TDKR Oscar Chances? - Part 1

[Robin91939]

Originally Posted by Spider-Fan

Al Qaeada still operate under an idealogy of religion and other factors that are tangible and can be researched and explained. They don't blow themselves up for no reason. The League of Shadows in this film want to do the suicide mission for...science?

There is a big difference, and the film's attempts at motivation are sketchy at best. This film wasn't doing anything deep by leaving their motivation largely unexplained. That is just poor scripting.

Wait. You're saying that the League of Shadows didn't have a motivation in this film/trilogy?

Yes. They weren't religious fanatics. But they do have solid motivation that is established in Batman Begins.

They see themselves as the stewards of society. They serve as the check that balances it.

"The League of Shadows has been a check against human corruption for thousands of years." -Ra's al Ghul

The League of Shadows' motivation was to seek out and destroy corruption in its various forms. They view the contemporary and accepted justice/legal system to be fundamentally flawed and broken and feel that it is their job to fix it. And to them, fixing it means destroying and bringing down those systems entirely.

When Ra's died, Talia and Bane took up this belief. Talia seems to have modified it a bit. She seems to be more of an ecological terrorist than her father (which he is in the comics) and that she wants to destroy Gotham because of the affect Gotham has on the world.

Bane seems to be more in line with Ra's al Ghul's beliefs than he is the environment like Talia is.

But I'd say their motivations we anything but non-existant or poorly executed.

-R

[Alexei Belyakov]

Originally Posted by Spider-Fan

Al Qaeada still operate under an idealogy of religion and other factors that are tangible and can be researched and explained. They don't blow themselves up for no reason. The League of Shadows in this film want to do the suicide mission for...science?

There is a big difference, and the film's attempts at motivation are sketchy at best. This film wasn't doing anything deep by leaving their motivation largely unexplained. That is just poor scripting.

Sorry, dude, but to me Al-Qaeda's ideology/mission statement is bullcrap. Geopolitical bullcrap. No research will ever make their actions justifiable.

The LOS under Talia & Bane was (like Al-Qaeda) attacking America for being America: Corrupt, excessive, bloated, petty, ignorant, arrogant & above all - completely unaccountable for anything.

Nolan did a great job fleshing out the parallels between this new LOS faction & Al-Qaeda. The whole "hang them where the world can see" bit pretty much confirms it. That and the fact that Bane was picked up by the CIA in Kazakhstan & The Lazarus Pit was in Syria.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Robin91939

The League of Shadows' motivation was to seek out and destroy corruption in its various forms. They view the contemporary and accepted justice/legal system to be fundamentally flawed and broken and feel that it is their job to fix it. And to them, fixing it means destroying and bringing down those systems entirely.

This.

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

Sorry, dude, but to me Al-Qaeda's ideology/mission statement is bullcrap. Geopolitical bullcrap. No research will ever make their actions justifiable.

The LOS under Talia & Bane was (like Al-Qaeda) attacking America for being America: Corrupt, excessive, bloated, petty, ignorant, arrogant & above all - completely unaccountable for anything.

Nolan did a great job fleshing out the parallels between this new LOS faction & Al-Qaeda. The whole "hang them where the world can see" bit pretty much confirms it. That and the fact that Bane was picked up by the CIA in Kazakhstan & The Lazarus Pit was in Syria.

And this.

Also...honestly, the way Bane talked about fulfilling Ra's al Ghul's destiny had this quasi-religious resonance to it, as if Ra's was some kind of higher being that they all believed in and that his destiny had to be fulfilled. Especially when you consider that Ra's al Ghul is Arabic for The Demon's Head. Alfred mentions Bane having the "power of belief". I think the idea is there. The opening scene of the movie shows us that these people are willing to die for their cause at a moment's notice and have a deep conviction about what they're doing.

I think having the League of Shadows in these films is a good way to incorporate the idea of radical extremists and terrorism, fears relevant to our times, without getting too topical and specific about it that it stops being "Batman". And they stayed true to the general purpose behind the League of Assassins in the comics.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

This.



And this.

Also...honestly, the way Bane talked about fulfilling Ra's al Ghul's destiny had this quasi-religious resonance to it, as if Ra's was some kind of higher being that they all believed in and that his destiny had to be fulfilled. Especially when you consider that Ra's al Ghul is Arabic for The Demon's Head. Alfred mentions Bane having the "power of belief". I think the idea is there. The opening scene of the movie shows us that these people are willing to die for their cause at a moment's notice and have a deep conviction about what they're doing.

I think having the League of Shadows in these films is a good way to incorporate the idea of radical extremists and terrorism, fears relevant to our times, without getting too topical and specific about it that it stops being "Batman". And they stayed true to the general purpose behind the League of Assassins in the comics.

Agreed on all points.

Frankly, I didn't know Nolan was going to get as geopolitical as he did with TDKR. I went in expecting the real world, just not THE real world.

My only clue was the document released prior to the film that explained The Dent Act. Immediately I knew The Patriot Act's disguised presence in the film would somehow allude to modern terrorism.

[BatLobsterRises]

The important thing to consider is that TDKR is not meant to be a film that depicts ideas like terrorism, class uprising, police surveillance, nuclear energy etc. in any sort of realistic way, and it's not a film that is meant to educate on those issues. It's crafting a larger than life canvas for our concerns, interests, fears and hopes to play out in a way that enthralls us. I think that's been a huge aspect of all three movies and why they were so successful.

[Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Spider-Fan

Al Qaeada still operate under an idealogy of religion and other factors that are tangible and can be researched and explained. They don't blow themselves up for no reason. The League of Shadows in this film want to do the suicide mission for...science?

There is a big difference, and the film's attempts at motivation are sketchy at best. This film wasn't doing anything deep by leaving their motivation largely unexplained. That is just poor scripting.

If you say so pal.

[Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I didn't have a problem with the cops taking back the city. There was still a payoff there. It was full circle, we start with a corrupt police force in BB and TDK, but by the end of TDKR they are defending Gotham alongside the Batman. Cops are people too. Who were the biggest heroes on 9/11? Cops and firefighters who inspired an entire country.

TDK showed that Batman didn't want civilians literally physically fighting when they're not qualified for it. "That wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I said I wanted to inspire people". Now, I wouldn't have had a problem with some tougher civilians entering the battle, but I think from a visual standpoint it helped reinforce the war theme better to have all the police in their uniforms vs. the mercenaries in their wardrobe.

My Nolan film rankings:

The Dark Knight
Inception
The Dark Knight Rises
Memento
The Prestige
Batman Begins
Following
Insomnia

I think pretty much everyone's lists would differ tremendously, with the only universal being no one would have Insomnia at the top. And I like that movie quite a bit too.



^^^^
This is my ranking of Nolan films as well.

[Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

The important thing to consider is that TDKR is not meant to be a film that depicts ideas like terrorism, class uprising, police surveillance, nuclear energy etc. in any sort of realistic way, and it's not a film that is meant to educate on those issues. It's crafting a larger than life canvas for our concerns, interests, fears and hopes to play out in a way that enthralls us. I think that's been a huge aspect of all three movies and why they were so successful.

As with each and every debate, nitpick, analysis, and over analysis of TDKR and with each Nolan film.....Nolans legend continues to grows.

[Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

Agreed on all points.

Frankly, I didn't know Nolan was going to get as geopolitical as he did with TDKR. I went in expecting the real world, just not THE real world.

My only clue was the document released prior to the film that explained The Dent Act. Immediately I knew The Patriot Act's disguised presence in the film would somehow allude to modern terrorism.

Exactly.

Alexi, I agree with a lot of your posts. I think Nolan deserves a Best Director nod and the TDKR deserves a Best Picture nod.

I'm just not expecting it, because we know the Academy's weird history when it comes to Nolan and snubbing him for TDK and snubbing him for a Best Director nod with Inception.

They have a bias towards him that is evident.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Originally Posted by Dark Knight

Exactly.

Alexi, I agree with a lot of your posts. I think Nolan deserves a Best Director nod and the TDKR deserves a Best Picture nod.

I'm just not expecting it, because we know the Academy's weird history when it comes to Nolan and snubbing him for TDK and snubbing him for a Best Director nod with Inception.

They have a bias towards him that is evident.

At least he got Nominated for Original Screenplay & INCEPTION got the Best Picture Nomination.

I think this year he could easily get the Best Director Nomination and share the ballot with Paul Thomas Anderson, Ang Lee, Tom Hooper & Ben Affleck.

[jmc]

Originally Posted by Robin91939

Wait. You're saying that the League of Shadows didn't have a motivation in this film/trilogy?

Yes. They weren't religious fanatics. But they do have solid motivation that is established in Batman Begins.

They see themselves as the stewards of society. They serve as the check that balances it.

"The League of Shadows has been a check against human corruption for thousands of years." -Ra's al Ghul

The League of Shadows' motivation was to seek out and destroy corruption in its various forms. They view the contemporary and accepted justice/legal system to be fundamentally flawed and broken and feel that it is their job to fix it. And to them, fixing it means destroying and bringing down those systems entirely.

When Ra's died, Talia and Bane took up this belief. Talia seems to have modified it a bit. She seems to be more of an ecological terrorist than her father (which he is in the comics) and that she wants to destroy Gotham because of the affect Gotham has on the world.

Bane seems to be more in line with Ra's al Ghul's beliefs than he is the environment like Talia is.

But I'd say their motivations we anything but non-existant or poorly executed.

-R

As has been pointed out a billion times Gotham was at peace time. For the best part of 8 years. They very goal they were striving for actually happened - without them having to destroy the city. And yet they decided to do it anyway for....... what exactly? The motivations were poor and in most cases a direct contradiction to what happened previously, and as Spider-fan rightfully points out, badly executed.

[jmc]

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

At least he got Nominated for Original Screenplay & INCEPTION got the Best Picture Nomination.

I think this year he could easily get the Best Director Nomination and share the ballot with Paul Thomas Anderson, Ang Lee, Tom Hooper & Ben Affleck.

That ain't happening. Nolan's time will come but it will not be for Rises. Bet every dollar you have on it.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Originally Posted by jmc

As has been pointed out a billion times Gotham was at peace time. For the best part of 8 years. They very goal they were striving for actually happened - without them having to destroy the city. And yet they decided to do it anyway for....... what exactly? The motivations were poor and in most cases a direct contradiction to what happened previously, and as Spider-fan rightfully points out, badly executed.

The LOS from BB is not the same LOS from TDKR.

The LOS in TDKR is Al-Qaeda. Again, its impossible to understand people who strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up along with innocent people.

That's what Bane & Talia were trying to do. To say their motivations were poor & badly written is to say Bin Laden's motivations to destroy The World Trade Center were poor & ill conceived.

These people cannot be understood. They are insane.

Remember, Bane was excommunicated by Ra's Al Ghul. A terrorist too extreme for Ra's says it all.

[jmc]

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

The LOS from BB is not the same LOS from TDKR.

The LOS in TDKR is Al-Qaeda. Again, its impossible to understand people who strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up along with innocent people.

That's what Bane & Talia were trying to do. To say their motivations were poor & badly written is to say Bin Laden's motivations to destroy The World Trade Center were poor & ill conceived.

These people cannot be understood. They are insane.

In which case it is pointless bringing the LoS back in the first place if the ideology is so vastly different.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Originally Posted by jmc

In which case it is pointless bringing the LoS back in the first place if the ideology is so vastly different.

No, the idea was to show the legacy of Ra's ended up being Bruce & not Bane.

Bane arrives in Gotham claiming he IS the League of Shadows. Alfred is concerned that might be true. But after Talia reveals herself we learn that Ra's heir wasn't Bane after all. Talia & Bane are terrorists. Their motivations like the Jihad are deluded. Its not about restoring peace through destruction. Its about making Ra's chosen son watch his people burn, helpless. Again, this is an insane agenda. To kill millions in the name of revenge & jealousy.

The LOS in TDKR isn't really the LOS. Its the bastard child of Ra's ideals (much like Bane).

[jmc]

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

No, the idea was to show the legacy of Ra's ended up being Bruce & not Bane.

Bane arrives in Gotham claiming he IS the League of Shadows. Alfred is concerned that might be true. But after Talia reveals herself we learn that Ra's heir wasn't Bane after all. Talia & Bane are terrorists. Their motivations like the Jihad are deluded. Its not about restoring peace through destruction. Its about making Ra's chosen son watch his people burn, helpless. Again, this is an insane agenda. To kill millions in the name of revenge & jealousy.

The LOS in TDKR isn't really the LOS. Its the bastard child of Ra's ideals (much like Bane).

Again, that means it's pointless to be bringing them and Ra's back into the fold in the first place. A better and more unique character arc for Bane could have been used and a much better film could have eventuated if none of that was brought back into the fold. If the LoS ideology is bastardized it needed to be explored - it wasn't. It comes across as a bunch of idiots who don't know their own organization and what it stands for. Not to mention it's full of illogical character motivations - completely her fathers work - the same father that A) She would never have been close to in the first place and B) One who rejected Bane. This film is hampered by poor execution, most of which I put down to them bring back plot elements from the previous film that didn't need to be brought up again. But we got our precious Talia now didn't we? Oh yeah, it was really worth crow-baring her into this series wasn't it? Everyone 's happy now, we've all wanted that character for so long and we finally got her. Hip-hip ****ing hooray.

[Spider-Fan]

Originally Posted by Robin91939

Wait. You're saying that the League of Shadows didn't have a motivation in this film/trilogy?

Yes. They weren't religious fanatics. But they do have solid motivation that is established in Batman Begins.

They see themselves as the stewards of society. They serve as the check that balances it.

"The League of Shadows has been a check against human corruption for thousands of years." -Ra's al Ghul

The League of Shadows' motivation was to seek out and destroy corruption in its various forms. They view the contemporary and accepted justice/legal system to be fundamentally flawed and broken and feel that it is their job to fix it. And to them, fixing it means destroying and bringing down those systems entirely.

When Ra's died, Talia and Bane took up this belief. Talia seems to have modified it a bit. She seems to be more of an ecological terrorist than her father (which he is in the comics) and that she wants to destroy Gotham because of the affect Gotham has on the world.

Bane seems to be more in line with Ra's al Ghul's beliefs than he is the environment like Talia is.

But I'd say their motivations we anything but non-existant or poorly executed.

-R

No, my comment was directed to the fact that Alexei said the mystery and lack of understanding of their idealogy was to mirror Al Qeaada. Not that they didn't have an idealogy. They did, however, I feel Talia and co do not give a good reason why they pursued "Ra's al Ghul's destiny" in a suicide mission. I just can't buy it based on what she/he said in the movie.

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

Sorry, dude, but to me Al-Qaeda's ideology/mission statement is bullcrap. Geopolitical bullcrap. No research will ever make their actions justifiable.

Just because you don't buy into their idealogy doesn't make it mysterious or unexplainable. It can clearly be explained, as they have explained it. Not saying we have to agree with it. Just saying the have given their justification for what they do, so they mysterious motives is bullcrap.

The LOS under Talia & Bane was (like Al-Qaeda) attacking America for being America: Corrupt, excessive, bloated, petty, ignorant, arrogant & above all - completely unaccountable for anything.

Nolan did a great job fleshing out the parallels between this new LOS faction & Al-Qaeda. The whole "hang them where the world can see" bit pretty much confirms it. That and the fact that Bane was picked up by the CIA in Kazakhstan & The Lazarus Pit was in Syria.

And these are not mysterious motivations like you were trying to argue. Batman is not showing some kind of shcok as to why Talia and co are doing what they do due to some kind of culture shock, like you previously said. He was just shocked someone he trusted stabbed him in the back, literally. You're reading things into the scene that are not there in order to give the character more depth than they had.

Originally Posted by Dark Knight

If you say so pal.

I am allowed to have/state my opinion. If you don't like it, ignore me.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by jmc

As has been pointed out a billion times Gotham was at peace time. For the best part of 8 years. They very goal they were striving for actually happened - without them having to destroy the city. And yet they decided to do it anyway for....... what exactly? The motivations were poor and in most cases a direct contradiction to what happened previously, and as Spider-fan rightfully points out, badly executed.

And as pointed out a billion times by the other side of the argument, the LOS was about "restoring balance" when civilizations became too decadent. And had attacked Gotham economically 20 years prior to the events of Batman Begins. Nowhere in Batman Begins did I ever get the impression that the League would simply back down if Gotham got "saved" another way. No, they wanted to raze it to the ground and send the rest of the world a message.

Look, it's fine if you or anyone don't like this motivation or you didn't want the LOS to return. I just don't agree with this notion that it's impossible to understand and makes no sense. It makes plenty of sense if you think about what the LOS truly stands for. What makes no sense is expecting a radical terrorist organization to back down when the western world is able to suppress their problems in their own way. Terrorists are not that cuddly and reasonable. Locking up criminals does not eliminate the greed so deeply rooted in that society that leads to their existence (hence the film focusing more on white collar side villains and class tension). They had Gotham selected because it was "the world's greatest city". It's a very global ideal they have. Just because Gotham locked up its mobsters doesn't mean the world was any more balanced. The LOS, both in the films and in the comics essentially want to reboot society. Everything they did in TDKR reflected this ideal. It's never monologued away in the film, but it's very much present.

I like the way Alexei said it though, they're attacking America for being America.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by jmc

In which case it is pointless bringing the LoS back in the first place if the ideology is so vastly different.

Exactly

[Optimus_Prime_]

The plot overall was just flimsy in how it strung together all it's elements.

I think I'd compare a lot of the movie to the BB Mr. Earle subplot. If you think about Mr. Earle, other than providing some Bruce Wayne tension, his character makes no sense. Why is he bad? Because he makes weapons? So do Lucius and Wayne apparently. Because he wants to make money and wants to protect his job when Bruce returns? Why is that bad? Bruce is the one doing all the insider trading anyways. It's also not established that he warrants any of the blame for the weapon being stolen.

In TDKR you have about five or six plotlines just that pointless.

Talia for example. Had this been a three movie character, she might have worked. Instead she was just in there to force a twist a la Batman Begins. Which made no sense. By movie three you'd already established the League of Shadows, and that Ra's Al Ghul could potentially have children. The twist was unnecessary, and quite frankly smacked of being completely baffling -- even with my foreknowledge of the character, I struggled to figure out why Bane simply wasn't the man in charge.

He was the "extreme" one anyways.

Talia was "carrying on her father's legacy". Bullsh**. She was carrying on Bane's legacy, which muddles Bane being just a lackey, as opposed to an equal partner.

Had they removed the twist, they may have been able to flesh that out a little more prior to the climax.

Instead it crammed into the last five meaningful minutes, and comes off as confused.

I think actually what is my least favorite aspect of the movie in hindsight is how much I remember of Blake, Catwoman, Bane, Talia and Bruce, and how very little I remember of actual Batman (who gets about 15 minutes of screentime). That just speaks to the volume of irrelevant characters and plotlines they crammed in this thing.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

The plot overall was just flimsy in how it strung together all it's elements.

I think I'd compare a lot of the movie to the BB Mr. Earle subplot. If you think about Mr. Earle, other than providing some Bruce Wayne tension, his character makes no sense. Why is he bad? Because he makes weapons? So do Lucius and Wayne apparently. Because he wants to make money and wants to protect his job when Bruce returns? Why is that bad? Bruce is the one doing all the insider trading anyways. It's also not established that he warrants any of the blame for the weapon being stolen.

Earle is just a slimy businessman who wants to profit off of Thomas Wayne's name while turning the company he built into something he'd never stand for. Sufficiently unsavory, no? His character worked because he was an obstacle for both Bruce and Lucius.

I mean who didn't love that "Didn't you get the memo?" callback?

[CConn]

I'm glad Marv showed Mr. Earl who was boss.

[Caboose]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

Talia for example. Had this been a three movie character, she might have worked. Instead she was just in there to force a twist a la Batman Begins. Which made no sense. By movie three you'd already established the League of Shadows, and that Ra's Al Ghul could potentially have children. The twist was unnecessary, and quite frankly smacked of being completely baffling -- even with my foreknowledge of the character, I struggled to figure out why Bane simply wasn't the man in charge.

He was the "extreme" one anyways.

Talia was "carrying on her father's legacy". Bullsh**. She was carrying on Bane's legacy, which muddles Bane being just a lackey, as opposed to an equal partner.

Had they removed the twist, they may have been able to flesh that out a little more prior to the climax.

Instead it crammed into the last five meaningful minutes, and comes off as confused.

I agree with this.

[CConn]

I will say this;

I view movies a little differently than most. Most of the time, I really don't give a **** about plotholes or illogicalities in the overall plot or story. Movies are, to me, firstly emotional experiences, and secondly philosophical experiences; if it ultimately resonates emotionally and philosophically for me, it really doesn't matter if there were some bumps in the road getting there.

But, generally, if I have a complaint about a movie I believe to be really good, I can usually narrow it down to a singular overarching aspect that diminishes its quality, and I think I've finally narrowed that down for TDKR...

It really should've been three separate movies. There was much that was happening and going on in it, that it truly needed about 6-8 hours of screen time to totally effectively tell the story it wanted to tell.

Watching TDKR, it plays out like LOTR movies would have if someone attempted to cram them all into a single 3 hour film; or when you see a film adaptation of a great book where corners have to be cut to fit such a massive tale into a single film.

I still like the movie as much as I ever did, of course, but without a doubt in my mind, had they separated the three acts into their own separate films, you would've ended up with an even better final product.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Originally Posted by jmc

A better and more unique character arc for Bane could have been used and a much better film could have eventuated if none of that was brought back into the fold.

And we're back to people disliking TDKR for not fitting their own vision instead of Nolan's.