas to soothe pain, purely to remain stable. When the gas is cut off he begins to lash out like a superhuman. Knightfall's Bane uses Venom to give himself an advantage. I find that contrast rather interesting because it serves a similar but different purpose. Hitting his mask is the equivalent of hitting the comic version's Venom tubes.

His costumes are markedly different to what he wears in the comics. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to you.

[The Laughing Fish]

I just don't.

I've never been one of the "if it deviates from the comics it's not good" audience (the opposite, I always loved the villains in Batman Returns), but having recently re-read Knightfall and re-watched The Dark Knight Rises - the latter version comes off like a weak shadow.

I've read the comic-to-screen analysis features from the day they were published in 2012, I've also read the posts by Silver Nemesis and The Dark Knight in this very same page of this thread about Nolan's Bane (I've always been more of a reader than a commenter anyway), I can see and respect the points, but to me it's not just a different character renamed as Bane - the entire plot of that film, his plan, and yes his comical dialogue, are just weak and not very good.

But, yes, it's maybe subjective and a matter of preference, as I said in my first mini-rant

That's fair enough Azrael. Personally, I found the unintentionally comical dialogue and Bane's goofy demeanor made him a bit more tolerable, but as you suggest, to each their own.

Nolan's Bane is medicated with gas to soothe pain, purely to remain stable. When the gas is cut off he begins to lash out like a superhuman. Knightfall's Bane uses Venom to give himself an advantage. I find that contrast rather interesting because it serves a similar but different purpose. Hitting his mask is the equivalent of hitting the comic version's Venom tubes.

My issue with that is the mask doesn't appear to be feeding him much oxygen anywhere else, other than by itself. For all the talk about "realism" and overexplaining how Batman can get his equipment, I was unimpressed with Bane's mask. It felt as if there wasn't much thought about how it actually works. At least in the comics, the Venom is hooked into a cable which automatically injects the substance into his bloodstream to make him stronger.

Nonetheless, Azrael's complaints about the plan is a good point. It makes me laugh how people can nitpick and ridicule Lex's plans in BvS and say it has so many plot holes, but if you question anything like TDK Joker or TDKR Bane's plans, they'll turn around and say "oh but if you have such a negative mindset and all films have plot holes". What utter tools.

[riddler]

Nonetheless, Azrael's complaints about the plan is a good point. It makes me laugh how people can nitpick and ridicule Lex's plans in BvS and say it has so many plot holes, but if you question anything like TDK Joker or TDKR Bane's plans, they'll turn around and say "oh but if you have such a negative mindset and all films have plot holes". What utter tools.

Absolutely. This is why I'm happier restricting my posts to this forum where people are more reasonable. You could honestly make a case for just about any bat-villain being altered. As mentioned, none are completely accurate but all contain elements from the comics.

Back to the topic at hand, a fifth film probably wouldn't have hurt the character but it could have- if Schumacher went dark and failed, WB would have concluded that the character is no longer marketable and likely nix anything further for a long time.

[Dagenspear]

Nonetheless, Azrael's complaints about the plan is a good point. It makes me laugh how people can nitpick and ridicule Lex's plans in BvS and say it has so many plot holes, but if you question anything like TDK Joker or TDKR Bane's plans, they'll turn around and say "oh but if you have such a negative mindset and all films have plot holes". What utter tools.

Absolutely. This is why I'm happier restricting my posts to this forum where people are more reasonable. You could honestly make a case for just about any bat-villain being altered. As mentioned, none are completely accurate but all contain elements from the comics.

I don't think that's true. Bane and Talia generally seem to have all of their bases covered. Talia has fostered a partnership with Wayne in the clean energy project for years. It's all about a general knowledge of the situation. Bane tampers with Bruce's records to make the board think Bruce has cost them money, to make it seem like Dagget will be able to takeover the company, to get Bruce to turn to Talia for help, so she can use that trust to find out where the fusion reactor is. And Bane threatens Catwoman to lead Batman to him. That's the plan. I think Lex's plan is more convoluted than that. As for Joker, his character flies by the seat of his pants. The only thing he seems to have any plan for is getting caught (which doesn't require much thought) and after Harvey Dent gets burned and that's pretty simple. The only really ridiculous thing about it is the criminals and civilians on separate boats thing.

[riddler]

Nonetheless, Azrael's complaints about the plan is a good point. It makes me laugh how people can nitpick and ridicule Lex's plans in BvS and say it has so many plot holes, but if you question anything like TDK Joker or TDKR Bane's plans, they'll turn around and say "oh but if you have such a negative mindset and all films have plot holes". What utter tools.

Absolutely. This is why I'm happier restricting my posts to this forum where people are more reasonable. You could honestly make a case for just about any bat-villain being altered. As mentioned, none are completely accurate but all contain elements from the comics.

I don't think that's true. Bane and Talia generally seem to have all of their bases covered. Talia has fostered a partnership with Wayne in the clean energy project for years. It's all about a general knowledge of the situation. Bane tampers with Bruce's records to make the board think Bruce has cost them money, to make it seem like Dagget will be able to takeover the company, to get Bruce to turn to Talia for help, so she can use that trust to find out where the fusion reactor is. And Bane threatens Catwoman to lead Batman to him. That's the plan. I think Lex's plan is more convoluted than that. As for Joker, his character flies by the seat of his pants. The only thing he seems to have any plan for is getting caught (which doesn't require much thought) and after Harvey Dent gets burned and that's pretty simple. The only really ridiculous thing about it is the criminals and civilians on separate boats thing.

The Joker is not supposed to be invincible and be able to overpower cops and criminals.

The lack of Venom alone is a departure from Bane's comic counterpart. The fact that he may have done things similar to the comics is irrelevant, Nolan departed from the source material just like the other directors. The fact that you can make the case that Schumacher's vision of Bane is closer to the comics than Nolan's vision should say something.

[Silver Nemesis]

The Joker is not supposed to be invincible and be able to overpower cops and criminals.

If the Joker wasn't capable of overpowering cops, there'd be no need for Batman. And if he couldn't overpower his fellow criminals, he wouldn't be the Clown Prince of Crime.

The fact that he may have done things similar to the comics is irrelevant

It's extremely relevant to the subject of comic accuracy.

Nolan departed from the source material just like the other directors.

True.

The fact that you can make the case that Schumacher's vision of Bane is closer to the comics than Nolan's vision should say something.

I suppose there is an argument to be made, but I don't think it's a strong one. The Schumacher Bane has Venom and is visually closer to the comic version. But other than that, the Hardy Bane more accurately reflects what Chuck Dixon and Graham Nolan intended the character to be.

Chuck Dixon:

"It's not exactly what I created, but he's physically imposing and Tom Hardy is one hell of an actor. I can't imagine Bane being better portrayed."

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/batman/news/a394758/dark-knight-rises-bane-creator-pleased-with-tom-hardy-portrayal/

Graham Nolan:

"I loved Tom Hardy as Bane. He captured the intelligence and menace of the character."

http://www.buffalospree.com/Blogs/Consuming-Passions/Annual-2012/A-Conversation-with-Graham-Nolan/

"I am thrilled with Bane's portrayal by Tom Hardy in "The Dark Knight Rises". He steals every scene he is in with his swagger and imposing presence."

http://www.filmdumpster.com/film-dumpster-exclusive-q-a-with-bane-co-creator-graham-nolan/

Graham Nolan on Schumacher's Bane:

"It's so monumentally bad, I won't waste my time. And the character in there...is NOT the Bane we created."

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/batman/bane-co-creator-graham-nolan-discusses-the-dark-knight-rises-version-of-the-a56821

The essence of Bane, according to Dixon and Nolan, is to be Batman's physical and intellectual equal. The Hardy Bane, while not 100% true to the comics, embodies that concept better in the context of Nolan's universe than the Schumacher Bane does in the context of his universe. If people like the Schumacher Bane better, that's absolutely fine. But when the men who originally conceived the character, and who are still creating his stories in 2018 (see Bane: Conquest), state that one interpretation is truer to their concept than another, then that decisively concludes the debate regarding which interpretation best reflects the creators' intent.

But once again, if people enjoy the Schumacher Bane more, and if that incarnation better suits their personal view of what they think the character ought to be, then that's fine. Nobody's preferences need be dictated by comic accuracy, or lack thereof.

[The Laughing Fish]

Graham Nolan certainly appreciates Tom Hardy's performance as Bane, but he otherwise went on to voice his disappointment in ALL of the Batman movies:

They've never made a Batman movie. The Christopher Nolan movies, it's James Bond movies. If you substitute Batman for James Bond and Q for Morgan Freeman's character, it's the same story. We never see Batman as the world's greatest detective. He always solves everything with technology, and it's not even technology he created. It's given to him by some other guy. And that's the biggest beef I have with these Batman movies.

Source: http://www.cbr.com/sdcc-oneil-dixon-jones-celebrate-batman-in-the-80s-and-90s/

[Dagenspear]

The Joker is not supposed to be invincible and be able to overpower cops and criminals.

The lack of Venom alone is a departure from Bane's comic counterpart. The fact that he may have done things similar to the comics is irrelevant, Nolan departed from the source material just like the other directors. The fact that you can make the case that Schumacher's vision of Bane is closer to the comics than Nolan's vision should say something.

I don't think he's displayed as invincible (he just has the resources), but even if he was, I think that's a different issue than what I was addressing in mu post. Every version is going to be different certainly and while as far as bell and whistles go, Bane is more accurate, but the bells and whistles aren't the character, much like Dinah Drake, Black Siren and Sara Lance on Arrow not being BC just because of fighting skills and a canary cry. As far as Bane, the movie did a version of what the comics do. Instead of super-steroid, it was a drug for pain. It's not a huge change as far as alterations go. Not that I'm hugely offended by B&R's version or anything.

[The Dark Knight]

The Joker is not supposed to be invincible and be able to overpower cops and criminals.

To me, the Joker is much like Han Solo. He a human being without any powers but he makes the impossible possible. He flies by the seat of his pants and find a way to make things happen. Landing the Falcon after coming out of light speed, and staying low to avoid radar? No problem, we'll work it out. Taking off from inside a freighter at light speed? I don't know if it'll work and if I'll survive, but I have to get out of here now. These actions can be viewed as reckless, but through their fearlessness and self-confidence they create their own luck.

The lack of Venom alone is a departure from Bane's comic counterpart.

You're right, of course, but the concept of Venom is still there - it just serves a different purpose. We still see Bane lashing out like a madman, but not because he wants to. The gassed up Bane is shown to be strong and intimidating without the need for steroids. Honestly, there's no point even comparing Jeep Swenson's version to Hardy. I think Clooney hits Bane on the head with an object and that's enough to put him down. Hardy's Bane is shown to be a monster in combat. Without the mask weakness, I'm sure he would've beaten Batman a second time.

[riddler]

I want to clarify my last point. I am not saying that Jeep Swenson's Bane was the more accurate portrayal to Hardy's, I was only stating the argument could be made. I definitely think Nolan got the character more accurately than Schumacher did but Nolan's work is not beyond criticism.

That's great that the character's portrayal was well received by the creator but that doesn't mean he was sincere. Bob Kane stated his favourite Batman movie was Batman and Robin, likely because that was the last one made before his death. Lou Ferrigno and Stan Lee spoke highly of the 2003 Hulk film at the time before the 2008 film was deemed the more accurate portrayal of the character. Some creators are just happy seeing their work brought to life and will take any incarnation.