This movie was dumb. In order to entertain myself, I would very loudly remark on the "amateurs" in this movie, and how some scenes were "f***in unbelievable, man". After the big finale, I shouted that somebody "just got their lights trashed" and earlier exclaimed that "Liam Neeson gotta eat".
My hijinks during the film were the highlights of the entire theatre-going experience.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Some say that time is cyclical and that history inevitably repeats. My will is my own. I won't bow to fate."
Well that's my point - it's not Nolan's fault for screwing anything up, or Hathaway's for not selling it properly - it's the character itself. She's an indulgent character without any real faults who's obviously designed to appeal to an audience.
Is it just me, or is catwoman/selina kyle one of the most painful Mary Sues ever?
Three of the most important traits of a Mary Sue character are that (a) she overcomes all or most of the obstacles in the plot even if it's more plausible that another character would; (b) she doesn't do anything wrong or make any mistakes; and (c) she doesn't develop because she's already perfect. None of these traits can be found in Hathaway's Selina Kyle.
Contrary to (a), Selina overcomes only those plot obstacles which suit her well-established skillset: she's a good fighter, great seductress, and peerless burglar. When she teams up with Batman, they share the spotlight - their attack on the sewers is a strict alternation between Batman takedowns and Catwoman takedowns. And everything she does plays a supporting role. The major challenges are taken on by Batman. For example, a typical Mary Sue move would have been to get Bruce out of the prison by having Selina show up to drop him a rope; but of course Bruce got out on his own.
Contrary to (b), Selina makes huge mistakes. She lures Batman into a cagematch with Bane, for God's sake! After that brutal beating, it's really astonishing how Nolan managed to preserve any audience sympathy for Catwoman at all; I think he only makes it work with the cuts to her face as she watches. She knows she's done something monstrous.
And contrary to (c), Selina develops as a character. Her outlook at the beginning of the movie may be succinctly summarized as "**** the One Percent", and she talks about their imminent downfall with malicious glee. If she were a Mary Sue, this outlook would be objectively correct, and the movie would set about proving it with all the subtlety of a brick to the face. But it's not correct. She realizes, once she's actually seen the revolution, that she feels empathy for the people who were cast down, and that her earlier beliefs were terribly wrong.
Conclusion: Selina Kyle is a strong, smart, sympathetic female character. These are good things. She does not inhabit an implausible, immersion-breaking role in the world or plot the way a Mary Sue does. None of what you say persuades me otherwise: the traits you identify are ones that a Mary Sue can have, certainly, but they're not traits that make a Mary Sue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The only two nitpicks I had with the whole movie that really stand out upon just recently watching it are how the hell does JGL know that Bruce is Batman?
Huh?
The Real suspension of disbelief is how do Gordon and most of the smarter people in Gotham NOT know that Bruce is Batman?
Three of the most important traits of a Mary Sue character are that (a) she overcomes all or most of the obstacles in the plot even if it's more plausible that another character would; (b) she doesn't do anything wrong or make any mistakes; and (c) she doesn't develop because she's already perfect. None of these traits can be found in Hathaway's Selina Kyle.
Contrary to (a), Selina overcomes only those plot obstacles which suit her well-established skillset: she's a good fighter, great seductress, and peerless burglar. When she teams up with Batman, they share the spotlight - their attack on the sewers is a strict alternation between Batman takedowns and Catwoman takedowns. And everything she does plays a supporting role. The major challenges are taken on by Batman. For example, a typical Mary Sue move would have been to get Bruce out of the prison by having Selina show up to drop him a rope; but of course Bruce got out on his own.
Contrary to (b), Selina makes huge mistakes. She lures Batman into a cagematch with Bane, for God's sake! After that brutal beating, it's really astonishing how Nolan managed to preserve any audience sympathy for Catwoman at all; I think he only makes it work with the cuts to her face as she watches. She knows she's done something monstrous.
And contrary to (c), Selina develops as a character. Her outlook at the beginning of the movie may be succinctly summarized as "**** the One Percent", and she talks about their imminent downfall with malicious glee. If she were a Mary Sue, this outlook would be objectively correct, and the movie would set about proving it with all the subtlety of a brick to the face. But it's not correct. She realizes, once she's actually seen the revolution, that she feels empathy for the people who were cast down, and that her earlier beliefs were terribly wrong.
Conclusion: Selina Kyle is a strong, smart, sympathetic female character. These are good things. She does not inhabit an implausible, immersion-breaking role in the world or plot the way a Mary Sue does. None of what you say persuades me otherwise: the traits you identify are ones that a Mary Sue can have, certainly, but they're not traits that make a Mary Sue.
Fair enough - I considered after I posted it that Mary Sue might not be exactly the wording I'm looking for - I prefer "indulgent" so I'll stick with that. That said, your 3 bullet points aren't exactly the universally agreed pon definition of a mary sue, which is partly what makes it a bad choice of words on my part - everyone's got their own opinion on what makes a Mary Sue.
When I say she's "indulgent", what I mean is this-
She does way too many things to be likable. You bring up the part where shebetrays batman, which is one thing going against this (and since you used the plural, I'm hoping you can come up with more than one) - but she apologized/repented/felt crappy/gave bruce some action to make up for it. But that's not really the reason why I don't think that plot point discredits by whining - she's not necessarily a "good" character. When she steals bruce's car, the audience wasn't mad at her for screwing over bruce - she's not trying to appeal to the audience that way, because it's not effective (which is also why no one likes superman anymore - pure goodness is just boring. you know, like the opposite of heroin). She's trying to be a lovable rascal, personality-wise, and while tricking batman into the cage match was certainly a bit beyond being a rascal, it's not nearly as difficult for the target audience to swallow as compared to if she was trying to be 100% good, and it's basically 100% mitigated by the aforementioned feeling crappy.
This is a stupid thing to reference, but I'll do it anyway - in the 2nd pirates of the carribean movie, jack sparrow also sells out the "main character" to the baddy to resolve a personal debt. How many people really hated him after that moment? I doubt hardly anyone. Because he's not trying to be the knight in shining armor - that's not how he's appealing to the audience. That's what Bloom was trying to do, and it was super boring. Sure, his antics (sweet jesus, is it possible to talk about this without using old-person words? eesh) set the hero back, but we know the main character will be able to handle it.
True, Catwoman's betrayal hit a bit harder than sparrow's (and wasn't played for comedy as much), but there's also nothing else I can think of that really gets anywhere near that moment in terms of character flaws for catwoman.
Besides that, my issue isn't so much that she got nothing "wrong", but that she got too many things "right" - and I'm using quotes because too many things right feels manipulative and stops being right at all. It's like teenagemutant ninja turtles - how many "cool" things do you need to pile onto one character to make sure the audience likes them?
-She's a thief. right out of the gate, this is a very overused thing for an anti-hero to be, because it's criminal, but not TOO criminal, so tons of characters try to use that role to appeal to the audience. One thing I love about the show Breaking Bad is that its main characters go a few steps further and (OH GOD SPOILERS) sell meth (WHEW), which is a lot, lot edgier. How many people have EVER disliked a character for being a thief because it was too edgy? Freaking nobody. It's the most obvious audience-appeal-driven profession since secret agent.
-She comes from a poor family where things were tough, and she had to be hard to survive, etc etc. Again, really overused way to explain misanthropic behavior (like theft, and I suppose betrayal) and get audience sympathy points. Even though it doesn't really explain any of her current behavior which is clearly not based on need, it's thrown in there for audience sympathy. And I may have misunderstood what she said having only seen it once, but in what crazy version of the US are kids starving to death in the streets? I mean, adults maybe, but kids? c'mon. (again, though, only going off memory, but I think I remember her saying that she was starving and needed to steal as a kid. What is this, Agrabah?)
-she wears skin-tight fetishy whatevers. Obviously this has mostly to do with catwoman as a character, and not her role in the film, specifically. The skintight suit is such a silly cliche, though. And I daresay I don't need to specify who it panders to.
-she exploits her sexuality...yeah, same as above.
-she always gets the cute one-liner, and always seems to know what's going on, be one step ahead of everyone, etc. Everyone likes a smart-ass.
-despite being a klepto, she eventually comes around and helps save the day! I mean hell, she kills bane (oh, another major pet peeve of mine - the out-of-nowhere last-second intervention from certain death) and has a big role in killing Talia. She's almost as big of a hero as Batman. If there's one thing an audience likes more than a bad boy/girl, it's a bad boy/girl who gets all philanthropic in the 11th hour to reaffirm our opinion that they were really good all along, and were just misunderstood or whatever.
-somehow she's a pro batcycle rider without any practice and barely any instruction. This is getting nitpicky, but c'mon, no one is going to be comfortable with that weird sideways spinning tire thing right off the bat. But she's never allowed to look foolish, so sure, she can drive it no problem.
I'm not saying she doesn't change - she does, sure. I'm not saying she hogs the spotlight, because she doesn't. I'm saying she's too obviously designed to pander to the audience.
sidebar - this is one of my bigger complaints about "strong female roles" in a lot of stories trying to be progressive - they try to hit too many positive qualities and it ends up being too easy to see what the author is doing. But that's a different, much longer discussion.
This movie was dumb. In order to entertain myself, I would very loudly remark on the "amateurs" in this movie, and how some scenes were "f***in unbelievable, man". After the big finale, I shouted that somebody "just got their lights trashed" and earlier exclaimed that "Liam Neeson gotta eat".
My hijinks during the film were the highlights of the entire theatre-going experience.
I'm very glad that we had different viewings in different theatres. Hadeth someone pulleth such disordinance in my theatre, we would have come to fisticuffs
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Credit to Five-Handed Lizard Shop for the amazing Sig. Link
DirkGently, if I'm reading you correctly, your core complaint seems to be that Catwoman is well constructed as a likeable character. You say that elements of her character are "overused", but saying that costumed criminals are overused in superhero stories is like saying that horses and revolvers are overused in western stories. These are building blocks of the genre, not clichés. A cliché is a story element that, through lazy use, draws attention to itself as a story element and thus pulls the audience out of their immersion in the story. For example, when you read the line "It was a dark and stormy night...", you do not imagine a dark and stormy night; you just recognize that line as a line. But, as you say, Catwoman's character has audience appeal. We like to watch her be sexy and snarky and thiefy; these qualities pull us into her story, not out of it. So it doesn't matter how many times we've seen them before. As long as they continue to appeal to us, they cannot be clichés.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
SpatulaoftheAges: I'm not saying he's unintelligent. The muscle need not be unintelligent.
What I am saying is that he's bland. There isn't anything that he has going for him in terms of character traits aside from being the big, intimidating, evil guy who's intimidating because he's evil and big.
i don't think the sense of the city under anarchy and being run with kangaroo courts a la the French Revolution Was well portrayed. The mood failed. It was just a city under occupation. They didn't convey the idea that the "have nots" actually enjoyed society being turned on its head.
Agreed. That was a huge missed opportunity.
As I said earlier, if Bane can take control of the stock market computers, thereby giving him access to "everyone's money," why did he even need the bomb plot? That's all he needs to destabilize everything! Just rip a giant hole in the stocks and watch as pandemonium ensues.
Hell, that would be MORE interesting, wouldn't it? Because then it wouldn't just be another "criminals taking over Gotham" situation, it would be the people of Gotham being responsible for Gotham's instability. It would be the complete eradication of order and justice and everything Batman stands for, not by the people Batman fought against, but by the people Batman FOUGHT FOR.
Hell, you can even have the bomb plot then, because it would be Bane saying once and for all, "See that, Batman? The League of Shadows was right all along, and you were wrong. Gotham can't be saved."
But such a plot would actually need to have thematic unity with the previous movies. Not just flashbacks or shout-outs, but an actual thematic tie-in. It would require The Dark Knight Rises to be, as the previous films were, a dialogue between Batman and the main villain about the nature of justice. This is why Ra's al-Ghul was interesting! This is why The Joker was interesting! This is why Two-Face was interesting! They were all foils of Batman, and a fight between them and Batman is a fight between Batman's ideals and their views with regards to justice.
But instead we just have Talia wanting revenge and Bane going along for the ride. That's Spiderman bull****.
I'm glad they explored Batman during the time they explored Batman, but MAN, did they screw the pooch on the villain for this picture. Sorry Bane, someday you'll get a good adaptation.
See, dimir, this is exactly what I'm talking about:
If you're going to do the bomb plot, do the bomb plot. If you're going to make Bane a Communist revolutionary, do that. But don't do both! That's excessive and dumb and my brain tunes out because no coherent thought is happening.
Quote from dcartist »
Huh?
The Real suspension of disbelief is how do Gordon and most of the smarter people in Gotham NOT know that Bruce is Batman?
Because Bruce Wayne is, to all public perception, an alcoholic, a rake, an idiot, a spoiled child, and a media whore.
If someone said that Charlie Sheen was in fact a master spy, would anyone believe it?
DirkGently, if I'm reading you correctly, your core complaint seems to be that Catwoman is well constructed as a likeable character. You say that elements of her character are "overused", but saying that costumed criminals are overused in superhero stories is like saying that horses and revolvers are overused in western stories. These are building blocks of the genre, not clichés. A cliché is a story element that, through lazy use, draws attention to itself as a story element and thus pulls the audience out of their immersion in the story. For example, when you read the line "It was a dark and stormy night...", you do not imagine a dark and stormy night; you just recognize that line as a line. But, as you say, Catwoman's character has audience appeal. We like to watch her be sexy and snarky and thiefy; these qualities pull us into her story, not out of it. So it doesn't matter how many times we've seen them before. As long as they continue to appeal to us, they cannot be clichés.
I would reword your first sentence as:
DirkGently, if I'm reading you correctly, your core complaint seems to be that Catwoman has been artlessly constructed to (attempt to) be a likeable character by throwing on as many positive attributes as possible without giving her any believable depth.
Personally I dislike things like having an anti-hero be a thief, or having the female thief be sexy, or having her wear a skintight suit, and it DOES draw me out of the story because of overuse, so yes, it's a cliche to me. Apparently she does have audience appeal, though, because I keep hearing that people like her. I'm saying that as an observation of people's response to her, not that I think it was good character construction.
Batman is, in the stark light of reality, sort of a silly character, but he makes sense in the universe he's in. He's got a backstory that mostly explains his motivations and goals and why he likes to dress up and why he's such a badass. Catwoman gets a few sentences as a party that really don't explain anything. If she grew up poor, how come she fights like jason bourne instead of a street thug? How'd she get those high-tech glasses without her own R&D department? Why is she whining about the 1% when she's clearly stolen enough to get herself squarely into that bracket? Because bourne-style fights are cooler to watch than street thugs, because high-tech spy glasses are cool, and because whining about the 1% is topical and cool. She's got no depth, just a bunch of "positive" qualities stapled together in the hopes that something sticks.
Being in a costume is part of the genre, sure. That said, want to do a count of how many female superheroes have costumes whose primary function seems to be to highlight their sexual characteristics compared to the men? Yeah, I thought not. Part of the genre, sure. Does that excuse the genre for taking lazy routes to appeal to its target demographic? Not in my opinion.
And the same problem is what I have against the character of catwoman as a whole - she goes with the easiest, laziest, tried-and-truest ways to make her appeal to the audience instead of trying something original, edgy, or inspired.
SpatulaoftheAges: I'm not saying he's unintelligent. The muscle need not be unintelligent.
What I am saying is that he's bland. There isn't anything that he has going for him in terms of character traits aside from being the big, intimidating, evil guy who's intimidating because he's evil and big.
Agreed. That was a huge missed opportunity.
Huh? Where did you all get the impression that Talia planned everything and Bane was just the muscle?
We're merely told that Miranda Tate is Talia, and that it was all an elaborate ruse to get Bruce to develop the very thing that would destroy Gotham. We are never told who created the plan. Could it have just been Talia? Sure, but that's a baseless assumption. Simply taking the fact that Talia is a hidden villain behind it all to mean that Bane is nothing more than a henchman doesn't work.
I actually found Bane to be interesting because of how he inspires zealous, fanatical really, loyalty from his men. Could that have been explored a bit more? Yes, but the way men really don't seem to care to die for his cause made him fascinating to me.
Another key characterization that I enjoyed from Bane is how he's characterized as the embodiment of power and evil in the first and second act of the film, and then suddenly we see that he's actually none of it the moment he sees Batman return.
Remember everything he says when he sees the giant bat symbol burning on the bridge? When he meets Batman in front of the courtroom and his actions when Batman damaged his mask? He goes from being a cool, calculated man who seems to have everything under control (I
particularly enjoyed his swagger) to a man who's blinded by panic and fear. He seems absolutely demoralized by the fact that Batman not only survived the beating, but also escaped from the pit. Instead of bouncing off Batman's hit as though they're nothing and brutalizing Batman, he fights messy. He's literally swinging blind once the pain kicks in when the mask fails.
He claimed that he is the League of Shadows, much like how Ra's Al-Ghul was, but push comes to shove, Bane reveals that he's nothing like Ra's. Ra's Al-Ghul went to his death without showing even an ounce of panic or fear. Bane became fearful the moment he saw Batman return.
Hence the reason I find the whole "Rise" part rather fitting. Batman not only rose from defeat; he rose to conquer fear(characterized by Bane) itself.
And the same problem is what I have against the character of catwoman as a whole - she goes with the easiest, laziest, tried-and-truest ways to make her appeal to the audience instead of trying something original, edgy, or inspired.
Eh, Nolan needs to work with the source material. He went with Frank Miller's interpretation of Catwoman, and that happens to be a sexy femme-fatale who also protects whores and other low-caste women.
At least Nolan decided to ignore the part where Selina Kyle is a whore herself.
As for her combat style. It's ripped straight from the recent Batman: Arkham City game. It doesn't explain how Catwoman has an high-tech goggle and fights like a trained pro either.
Gotta keep in mind that Nolan needs to work with source material and with not enough time to explain each and everything =/
Personally I dislike things like having an anti-hero be a thief, or having the female thief be sexy, or having her wear a skintight suit, and it DOES draw me out of the story because of overuse, so yes, it's a cliche to me.
Question: Should writers stop writing stories about thieves, sexy women, or costumed heroes? Should Catwoman be an ugly meth dealer in a T-shirt or something? What do you want?
Apparently she does have audience appeal, though, because I keep hearing that people like her. I'm saying that as an observation of people's response to her, not that I think it was good character construction.
So actually explain why her character is constructed poorly. And in doing so, please avoid referring to "overuse"; popularity doesn't make a good trait bad any more than it makes a bad trait good.
Batman is, in the stark light of reality, sort of a silly character, but he makes sense in the universe he's in. He's got a backstory that mostly explains his motivations and goals and why he likes to dress up and why he's such a badass. Catwoman gets a few sentences as a party that really don't explain anything. If she grew up poor, how come she fights like jason bourne instead of a street thug? How'd she get those high-tech glasses without her own R&D department? Why is she whining about the 1% when she's clearly stolen enough to get herself squarely into that bracket? Because bourne-style fights are cooler to watch than street thugs, because high-tech spy glasses are cool, and because whining about the 1% is topical and cool. She's got no depth, just a bunch of "positive" qualities stapled together in the hopes that something sticks.
You're really stretching. It's implausible that a woman built like Anne Hathaway would avoid street-thug brawling and learn some judo? It's implausible that she'd resent the 1% because she's rich... and implausible that she'd have high-tech gear because she's not rich? If you're determined to dislike these things just because they're cool, I think that's a silly sort of contrarianism but it's your prerogative. However, to say that they're only there because they're cool, and are unjustified otherwise, is simply wrong.
Being in a costume is part of the genre, sure. That said, want to do a count of how many female superheroes have costumes whose primary function seems to be to highlight their sexual characteristics compared to the men? Yeah, I thought not. Part of the genre, sure. Does that excuse the genre for taking lazy routes to appeal to its target demographic? Not in my opinion.
Yes, there are many female superheroes with stupid sexualized costumes. And in the past Catwoman has certainly been one of them. But this incarnation isn't. Imagine a male hero in the equivalent of Catwoman's costume: a plain black bodysuit and goggles. Then ask yourself again if the primary function of the costume is to highlight sexual characteristics. It's sexy because Anne Hathaway is sexy, not because it's got gratuitous cleavage or bared skin or other sexualizing design elements. Captain America, in his skintight costume, is just as sexy if you bat for that team. (The one ridiculous thing about Catwoman's costume is the heels, which the film is self-aware enough to joke about.)
And the same problem is what I have against the character of catwoman as a whole - she goes with the easiest, laziest, tried-and-truest ways to make her appeal to the audience instead of trying something original, edgy, or inspired.
Originality is not a virtue. Something can be original and suck. The only important question is whether Catwoman works as a character. And, while I'm certainly not arguing that she's the next Hamlet, she does work. She has a believable inner life that leads her on an emotional arc over the course of the movie, entertaining us in the process.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
i think i will have to view it again, but this time just focus less on batman and more on the others in the movie and try and see if i can see what others saw which made the movie better for them then it was for me
and i think selina's goggles were more to give her the cat ear look when she had them flipped up over her head, to imply catwoman without saying it
I'm saying they didn't focus on ANY of the characters we care about. Not Batman, not Fox, not Alfred, not even Gordon. Those are the four characters who matter! Go back and write me a story that has to do with them.
Explain how Bane's plan makes any sense at all and isn't ridiculous and stupid.
Let's see, hold the city hostage breaking Gotham's spirit thus breaking Batman's spirit...yeah, sounds like his plan from the comic books. I can't make it work for you (just like the Dent thing), I won't try to make it work for you, but, in the end, it does indeed work. especially by the logic of the entire trilogy.
When you're done doing that, please explain the most ridiculous thing of all, which is the idea that,
Bruce Wayne cannot climb a wall when a child could on her first try.
Seriously, BRUCE WAYNE, a trained ninja who climbed a damn mountain before he was ever trained by the League of Shadows, cannot make a jump? Are you kidding me?
Because the girl had the need to survive while Wayne had not yet discovered his need to go on living. It was explained in the film.
Huh? Where did you all get the impression that Talia planned everything and Bane was just the muscle?
It's not even necessarily that. It's that Bane has no personality beyond his physical intimidation.
It is revealed that Bane is doing this out of love for Talia, and that at least gives him SOME motivation as opposed to just doing this out of the sake of doing it, but that's never explored just as nothing about Bane is ever explored.
I actually found Bane to be interesting because of how he inspires zealous, fanatical really, loyalty from his men. Could that have been explored a bit more?
By a bit more, you mean at all? Yes, it could have. Anything about Bane could have.
Another key characterization that I enjoyed from Bane is how he's characterized as the embodiment of power and evil in the first and second act of the film, and then suddenly we see that he's actually none of it the moment he sees Batman return.
No, you see, that's not characterization. What you're describing is how anything established about Bane got subverted. That's the opposite of characterization. That's called inconsistency and contradiction.
Remember everything he says when he sees the giant bat symbol burning on the bridge? When he meets Batman in front of the courtroom and his actions when Batman damaged his mask? He goes from being a cool, calculated man who seems to have everything under control (I
particularly enjoyed his swagger) to a man who's blinded by panic and fear. He seems absolutely demoralized by the fact that Batman not only survived the beating, but also escaped from the pit. Instead of bouncing off Batman's hit as though they're nothing and brutalizing Batman, he fights messy. He's literally swinging blind once the pain kicks in when the mask fails.
Yeah, because his mask gives him a painkiller that allows him to function, which he needs at all times. What's your point?
Question: Should writers stop writing stories about thieves, sexy women, or costumed heroes? Should Catwoman be an ugly meth dealer in a T-shirt or something? What do you want?
So actually explain why her character is constructed poorly. And in doing so, please avoid referring to "overuse"; popularity doesn't make a good trait bad any more than it makes a bad trait good.
What DirkGently misses is the fact that Catwoman is at least as much Grifter as thief. She's a world class grifter partly because her looks and charisma allow her to take advantage of people, especially men.
We know she's a good cat burglar, but based on the movie we don't know if she's truly great at safe cracking, since Bane & company gave her the tools she needed to dust for prints and crack the safe to make it look like the goal was the pearls. Though a minor plot hole is why did she leave the dust? After being give this devilishly clever fingerprint theft plan, they didnt have cleaning up the residue as part of the plan? Youd think a person constructing that particular plan would naturally think of wiping the dust or prints. Bruce didn't catch her in the safe. He caught her checking out the arrows and target. Of course she might have meant to go back & clean it, as I said, minor.
You're really stretching. It's implausible that a woman built like Anne Hathaway would avoid street-thug brawling and learn some judo? It's implausible that she'd resent the 1% because she's rich... and implausible that she'd have high-tech gear because she's not rich? If you're determined to dislike these things just because they're cool, I think that's a silly sort of contrarianism but it's your prerogative. However, to say that they're only there because they're cool, and are unjustified otherwise, is simply wrong.
I don't think that the speech about the 1% necessarily has anything to do wirh Catwoman's raison d'être, at least based on what the movie reveals. She is a masterful flirt, and its precisely the thing to say to throw a billionaire guy like Bruce Wayne off balance, and take him down a notch, so they can verbally spar as equals (in reality he is a billionaire philanthropist and she is a thief... In her jabs at him, she challenges him as "living large" while she is "Robin Hood" which puts him below her on the scale of things). As I said the line didn't sound sincere or sensible coming from her character, and it sounds more to me like recognizing how to push Wayne's buttons. Doesn't really even take a master to recognize that in Bruce, based on public knowledge and reading his body language as they talk.
Yes, there are many female superheroes with stupid sexualized costumes. And in the past Catwoman has certainly been one of them. But this incarnation isn't. Imagine a male hero in the equivalent of Catwoman's costume: a plain black bodysuit and goggles. Then ask yourself again if the primary function of the costume is to highlight sexual characteristics. It's sexy because Anne Hathaway is sexy, not because it's got gratuitous cleavage or bared skin or other sexualizing design elements.
Except for the 9 inch heels which no human can realistically run in. Sure they can be weaponized in situations but doesnt compensate for the downsides of heels that high.
But we know that she is not a superhero. She is a woman who knows how to play men, in order to slip in and out of high society. Why she always has her goggles & ears in her purse everywhere she goes... thats more of a plot hole and mystery.
Did she wear the same catsuit everywhere she appeared? Like a uniform? Seems like the practical aspect of the catsuit is she's gotta fit it into a tiny clutch (whih she didnt carry with her) or under her outfit. So it has to be skin tight. But where can she carry an alternate pair of 6+ inch heels and her mask? Did she switch the shoes when she went into costume? Because wearing a pair of Jimmy Chu stiletto heels to a party, then later as cateoman are gonna be a dead giveaway, that at least half the female witnesses would immediately notice. Shoes? Yeah, my wife would recognize her in a heartbeat if she didn't change her shoes.
Frankly I wasn't even paying attention to all that, because I didn't care and wasn't thinking about that plot hole. She's Catwoman, its a Batman movie, and you gotta suspend your disbelief. But I don't remember her carrying a clutch, let alone a purse, for extra shoes. Minor hole of non-importance for a superhero movie.
Captain America, in his skintight costume, is just as sexy if you bat for that team. (The one ridiculous thing about Catwoman's costume is the heels, which the film is self-aware enough to joke about.)
not only has to perform in them (impossible) she has to conceal them when she's not Catwoman, but have them nearby for access. And Balaclava makes so much more sense than the mask.
Originality is not a virtue. Something can be original and suck. The only important question is whether Catwoman works as a character. And, while I'm certainly not arguing that she's the next Hamlet, she does work. She has a believable inner life that leads her on an emotional arc over the course of the movie, entertaining us in the process.
I totally agree.
She has the skills of a grifter as much as she is a thief, but I don't think that grifting is something she loves, just a means to enhance her theft and other things she loves. The only question for me is whether she is capable of staying with Bruce long term, and for the time frame of the film, it doesn't matter. It seems perfectly reasonable that she found a kindred spirit in Bruce that "gets" her.
As for her training and past, they are never revealed so it's hard to claim they contradict anything.
She is appealing partly because she (like Black Widow) directly exploits & winks at men's expectations of women. Of course this movie and Avengers are completely different movies in a zillion different ways, but you can help but compare gorgeous superheroines in skin tight black uniforms who went from a life of crime to being heroes.
I look at whether a female superhero (in the men in tights genres) "works" based on whether (1) she is there just to fit what the boys enjoy as a fantasy sidekick or whether (2) she is super sexy kick ass implausible idealized fantasy hero for a girl to identify with kicking ass in this fantasy, along with the boys.
I think (2) incorporates (1) most of the time.
My wife enjoyed the movie the most of the Batman movies as well. She had a similar opinion to me on most of it on individual parts, though she enjoyed all the Batman movies somewhat less than I did (she was ok with but often bored by 1, fascinated by Joker in 2, but otherwise bored to indifferent to most of the the rest... And liked 3 for a superhero movie and loved Selina Kyle, and was happy to see Bruce Wayne be a real person being himself rather than a badly acted fake... And bored a bit by the saggy first half. I liked Batman 1... I loved Ledger in Batman 2 and overall enjoyed/tolerated the rest of the too long last 1/3 and the silly superfluous side plots that were supposed to set up the theme of the "dark knight/white knight" in which I never felt much conviction from Nolan... And 3 was quite enjoyable and satisfying as a superhero movie, tying everything up, pretty ambitious, with a very charming & enjoyable Catwoman, and FINALLY a convincing Bruce Wayne. Never achieved the dizzying height of Ledger's joker, but that was Magic in a bottle and the man is dead. Bane's presence was underwhelming even without comparing him to Joker, though this didn't spoil the movie since this was a batman movie, not a bane movie).
Let's see, hold the city hostage breaking Gotham's spirit thus breaking Batman's spirit...yeah, sounds like his plan from the comic books. I can't make it work for you (just like the Dent thing), I won't try to make it work for you, but, in the end, it does indeed work. especially by the logic of the entire trilogy.
You notice how there isn't a stupid ass fusion bomb plot in Knightfall.
Because the girl had the need to survive while Wayne had not yet discovered his need to go on living. It was explained in the film.
It's also ****ing stupid if you apply an iota of thought to it. The girl was what? Seven? Batman can't out jump a seven-year-old?
It's also ****ing stupid if you apply an iota of thought to it. The girl was what? Seven? Batman can't out jump a seven-year-old?
the things you haven't considered are
(1) the wall has crumbled some and pieces do fall off it (as we see a few times) so it might not be in the same shape as it was when she climbed.
(2) being smaller and lighter, she may have been able to jump that one gap from a closer position from a smaller more delicate platform (what you think a 7 year old uses the same hand and footholds as an adult male on a crumbly rock wall?)
(3) there may be a "leap of faith" that Bruce has to jump there, but it may be a different gap in a different place than the one that Thalia jumped.
Bruce constructs the visual narrative that the audience sees with his imagination, including Thalia's leap, based on the verbal descriptions he is told. Thus he imagines a boy jumping before he knows it was a girl. He imagines the jump as exactly the place where Bane jumped (not Thalia). But the way that pit is constructed, there are probably many leaps, and gaps, which are designed to be difficult for different sized people in different ways. Areas that would be impossible for a small person to leap might have tiny handholds that won't support a big person, etc.
The characters may explain it one way, as a single gap that Bruce can't overcome, by that is Bruce's unjumpable gap. Thalia's challenges and "unjumpable gaps" may have been different in reality. Certainly a handhold that won't support Bruce, would support a 7 year old. A handhold that also may have crumbled in 20+ years.
My hijinks during the film were the highlights of the entire theatre-going experience.
Volrath the FallenB Empress GalinaU Oona, Queen of the FaeBUAgrus Kos, Wojek VeteranRW
Well that's my point - it's not Nolan's fault for screwing anything up, or Hathaway's for not selling it properly - it's the character itself. She's an indulgent character without any real faults who's obviously designed to appeal to an audience.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Three of the most important traits of a Mary Sue character are that (a) she overcomes all or most of the obstacles in the plot even if it's more plausible that another character would; (b) she doesn't do anything wrong or make any mistakes; and (c) she doesn't develop because she's already perfect. None of these traits can be found in Hathaway's Selina Kyle.
Contrary to (b), Selina makes huge mistakes. She lures Batman into a cagematch with Bane, for God's sake! After that brutal beating, it's really astonishing how Nolan managed to preserve any audience sympathy for Catwoman at all; I think he only makes it work with the cuts to her face as she watches. She knows she's done something monstrous.
And contrary to (c), Selina develops as a character. Her outlook at the beginning of the movie may be succinctly summarized as "**** the One Percent", and she talks about their imminent downfall with malicious glee. If she were a Mary Sue, this outlook would be objectively correct, and the movie would set about proving it with all the subtlety of a brick to the face. But it's not correct. She realizes, once she's actually seen the revolution, that she feels empathy for the people who were cast down, and that her earlier beliefs were terribly wrong.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm glad I saw it but and there were some nice surprises, but man..some big disappointments too.
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
The Real suspension of disbelief is how do Gordon and most of the smarter people in Gotham NOT know that Bruce is Batman?
Fair enough - I considered after I posted it that Mary Sue might not be exactly the wording I'm looking for - I prefer "indulgent" so I'll stick with that. That said, your 3 bullet points aren't exactly the universally agreed pon definition of a mary sue, which is partly what makes it a bad choice of words on my part - everyone's got their own opinion on what makes a Mary Sue.
When I say she's "indulgent", what I mean is this-
This is a stupid thing to reference, but I'll do it anyway - in the 2nd pirates of the carribean movie, jack sparrow also sells out the "main character" to the baddy to resolve a personal debt. How many people really hated him after that moment? I doubt hardly anyone. Because he's not trying to be the knight in shining armor - that's not how he's appealing to the audience. That's what Bloom was trying to do, and it was super boring. Sure, his antics (sweet jesus, is it possible to talk about this without using old-person words? eesh) set the hero back, but we know the main character will be able to handle it.
True, Catwoman's betrayal hit a bit harder than sparrow's (and wasn't played for comedy as much), but there's also nothing else I can think of that really gets anywhere near that moment in terms of character flaws for catwoman.
Besides that, my issue isn't so much that she got nothing "wrong", but that she got too many things "right" - and I'm using quotes because too many things right feels manipulative and stops being right at all. It's like teenage mutant ninja turtles - how many "cool" things do you need to pile onto one character to make sure the audience likes them?
-She's a thief. right out of the gate, this is a very overused thing for an anti-hero to be, because it's criminal, but not TOO criminal, so tons of characters try to use that role to appeal to the audience. One thing I love about the show Breaking Bad is that its main characters go a few steps further and (OH GOD SPOILERS) sell meth (WHEW), which is a lot, lot edgier. How many people have EVER disliked a character for being a thief because it was too edgy? Freaking nobody. It's the most obvious audience-appeal-driven profession since secret agent.
-She comes from a poor family where things were tough, and she had to be hard to survive, etc etc. Again, really overused way to explain misanthropic behavior (like theft, and I suppose betrayal) and get audience sympathy points. Even though it doesn't really explain any of her current behavior which is clearly not based on need, it's thrown in there for audience sympathy. And I may have misunderstood what she said having only seen it once, but in what crazy version of the US are kids starving to death in the streets? I mean, adults maybe, but kids? c'mon. (again, though, only going off memory, but I think I remember her saying that she was starving and needed to steal as a kid. What is this, Agrabah?)
-she wears skin-tight fetishy whatevers. Obviously this has mostly to do with catwoman as a character, and not her role in the film, specifically. The skintight suit is such a silly cliche, though. And I daresay I don't need to specify who it panders to.
-she exploits her sexuality...yeah, same as above.
-she always gets the cute one-liner, and always seems to know what's going on, be one step ahead of everyone, etc. Everyone likes a smart-ass.
-despite being a klepto, she eventually comes around and helps save the day! I mean hell, she kills bane (oh, another major pet peeve of mine - the out-of-nowhere last-second intervention from certain death) and has a big role in killing Talia. She's almost as big of a hero as Batman. If there's one thing an audience likes more than a bad boy/girl, it's a bad boy/girl who gets all philanthropic in the 11th hour to reaffirm our opinion that they were really good all along, and were just misunderstood or whatever.
-somehow she's a pro batcycle rider without any practice and barely any instruction. This is getting nitpicky, but c'mon, no one is going to be comfortable with that weird sideways spinning tire thing right off the bat. But she's never allowed to look foolish, so sure, she can drive it no problem.
I'm not saying she doesn't change - she does, sure. I'm not saying she hogs the spotlight, because she doesn't. I'm saying she's too obviously designed to pander to the audience.
sidebar - this is one of my bigger complaints about "strong female roles" in a lot of stories trying to be progressive - they try to hit too many positive qualities and it ends up being too easy to see what the author is doing. But that's a different, much longer discussion.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I'm very glad that we had different viewings in different theatres. Hadeth someone pulleth such disordinance in my theatre, we would have come to fisticuffs
Credit to Five-Handed Lizard Shop for the amazing Sig.
Link
Standard: MBC
EDH:
Kaalia
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What I am saying is that he's bland. There isn't anything that he has going for him in terms of character traits aside from being the big, intimidating, evil guy who's intimidating because he's evil and big.
Agreed. That was a huge missed opportunity.
Hell, that would be MORE interesting, wouldn't it? Because then it wouldn't just be another "criminals taking over Gotham" situation, it would be the people of Gotham being responsible for Gotham's instability. It would be the complete eradication of order and justice and everything Batman stands for, not by the people Batman fought against, but by the people Batman FOUGHT FOR.
Hell, you can even have the bomb plot then, because it would be Bane saying once and for all, "See that, Batman? The League of Shadows was right all along, and you were wrong. Gotham can't be saved."
But such a plot would actually need to have thematic unity with the previous movies. Not just flashbacks or shout-outs, but an actual thematic tie-in. It would require The Dark Knight Rises to be, as the previous films were, a dialogue between Batman and the main villain about the nature of justice. This is why Ra's al-Ghul was interesting! This is why The Joker was interesting! This is why Two-Face was interesting! They were all foils of Batman, and a fight between them and Batman is a fight between Batman's ideals and their views with regards to justice.
But instead we just have Talia wanting revenge and Bane going along for the ride. That's Spiderman bull****.
I'm glad they explored Batman during the time they explored Batman, but MAN, did they screw the pooch on the villain for this picture. Sorry Bane, someday you'll get a good adaptation.
See, dimir, this is exactly what I'm talking about:
Because Bruce Wayne is, to all public perception, an alcoholic, a rake, an idiot, a spoiled child, and a media whore.
If someone said that Charlie Sheen was in fact a master spy, would anyone believe it?
I would reword your first sentence as:
Personally I dislike things like having an anti-hero be a thief, or having the female thief be sexy, or having her wear a skintight suit, and it DOES draw me out of the story because of overuse, so yes, it's a cliche to me. Apparently she does have audience appeal, though, because I keep hearing that people like her. I'm saying that as an observation of people's response to her, not that I think it was good character construction.
Batman is, in the stark light of reality, sort of a silly character, but he makes sense in the universe he's in. He's got a backstory that mostly explains his motivations and goals and why he likes to dress up and why he's such a badass. Catwoman gets a few sentences as a party that really don't explain anything. If she grew up poor, how come she fights like jason bourne instead of a street thug? How'd she get those high-tech glasses without her own R&D department? Why is she whining about the 1% when she's clearly stolen enough to get herself squarely into that bracket? Because bourne-style fights are cooler to watch than street thugs, because high-tech spy glasses are cool, and because whining about the 1% is topical and cool. She's got no depth, just a bunch of "positive" qualities stapled together in the hopes that something sticks.
Being in a costume is part of the genre, sure. That said, want to do a count of how many female superheroes have costumes whose primary function seems to be to highlight their sexual characteristics compared to the men? Yeah, I thought not. Part of the genre, sure. Does that excuse the genre for taking lazy routes to appeal to its target demographic? Not in my opinion.
And the same problem is what I have against the character of catwoman as a whole - she goes with the easiest, laziest, tried-and-truest ways to make her appeal to the audience instead of trying something original, edgy, or inspired.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Huh? Where did you all get the impression that Talia planned everything and Bane was just the muscle?
We're merely told that Miranda Tate is Talia, and that it was all an elaborate ruse to get Bruce to develop the very thing that would destroy Gotham. We are never told who created the plan. Could it have just been Talia? Sure, but that's a baseless assumption. Simply taking the fact that Talia is a hidden villain behind it all to mean that Bane is nothing more than a henchman doesn't work.
I actually found Bane to be interesting because of how he inspires zealous, fanatical really, loyalty from his men. Could that have been explored a bit more? Yes, but the way men really don't seem to care to die for his cause made him fascinating to me.
Another key characterization that I enjoyed from Bane is how he's characterized as the embodiment of power and evil in the first and second act of the film, and then suddenly we see that he's actually none of it the moment he sees Batman return.
Remember everything he says when he sees the giant bat symbol burning on the bridge? When he meets Batman in front of the courtroom and his actions when Batman damaged his mask? He goes from being a cool, calculated man who seems to have everything under control (I
particularly enjoyed his swagger) to a man who's blinded by panic and fear. He seems absolutely demoralized by the fact that Batman not only survived the beating, but also escaped from the pit. Instead of bouncing off Batman's hit as though they're nothing and brutalizing Batman, he fights messy. He's literally swinging blind once the pain kicks in when the mask fails.
He claimed that he is the League of Shadows, much like how Ra's Al-Ghul was, but push comes to shove, Bane reveals that he's nothing like Ra's. Ra's Al-Ghul went to his death without showing even an ounce of panic or fear. Bane became fearful the moment he saw Batman return.
Hence the reason I find the whole "Rise" part rather fitting. Batman not only rose from defeat; he rose to conquer fear(characterized by Bane) itself.
Eh, Nolan needs to work with the source material. He went with Frank Miller's interpretation of Catwoman, and that happens to be a sexy femme-fatale who also protects whores and other low-caste women.
At least Nolan decided to ignore the part where Selina Kyle is a whore herself.
As for her combat style. It's ripped straight from the recent Batman: Arkham City game. It doesn't explain how Catwoman has an high-tech goggle and fights like a trained pro either.
Gotta keep in mind that Nolan needs to work with source material and with not enough time to explain each and everything =/
Question: why did Bane speak in an accent that was 50% Gandalf and 50% Keith Richards?
Volrath the FallenB Empress GalinaU Oona, Queen of the FaeBUAgrus Kos, Wojek VeteranRW
So actually explain why her character is constructed poorly. And in doing so, please avoid referring to "overuse"; popularity doesn't make a good trait bad any more than it makes a bad trait good.
You're really stretching. It's implausible that a woman built like Anne Hathaway would avoid street-thug brawling and learn some judo? It's implausible that she'd resent the 1% because she's rich... and implausible that she'd have high-tech gear because she's not rich? If you're determined to dislike these things just because they're cool, I think that's a silly sort of contrarianism but it's your prerogative. However, to say that they're only there because they're cool, and are unjustified otherwise, is simply wrong.
Yes, there are many female superheroes with stupid sexualized costumes. And in the past Catwoman has certainly been one of them. But this incarnation isn't. Imagine a male hero in the equivalent of Catwoman's costume: a plain black bodysuit and goggles. Then ask yourself again if the primary function of the costume is to highlight sexual characteristics. It's sexy because Anne Hathaway is sexy, not because it's got gratuitous cleavage or bared skin or other sexualizing design elements. Captain America, in his skintight costume, is just as sexy if you bat for that team. (The one ridiculous thing about Catwoman's costume is the heels, which the film is self-aware enough to joke about.)
Originality is not a virtue. Something can be original and suck. The only important question is whether Catwoman works as a character. And, while I'm certainly not arguing that she's the next Hamlet, she does work. She has a believable inner life that leads her on an emotional arc over the course of the movie, entertaining us in the process.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
and i think selina's goggles were more to give her the cat ear look when she had them flipped up over her head, to imply catwoman without saying it
Let's see, hold the city hostage breaking Gotham's spirit thus breaking Batman's spirit...yeah, sounds like his plan from the comic books. I can't make it work for you (just like the Dent thing), I won't try to make it work for you, but, in the end, it does indeed work. especially by the logic of the entire trilogy.
Because the girl had the need to survive while Wayne had not yet discovered his need to go on living. It was explained in the film.
Maybe she, y'know, trained.
It's not even necessarily that. It's that Bane has no personality beyond his physical intimidation.
By a bit more, you mean at all? Yes, it could have. Anything about Bane could have.
No, you see, that's not characterization. What you're describing is how anything established about Bane got subverted. That's the opposite of characterization. That's called inconsistency and contradiction.
I don't think that the speech about the 1% necessarily has anything to do wirh Catwoman's raison d'être, at least based on what the movie reveals. She is a masterful flirt, and its precisely the thing to say to throw a billionaire guy like Bruce Wayne off balance, and take him down a notch, so they can verbally spar as equals (in reality he is a billionaire philanthropist and she is a thief... In her jabs at him, she challenges him as "living large" while she is "Robin Hood" which puts him below her on the scale of things). As I said the line didn't sound sincere or sensible coming from her character, and it sounds more to me like recognizing how to push Wayne's buttons. Doesn't really even take a master to recognize that in Bruce, based on public knowledge and reading his body language as they talk.
Except for the 9 inch heels which no human can realistically run in. Sure they can be weaponized in situations but doesnt compensate for the downsides of heels that high.
But we know that she is not a superhero. She is a woman who knows how to play men, in order to slip in and out of high society. Why she always has her goggles & ears in her purse everywhere she goes... thats more of a plot hole and mystery.
Did she wear the same catsuit everywhere she appeared? Like a uniform? Seems like the practical aspect of the catsuit is she's gotta fit it into a tiny clutch (whih she didnt carry with her) or under her outfit. So it has to be skin tight. But where can she carry an alternate pair of 6+ inch heels and her mask? Did she switch the shoes when she went into costume? Because wearing a pair of Jimmy Chu stiletto heels to a party, then later as cateoman are gonna be a dead giveaway, that at least half the female witnesses would immediately notice. Shoes? Yeah, my wife would recognize her in a heartbeat if she didn't change her shoes.
Frankly I wasn't even paying attention to all that, because I didn't care and wasn't thinking about that plot hole. She's Catwoman, its a Batman movie, and you gotta suspend your disbelief. But I don't remember her carrying a clutch, let alone a purse, for extra shoes. Minor hole of non-importance for a superhero movie.
not only has to perform in them (impossible) she has to conceal them when she's not Catwoman, but have them nearby for access. And Balaclava makes so much more sense than the mask.
I totally agree.
As for her training and past, they are never revealed so it's hard to claim they contradict anything.
I look at whether a female superhero (in the men in tights genres) "works" based on whether (1) she is there just to fit what the boys enjoy as a fantasy sidekick or whether (2) she is super sexy kick ass implausible idealized fantasy hero for a girl to identify with kicking ass in this fantasy, along with the boys.
I think (2) incorporates (1) most of the time.
My wife enjoyed the movie the most of the Batman movies as well. She had a similar opinion to me on most of it on individual parts, though she enjoyed all the Batman movies somewhat less than I did (she was ok with but often bored by 1, fascinated by Joker in 2, but otherwise bored to indifferent to most of the the rest... And liked 3 for a superhero movie and loved Selina Kyle, and was happy to see Bruce Wayne be a real person being himself rather than a badly acted fake... And bored a bit by the saggy first half. I liked Batman 1... I loved Ledger in Batman 2 and overall enjoyed/tolerated the rest of the too long last 1/3 and the silly superfluous side plots that were supposed to set up the theme of the "dark knight/white knight" in which I never felt much conviction from Nolan... And 3 was quite enjoyable and satisfying as a superhero movie, tying everything up, pretty ambitious, with a very charming & enjoyable Catwoman, and FINALLY a convincing Bruce Wayne. Never achieved the dizzying height of Ledger's joker, but that was Magic in a bottle and the man is dead. Bane's presence was underwhelming even without comparing him to Joker, though this didn't spoil the movie since this was a batman movie, not a bane movie).
(1) the wall has crumbled some and pieces do fall off it (as we see a few times) so it might not be in the same shape as it was when she climbed.
(2) being smaller and lighter, she may have been able to jump that one gap from a closer position from a smaller more delicate platform (what you think a 7 year old uses the same hand and footholds as an adult male on a crumbly rock wall?)
(3) there may be a "leap of faith" that Bruce has to jump there, but it may be a different gap in a different place than the one that Thalia jumped.
Bruce constructs the visual narrative that the audience sees with his imagination, including Thalia's leap, based on the verbal descriptions he is told. Thus he imagines a boy jumping before he knows it was a girl. He imagines the jump as exactly the place where Bane jumped (not Thalia). But the way that pit is constructed, there are probably many leaps, and gaps, which are designed to be difficult for different sized people in different ways. Areas that would be impossible for a small person to leap might have tiny handholds that won't support a big person, etc.
The characters may explain it one way, as a single gap that Bruce can't overcome, by that is Bruce's unjumpable gap. Thalia's challenges and "unjumpable gaps" may have been different in reality. Certainly a handhold that won't support Bruce, would support a 7 year old. A handhold that also may have crumbled in 20+ years.