View Single Post
Old 01-14-2013, 01:55 PM   #125
Tequilla
Side-Kick
 
Tequilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: P
Posts: 1,702
Default Re: Why did the League of Shadows want to destroy a peaceful city?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyCage View Post
In many cases, we have to go out of our way to make up a plausible backstory for certain things. That's filling in the blanks.

We can base it on crumbs Nolan gives us, but he didn't bake a whole loaf of bread, so we're doing that ourselves. That's all I'm saying. I admitted before this discussion began that this is all we would in effect be doing, so I accept that my view is also ultimately fan fiction.

The fact that our interpretations of those crumbs can differ so starkly illustrates just how unclear the film was on this subject, so it didn't do it's job very well.
I agree with you because what you described is literally any piece of storytelling from any medium (let me rephrase , any good piece of storytelling). Interpretations tend to differ because they are exactly that...interpretations. I could spend all day talking about magnificent books and movies and we would never reach any consensus. That is anything but a negative aspect.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyCage View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Because you said "you're interpreting these stories with your imagination. ". Off course im interpreting with my imagination. Its what we do.With everything. Plotting doesnt have any discussion , outside of the formal basis of its structure . Its the content that its discussed , and interpreted by ourselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyCage View Post
I wouldn't say it's all there, but I would say there are elements that you might interpret it one way or another from. Those are two very different things.

You're taking my use of the term 'fan fiction' too harshly. I already said there's nothing wrong with it. It's not an insult, and I do it too, it's fun to think about these things, but I insisted that we didn't act like it was necessarily the truth. That's all.
I agree , again because i think its applicable to anything.

Yes now i understand what you meant by fan fiction. I think the process is so common , that any discussion regarding any movie falls under that fan fiction. That's why i disagree with you. I think fan fiction is hypothesizing for instance what would happen with Blake after Rises (which is totally irrelevant to the movie itself)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyCage View Post
Decadence is decline, Gotham is by and large doing the opposite of that. It's been 8 years, things look much better than the days of Begins, the entire criminal underworld is behind bars, and now they decide Gotham is bad enough to strike again suddenly? Based on -what-? It's so backwards.

I have yet to see compelling evidence of what in TDKR would justify them still seeing it as in enough decline to try and decimate it again after 8 years of fiddling around watching from the shadows. The only reasoning for them returning that holds up is the concept of finishing Ra's work from before, which was based on the state of Gotham years ago.

It seems a little flimsy to me. It's a weak driving punch, a weak argument, for the villain to have compared to Ra's and the Joker in the previous films.
I dont see how its better when we are shown so many signs of its decadence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyCage View Post
It's not the same conditions at all, unless I missed something. And, again, the League has no idea it was built on covering up the truth about Dent until their plan is well underway and Bruce is already long out of action.
Its the director who makes us perceive how Gotham is very much corrupted. We know practically nothing about the League , how they operated and what did they knew (they didn't knew that). The importance is exactly Nolan showing us Gotham in a similar state.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyCage View Post
This argument isn't about whether or not you agree with the League, it's about how competent the League's motive was based on their own principles.
Ok. But the League were in the same exact conditions in Begins. Ra's himself stated the city was limp , trying to get up by itself with the help of people like Bruce's father. He states that the obliteration is the only way to get back up. He is wrong , as nothing like that happens. Bruce also disagree with him. So if they are incompetent , that also exists in Begins.

What i see is coherence from the first movie. An exaggeration of causes and actions from them. They believe the same. They are wrong , but the motives are still the same.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyCage View Post
It's a problem that needs to be addressed, sure, but all I was saying was that that alone does not necessarily illustrate a city in utter decay beyond saving.
Nor it was illustrated in Begins. The city wasn't beyond saving. That's Batman's goal. But the League thinks differently.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyCage View Post
I fail to find that funny, personally.
I just thought you dismissed in such a quick way , when its probably one of the biggest problems of today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyCage View Post
I'm very politically studied and active, and I'm currently having to resort to trying to work for myself (not easy) instead of for an employer since jobs are so hard to find these days.

So, yes, I'm aware of (and effected by) the situation, and I'm aware the movie reflects that deliberately. I just don't see this point alone as compelling reason for the League to step in.

So I said I would pair it up with your other reasonings, suggesting the full picture you were painting would possibly be more compelling to me.
You have my sympathies. Its something that exists everywhere (im my country , the youth unemployment is massive )

But i would like to know your interpreation off the scene , and why the director explicity goes that route . That's the morals , and distortions the League tries to fight back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyCage View Post
How is that any different from what I said? You gave me an example of Gotham being corrupt, but really, it's an example of the League deliberately breeding the corruption of Gotham themselves.

It's blatantly hypocritical of them, so it makes their motive seem even more flimsy as a philosophical argument to use against Batman's view.
That's the joker view I'm Batman . I believe in the people. In being incorruptible. They dont create corruption , they just use it for their advantage. That's why we dont see the city fighting back. That's why they infiltrate whatever they want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyCage View Post
This isn't about you. This is about the League's agenda.

Ra's explained this was the standard for striking in Begins. I believe the line was something like: 'When a city reaches the pinnacle of it's decadence...'

Correct me if I'm wrong. My speakers aren't working, so I can't double-check at the moment.
Yes , but Bruce doesn't agree they reached a pinnacle. Many citizens didnt agreed. And they are right. And Ra's was wrong. So , in that sense...they are still wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyCage View Post
I don't see that illustrated in the film at all.
We'l just have to agree to disagree. There's so many stuff the directors show us , that i simply dont understand how these aspects can be interpreted any other way. But i would love to read your interpretation of it. Im just giving mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyCage View Post
Vulnerable =/= guilty. If you can manipulate someone into being bad, or encourage them to be good, why would you go out of your way to manipulate them into being bad just so you can punish them for being bad? That's a silly motive.

They create corruption and then condemn it. That simply wasn't compelling to me.

If Daggett were anywhere near the level of Falcone, I'd maybe buy it, but things were way worse in Begins. Falcone made waves, he OWNED the city. Begins' Gotham was clearly a dirty, rotten, wreck. Daggett was just some chump in an otherwise decent community.
The corruption exists. They didn't create. They didn't "built" Gotham. If the city was unpolluted it would have reacted differently. But they didn't. “Innocence is a strong word to throw around Gotham"...Talia says that in this movie. The League perceives them like that (its not the other way around).

I cant measure rottenness. But we know Dagget used resources from Africa in a coup d'état done by the League. He is quite a monster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyCage View Post
Foley may be a little cocky, but he's not evil.

Do you have nothing to say about the true context of him chasing Batman? That it was because Batman was a fugitive who, as far as everyone knew, killed Gotham's hero and has been successfully on the run for 8 years?

It may have been a reckless call by one somewhat over-zealous cop, but that does not equate to a corrupt police force, or even a corrupt individual.
It's the choice the director makes presenting them like that . The police force chasing him. Foley greedy for his fame.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyCage View Post
To show that Batman is still perceived as an enemy of the public and the police, and rightfully so as far as they know.
To me he is much more than that. That doesn't need a character. He's a simpleton. The commoner. A guy who belongs to the force , in a higher position , who only thinks about his promotion. Who stays at his home the moment they need to fight back , until Bat returns. He's is a very simple character because he's nothing but a commoner.

And not all cops think like that (we know one...Blake)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyCage View Post
Not all of them. And again, in context, Bane manipulated them into thinking they were victims. He took advantage of poor, desperate people.
Who fighted back ? No one. They all followed exactly what Bane said. Stay at home and take what is rightfully yours . They accepted it. Like they reacted when joker put a bomb in their hands...in completely and utter apathy. The same apathy Batman wants to shake out of them since Begins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyCage View Post

I explained it clearly. You even seem to agree in your very next paragraph:
That's a major disagreement we have. People behave accordingly to their nature. That's what Bane takes advantage. He doesn't create their nature.



Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyCage View Post
Of course, but this is avoiding my point. My point was that Gotham was unremarkable in terms of corruption until Bane deliberately poisoned it himself.
I see the complete opposite. Still a city tormented by its own problems. The only good thing they achieved was actually based on a lie...the irony of it , is brutal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyCage View Post
I'm not saying Nolan doesn't give us anything at all to chew on. I'm just saying, in the case of TDKR, he didn't give us much in the way of impressive or conclusive evidence for various motivations in the film.

Maybe you misunderstood me, but I would appreciate not having my criticisms stretched out of proportion like that.

I still find TDKR rich and deep in other ways, and I adore the other two films almost completely. Don't accuse me of calling them fluff.
I was the one who said the genre is fluff , and the previous two movies dont have the richness this one have. I stick by that

Tequilla is offline   Reply With Quote