Knightfall 11, July 1993
I think this is much ado about nothing.
Posted on 07/17/2012 3:01:44 PM PDT by Kaslin
Holy propaganda, Batman!
Bane is not a new character. I looked him up on the great Internetz, and he first appeared in 1993. He was also in the 1997 “Batman & Robin” movie.
Seems like a coincidence, but perhaps he was cast as a villain for this reason. You never can tell anymore.
Knightfall 11, July 1993
I think this is much ado about nothing.
For the moviemakers this is just coincidence. I was in LA last September and saw some of the night filming and it was pretty exciting with police cars and etc. all marked ‘Gotham’ and someone mentioned ‘Bane’ as being the bad guy. I didn’t see him but just overheard the crew is all.
It’s the Dummycrats who are trying to spin whatever they can to avoid dealing with Obama’s failure to do anything with the economy and this is just a handy distraction. But don’t blame the movie.
I won’t be seeing it because I loathe most anything Hollywood does, but I do like to be fair about things.
Sorry, Rush... but: yeah. It is, in fact, totally coincidental.
Bane has been a major Batman villain for nearly twenty years, now... as any comics fan could instantly have informed you, had you only thought to ask first.
Uncommon sloppiness, from the normally reliable EIB Network. SHEESH!
Click on photos to go to FR articles explaining.
If anything, Bane as portrayed in this movie is a left wing nut who uses class warfare as a weapon. In an otherwise positive review, liberal film critic Peter Travers complained about “the reactionary politics” of the movie.
If anything, Bane as portrayed in this movie is a left wing nut who uses class warfare as a weapon. In an otherwise positive review, liberal film critic Peter Travers complained about “the reactionary politics” of the movie.
The script for this movie was written about two years ago.
Bane is a lab made monster created by the League of Shadows to get rid of Batman. They use all tools to destroy Gotham, including violence and “occupy” tactics. It’s not that they are left wing nuts, they use every tool they have to destory Gotham.
Okay, I’m a HUGE Batman fan and probably read way too much stuff about the movies.
For example, in The Dark Knight, the Joker represented terrorist and Batman president Bush. Notice at the end, Batman becomes “the bad guy” to fight the terrorist. (director Nolan made this comparison himself)
He takes the blame for Dent’s death and those Dent killed. This spurs the city to get really serious about crime to the point he, Wayne, “quits” being Batman. It’s so successful the mayor is going to broom Commissioner Gordon out of his office because he’s a “wartime commissioner” and now they have “peace”.
Of course, that doesn’t work out when eight years later Bane comes to town in another plot by the League to destory the city and Batman.
These aren’t spoilers, I’ve read most of the synopsis online.
So why did Hollywood cut GI Joe II until AFTER the election (specifically so)
GI Joe the all american hero.
Dark Knight the loner against the captitalist. (never mind he is a 1%er.
(this is very short)
BTW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yjI5238Zxc
Batman is the 1%
(for those in rio linda, this is funny if you know Batman’s secret identity)
Occupy Wallstreet, they are the 1% who do not bathe.
Is Rush being friggin serious here? LOL.
“Is Rush being friggin serious here? LOL.”
Must be contagious. Check out the review in the Bostonherald.com:
http://www.bostonherald.com/entertainment/movies/reviews/view.bg?articleid=1061146590&format=text
As for me, no contest:
Catwoman 1992: "Life's a b---h... now so am I!" 
Catwoman 2012: "My mother warned me about getting into cars with strange men". 
No question. The new version (as if they needed yet another "update" after the godawful 2004 Catwoman movie flopped) would wet her pants and run home to mommy if she meet the 1992 version in a dark alley.
That's what happens when you get lazy with your franchises and keep recycling the same villains and plots over and over again, Hollywood...
I’ll admit Anne Hathaway looks hot in that outfit.
Plus, the ideal Catwoman needs to be 1) sexy as hell, 2) able to stand up head-to-head to male characters and kick their ass. Hathaway utterly fails category #2. (and she did do a decent job stepping into Barbara Feldon's shoes as Agent 99 in the Get Smart movie)
I could have sworn I replied to this. I used some inappropriate terms so I guess.....
Anyway what I said was
A)Hathaway sure is (more artful term for attractive).
B)Both Nolan movies were on last night at the same time and I switched back and forth so I got to watch Batman’s (loose woman) love interest played by 2 different actress leave him (sexually frustrated), I hated that character.
C)My tv said the original Batman which I haven’t seen in years was also on but it was not on.
D)I was told that Rush Limbaugh was just repeating this Bane/Bain nonsense and that it didn’t come from him.
I was never that big on Michelle Pfeiffer, anyhow. I’m sorta torn on Hathaway. Sometimes she is hot, sometimes she’s a dork.
I saw that last Batman film with Maggie Gyllenhaal just once only within the past year or so. I recall reading something that was said during the film (by Aaron Eckhart ?)that her character was supposed to be really hot, but the audience reaction to the line was gales of laughter. Not that she’s a bad actress, but that they needed someone more attractive for the role (pre-Stepford Wife Katie Holmes again).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.