View Single Post
Old 12-16-2012, 06:19 PM   #731
DACrowe
Side-Kick
 
DACrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 29,765
Default Re: TDKR Oscar Chances? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
Yeah, and it was used as a device for Ra's to come and attack Gotham. Same thing just one was not dwelled upon having Gordon and other characters spending half the movie running around like headless chickens trying to find it, while the other was in that way and was used to drag out a siege that went nowhere except allowed Bruce to recover and come back as Batman.

You say it allowed the movie to go somewhere. It didn't allow the movie to go anywhere except set up a stage for an action climax of find the bomb and chase the bomb.
The bomb in Begins was just a plot Batman had to stop. The bomb in Rises let Bane turn the whole city upside down and explore the collapse of a modern American society. The bomb itself was the point in BB while the bomb is a macguffin in TDKR.

Quote:
I know why it was it done. But intention and execution are two different things. What did it show except poor desperate people will take from rich people, and murderers, thieves and rapists broken out of jail will join in with the man holding the city hostage?

Didn't need a bomb to show that. Which is really obvious, too.
Actually, it's not. The whole lead up to the movie, I had no idea how this "Bane takes a whole city hostage" concept could conceivably work because the US government would never, ever allow for this. But if he has a nuclear bomb constantly hidden away, ready to go off if they step foot in Gotham, it creates a stalemate situation that allows Bane to play out his social experiment. Even then it takes a suspension of disbelief, but without this macguffin the idea that Bane could lay siege to a major American city for months becomes downright ridiculously stupid.

So, yes, the bomb was needed to go there.

Quote:
The bomb in TDKR was just a bomb that needs to be stopped, too. Same plot, different ending.
If you think that, you are ignoring the real substance of TDKR. And that is why it is in some ways better. The bomb is just a bomb that needs to be stopped in BB. In the third film, it creates a fascinating situation that my only problem with is that it should have been longer to even more explore what this city would be like.



Quote:
No, that's your point, not mine. I say again Raimi handled it better than both Nolan and Donner did, because Doc Ock's fusion reactor was never intended to be a lethal device by the villain. It was a physical manifestation of Ock's life's dream, and served as a parallel to Peter Parker's arc. Peter was being irresponsible by giving up being Spider-Man so he could live his dream of a normal life, and Ock was being irresponsible by doing evil things to make his dream happen. In the end they both take responsibility and give up their dreams to do the right thing.

The fusion reactor did not even become a threat until the end when Ock rebuilt it, much like how the microwave emitter didn't become a threat until the finale either. Whereas Gotham was living under 5 months of the threat of a ticking time bomb dragged out to the hilt. TDKR milked the city being under threat of it for that long just to give Bruce the time to recover in the pit and escape and make a big comeback. That's all. Another Batman busting his hump to stop another lethal Wayne Enterprises device an Al Ghul in disguise is using to destroy Gotham.
You're right, it was five months exactly so that Batman could recover. I'm sure if Nolan thought we would buy 2 months or 3 months, he would have made it that number. My point, which you repeatedly ignore, is you only see the bomb as a manifestation of third act confrontation. I think you are missing why it is really in the movie. I don't care if it is only introduced in the third act in BB and SM2. To me that is kind of lazy, because it is only there so the hero has something to stop. Raimi relating the villain's arc to his hero is also nothing new as he did it in all three Spidey films. Using a genre convention, a doomsday weapon, to tell the story of a city socially destroying itself is something we have never seen before. It created a new story possibility, while SM2, as you point out, has the same third act as BB. You may prefer one over the other, but it is the same plot point.

Quote:
Where did TDKR's bomb plot allow the story to go except show that when a terrorist takes over the city, the good people will just hide like sheep, the criminals will join in the mayhem, and the poor and desperate will take what they can get.

Again we didn't need a 5 month bomb threat to show that. All TDKR did was use a cliche device to drag out a villain take over. But the end result was the same. Batman must stop villain from destroying Gotham after the villain spent 5 months letting poor people take from rich people, let criminals run around free, while the decent people stayed frightened and hidden in their homes. I don't see this as any kind of brilliant new ground.
Name another movie that has explored such a societal collapse in modern America that didn't involve something supernatural like zombies? You can't. That is why it works and makes the movie more interesting than the first in the series.

__________________
"Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country."

--John Adams
DACrowe is offline