The better Dark Knight villain: Bane or Joker?

Originally posted by -Pr-
If you'd explained your interpretation properly, we souldn't have an issue.

I can agree that Darkseid is Superman's polar opposite. I've written as such before. I just think that nobody screws with Superman's very being, his very soul as much as Luthor does. You can beat up Darkseid, toss him in a boom tube and go home for tea, but Luthor is insidious. He sticks around. He gets in to your head in a way that DS really can't, imo.

I honestly don't remember King Hiss, tbh.

I was referencing your comments about Darkseid and how he sought to annihilate etc.

Originally posted by Robtard
Generally, an arch nemesis is singular. It also doesn't factor on "can beat up the hero" as the sole reason, as some here think.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Doomsday is a bigger challenge than Luthor who at this point Superman can defeat while sleepwalking.

It's been explained to you by me, PR and probably 2-3 other people in here; you're either just too dense or (far more likely) simply arguing for the sake of arguing cos you like doing this.

"Can beat up the hero" isn't the end-all; be-all for a villain to be an arch nemesis. Do your thing now.

PS, offer still stands. I'll email the PDF version of the comics if you like.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's been explained to you by me, PR and probably 2-3 other people in here; you're either just too dense or (far more likely) simply arguing for the sake of arguing cos you like doing this.

"Can beat up the hero" isn't the end-all; be-all for a villain to be an arch nemesis. Do your thing now.

PS, offer still stands. I'll email the PDF version of the comics if you like.

Bane's awesomeness came solely from the script and cinematography. Hardy brought nothing (and I do mean nothing) to the table in comparison with Ledger and the Joker. But then that's what happens when an actor's primary assets are concealed behind a mask and post-production vocal distortion. One might as well credit David Prowse with Vader's enduring reputation as the greatest of all film villains.

That said, Bane was considerably "more dangerous" than the Joker, who was only a threat insofar as Batman allowed him to be. But I understand why people would think otherwise, between the revelation of Talia and the fact that they set Batman up to be well past his prime.

Hardy was the only good thing about the movie.

No, Gordon-Levitt was. Bane was ultimately the best part of the movie, but Hardy really did nothing. His sole purpose was to stand there and be big and he couldn't even do that: they had to beef him up digitally. Really, they might as well have hired someone Dwayne Johnson's size.

Levitt brought absolutely nothing to the movie.

Nothing.

Less than nothing, in fact.

Levitt brought great acting to this film, which is something that short of Ledger, Murphy, and Neeson, this franchise has sorely lacked.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Levitt brought great acting to this film, which is something that short of Ledger, Murphy, and Neeson, this franchise has sorely lacked.

Get outta here.

Freeman and Caine are great actors; that doesn't mean everything they do is golden. Christoph Waltz was terrific in Inglourious Basterds but was downright silly in The Green Hornet.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Freeman and Caine are great actors; that doesn't mean everything they do is golden. Christoph Waltz was terrific in Inglourious Basterds but was downright silly in The Green Hornet.

What does that have to do with them being better actors in the Batman movies than Levitt's was.

What's nice is your apparent inability to read and form coherent thoughts.

I'm telling you that while Caine and Freeman are great actors, Levitt gave a better performance.

Yes, and I was telling you your analogy was inane because they were better than he was...

The analogy isn't inane, it works perfectly. They're great actors, Levitt did a better job this time around.

Except for the fact that he didn't.

Except for the fact that that's not a fact.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Bane's awesomeness came solely from the script and cinematography. Hardy brought nothing (and I do mean nothing) to the table in comparison with Ledger and the Joker. But then that's what happens when an actor's primary assets are concealed behind a mask and post-production vocal distortion. One might as well credit David Prowse with Vader's enduring reputation as the greatest of all film villains.

In my opinion you are completely wrong. Bane brought quite a bit to the part.

First off comparing the person who played Vader's body vs Hardy is incorrect because Hardy did both the body and voice for the character.

Secondly Hardy's movements and mannerisms added a huge part to making Bane menacing on screen. Something I think is attributed mostly to Hardy's acting of the character. IMO he turned in the best performance of the movie.

JGL is a great actor although he wasn't that great in this movie. He didn't really steal the show from any of the other actors he shared screen time with.

Hardy imo stole almost every scene he was in.

The fact of the matter is that my facts are factually factual.

Fact.

Originally posted by Newjak
In my opinion you are completely wrong.

If that's not an indictment of humanity in general, I don't know what is. Can't you see the futility of a mere child arguing with a god? uhuh

But seriously, different strokes and all that.

Hardy's physical acting was top-knotch, you ugly microphallus-having sodomite.