Bane vs Spock

Started by Galan00712 pages
Galan007 |Quantum Observer|

Originally posted by focus4chumps
im willing to accept that the pillars were intended to be concrete but the set design crew ****ed it up.
I agree.

Originally posted by Robtard
So indeed what we're arguing is what the director is trying to convey. Bane punching through a solid concrete pillar or Bane punching through the aesthetic facade of a pillar. I personally choose to believe the later from the crumbly and hollow look. Still makes Bane incredibly strong, but not super-human like Captain America or the like. I don't think it was ever Nolan's intention to introduce true super-humans in this universe.
I disagree. Punching through a thin layer of plaster-esque material does not make Bane look strong in the slightest, considering a pre-pubescent 12y/o girl on radiation therapy could likely do the same thing. I believe Nolan's intent was clear: to show the audience how fudging hard Bane can strike, via a close-up solo scene in which he punches holes in a concrete pillar after Batman had already moved. As f4c speculated: I'd honestly chalk the slab we see sluffing off in the film, solely to the set designers f*cking up.

Nolan clearly wanted the audience to see Bane punching holes in the pillar, in order to depict/convey his strength on screen. He[Nolan] isn't going to momentarily shift the entire focus of the film exclusively to Bane striking said pillar, if any random feeb could walk up to that same pillar and shred through it. The scene was specifically placed, because it has a specific purpose. IMO.

FrothByte Nailcutter Massacre

Originally posted by Galan007

Nolan clearly wanted the audience to see Bane punching holes in the pillar, in order to depict/convey his strength on screen. He[Nolan] isn't going to momentarily shift the entire focus of the film exclusively to Bane striking said pillar, if any random feeb could walk up to that same pillar and shred through it. The scene was specifically placed, because it has a specific purpose. IMO.

I don't know man. It's pretty hard to think that "Wow that guy punched through concrete" when the material he punched through doesn't look like concrete. Now if he had punched that "concrete" pillar and cracks started to form, that would have been more believable.

Galan007 |Quantum Observer|

I understand what you're saying. However, what is the point of specifically including a scene/feat in his film that most RW teenagers can replicate?

See what I mean? It'd make no sense to shift the focus of the film onto Bane, if punching through plaster was Nolan's intent.

BruceSkywalker The BatLord of the Jedi

so now peeps are crying about props that an actor or stuntman punched.. loloilolololololololololololololololololololololololol

FrothByte Nailcutter Massacre

Originally posted by Galan007
I understand what you're saying. However, what is the point of specifically including a scene/feat in his film that most RW teenagers can replicate?

See what I mean? It'd make no sense to shift the focus of the film onto Bane, if punching through plaster was Nolan's intent.

I'm not complaining about props. Because that would be stupid. I just don't think that pillar was meant to be fully concrete (regardless of what it was actually made of). I think that scene was supposed to show Bane's punching power, but showed it by him punching a pillar made of something else other than pure concrete (plaster maybe or something).

If they wanted to show him powerful enough to punch through concrete, they would have shown him punching through something that looked and behaved like concrete. Here, the showed him powerful enough to punch through... something that wasn't concrete.

Galan007 |Quantum Observer|

Originally posted by FrothByte
I'm not complaining about props. Because that would be stupid. I just don't think that pillar was meant to be fully concrete (regardless of what it was actually made of). I think that scene was supposed to show Bane's punching power, but showed it by him punching a pillar made of something else other than pure concrete (plaster maybe or something).

If they wanted to show him powerful enough to punch through concrete, they would have shown him punching through something that looked and behaved like concrete. Here, the showed him powerful enough to punch through... something that wasn't concrete.

But... It was a RL prop... Punched by a RL stuntman... In order to make RL holes. Obviously it's not really going to be made out of a material similar to concrete, because RL stuntmen... Can't punch through concrete. none

That's why we must look at what Nolan intended for the character of Bane. If you'd rather believe that his intent was to showcase Bane's strength by having him punch holes in a material that any sub-average human can [also] lay waste to, then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I sharply disagree, however.

FrothByte Nailcutter Massacre

Originally posted by Galan007
But... It was a RL prop... Punched by a RL stuntman... In order to make RL holes. Obviously it's not really going to be made out of a material similar to concrete, because RL stuntmen... Can't punch through concrete. none

That's why we must look at what Nolan intended for the character of Bane. If you'd rather believe that his intent was to showcase Bane's strength by having him punch holes in a material that any sub-average human can [also] lay waste to, then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I sharply disagree, however.

No my point is, if they wanted to make people believe it was concrete, then they would have made it appear and behave like concrete. Surely they have enough special effects budget to do that. The fact that they made the pillar behave like NOT concrete means that we're not supposed to think it's concrete.

Galan007 |Quantum Observer|

Again: If you believe Nolan's intent was to showcase Bane's strength by having him punch holes in a material that any sub-average human can [also] lay waste to, then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I sharply disagree, however.

Like I said earlier, I chalk that little snafu up to an oversight in the set/editing departments, more than anything else. If you don't think set designers or editors ever screw up in large-budget films, then you haven't watched many large-budget films. It happens all the time.

FrothByte Nailcutter Massacre

Originally posted by Galan007
Again: If you believe Nolan's intent was to showcase Bane's strength by having him punch holes in a material that any sub-average human can [also] lay waste to, then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I sharply disagree, however.

Like I said earlier, I chalk that little snafu up to an oversight in the set/editing departments, more than anything else. If you don't think set designers or editors ever screw up in large-budget films, then you haven't watched many large-budget films. It happens all the time.

Why does it have to be a material that sub-average humans can punch through? There are lots of materials that are hard enough that average people can't punch through them yet are not as hard as concrete. Standard wall backing and plaster is pretty hard (yet not impossible) to break.

Galan007 |Quantum Observer|

They can't/don't use wooden wall backing on cylindrical objects, so that's out of the question. If it was actually intended to be plaster, then they either used chickenwire or some type of fiber sheet as a base for the plaster... Materials of which can be punched through with relative ease.

So no, I don't believe Nolan intended for Bane to be punching through fragile materials.

Robtard Senor Member

Originally posted by Galan007
I disagree. Punching through a thin layer of plaster-esque material does not make Bane look strong in the slightest, considering a pre-pubescent 12y/o girl on radiation therapy could likely do the same thing. I believe Nolan's intent was clear: to show the audience how fudging hard Bane can strike, via a close-up solo scene in which he punches holes in a concrete pillar after Batman had already moved. As f4c speculated: I'd honestly chalk the slab we see sluffing off in the film, solely to the set designers f*cking up.

Nolan clearly wanted the audience to see Bane punching holes in the pillar, in order to depict/convey his strength on screen. He[Nolan] isn't going to momentarily shift the entire focus of the film exclusively to Bane striking said pillar, if any random feeb could walk up to that same pillar and shred through it. The scene was specifically placed, because it has a specific purpose. IMO.

Come on, while punching through the aesthetic facade isn't anywhere near as tough as it would be punching a hole in concrete, it's not something easily done by anyone. If you believe so, be by guess and find a like pillar and do it.

I don't buy the "they just ****ed up that prop, it was supposed to look more concrete-like", my reason being I don't believe Nolan ever intended for Bane to be truly super-human, just an immensely strong man, which we see with him cracking Batman's mask, picking him up and easily punching a hole in the outer layer of a pillar.

Galan007 |Quantum Observer|

Originally posted by Robtard
Come on, while punching through the aesthetic facade isn't anywhere near as tough as it would be punching a hole in concrete, it's not something easily done by anyone. If you believe so, be by guess and find a like pillar and do it.

I don't buy the "they just ****ed up that prop, it was supposed to look my concrete-like".

Plaster is still plaster, no matter what it's on-- and plaster with 'soft' backing, like chickenwire or fiber sheeting(as you've suggested), is obviously much easier to punch holes through than plaster with 'hard' backing, like wood-- of which the cylindrical pillars most certainly did not have. I'm not exaggerating(too much 😛) when I speak of its fragility. And tbh, if you think a layer of plaster as deep as the holes Bane made would ever be placed on a vertical surface in RL then, well, you're wrong. A coating of plaster that thick would crack to high hell and eventually sluff off under its own weight.

Okay, well I don't buy that Nolan's intent was to have Bane preform a feat that pretty much any average joe could replicate in RL. Like I said to the other fella: you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but please don't act like it's cut-and-dry.

FrothByte Nailcutter Massacre

Besides, if Bane was truly strong enough to plow through concrete, then he should have easily turned Batman's insides into mush every time he hit him. Heck the first time he hit Batman in the head Bruce's mask should have broken and he suffered a concussion.

DTM Senior Member

Keep in mind Bane was strong enough to lift (and walk with) Batman with one arm, without much effort showing. Not saying thats Spock level strength, but Id say its the movies way of continuing to show Bane is Incredibly Strong, Id say strong enough to punch those pillars apart as he did.

FrothByte Nailcutter Massacre
Originally posted by DTM
Keep in mind Bane was strong enough to lift (and walk with) Batman with one arm, without much effort showing. Not saying thats Spock level strength, but Id say its the movies way of continuing to show Bane is Incredibly Strong, Id say strong enough to punch those pillars apart as he did.

Carrying a man with one arm (I don't recall him lifting Batman over his head with one arm) is a feat that can be replicated by regular strongmen competitors and gymnasts. So still within the boundaries of human fitness.

Punching through a concrete pillar.... well I've yet to see humans do that.

Galan007 |Quantum Observer|

Originally posted by FrothByte
Besides, if Bane was truly strong enough to plow through concrete, then he should have easily turned Batman's insides into mush every time he hit him. Heck the first time he hit Batman in the head Bruce's mask should have broken and he suffered a concussion.
Body.Armor.

Aside from that, Nolan-Batman is able to endure physical rigors that would cripple most men. Case in point: falling from a multistory building onto a parked car without sustaining any injuries to speak of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEj_zGS1aTM
(4:00)

I can post more evidence if need be.

TheGodKiller True Killer
Originally posted by Galan007
Case in point: falling from a multistory building onto a parked car without sustaining any injuries to speak of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEj_zGS1aTM
(4:00)

Rachel withstood the same impact, and she wasn't protected by:
Originally posted by Galan007
Body.Armor.
TheGodKiller True Killer

Originally posted by Galan007

Not to mention that you didn't even take into account the possibility of his cape acting as a parachute(he's used it to glide before after all) to reduce their terminal velocity and thereby minimize the physical damage to both.

Which in all likelihood is the reason why Rachel was (relatively) unscathed as well.

ares834 Senior Member

While that is likely the impact still crushed the car's roof. It's still a great durability feat.

TheGodKiller True Killer

^1)We didn't actually see the car's collapsed roof at all in that scene.
2)They didn't land on its roof to begin with. That was the taxi's hood.
3)Rachel survived, and she wasn't covered from head to toe in solid titanium-reinforced body armor.