TDKR Oscar Chances? - Part 1

[CConn]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

In Batman Begins they were.



Ehhh no they never said any of that. They had nothing against cities and organizations. They just helped restore them to balance when things got out of control. They said they were a check against human corruption for thousands of years.

It helps that Nolan expositions the hell out of his villains motives. It makes it easier to show how TDKR's LOS was wrong.

Honestly, the LOS' motives in BB was utter ********. It made absolutely no rational sense. There is no such thing as a "moderate" terrorist organization. They're called extremists for a reason.

I always just figured Ra's was ********ting Bruce to convince him to go along with the LOS' plans. Which is something he did like constantly in the entire movie.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Originally Posted by CConn

Honestly, the LOS' motives in BB was utter ********. It made absolutely no rational sense. There is no such thing as a "moderate" terrorist organization. They're called extremists for a reason.

I always just figured Ra's was ********ting Bruce to convince him to go along with the LOS' plans. Which is something he did like constantly in the entire movie.

Agreed, but frankly, BB was the least realistic of the trilogy.

Ninja terrorists that live in the mountains & use "microwave emitters" to vaporize hallucinogenic flowers through the city's water supply...

Its very over the top, comic-booky writing.

With TDK & TDKR Nolan enters the real world.

TDK was a film about post-9/11 paranoia.

TDKR was a film about terrorists taking a major US City through a nuclear weapon.

BB would never happen. TDK already happened & TDKR could happen.

[BatLobsterRises]

I agree CConn. I always felt like Ra's was trying to exploit Bruce's hatred of criminals and used that as a means to focus his training and indoctrination. No matter how you try to rationalize it, it's still terrorism and Ra's still wanted to poison EVERYONE in Gotham, not just the criminals. How does that not make Ra's worse than those criminals? See, he believes in what he's doing and he's convinced it's going to make the world a better place. That doesn't mean it's logical.

Where Bane and Talia went more extreme was how slowly they dragged out their plan and took over the city entirely. Simply destroying it wasn't enough for them. They wanted to actually punish Gotham and let the world watch helplessly.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I agree CConn. I always felt like Ra's was trying to exploit Bruce's hatred of criminals and used that as a means to focus his training and indoctrination. No matter how you try to rationalize it, it's still terrorism and Ra's still wanted to poison EVERYONE in Gotham, not just the criminals. How does that not make Ra's not worse than those criminals? See, he believes in what he's doing and he's convinced it's going to make the world a better place. That doesn't mean it's logical.

Where Bane and Talia went more extreme was how slowly they dragged out their plan and took over the city entirely. Simply destroying it wasn't enough for them. They wanted to actually punish Gotham and let the world watch helplessly.

Alfred was right all along. Bane was too extreme for Ra's Al Ghul.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by CConn

Honestly, the LOS' motives in BB was utter ********. It made absolutely no rational sense.

Ehhh no. City or civilization gets out of hand, they restore the balance to it. Makes sense.

City is crime free and happy, you destroy it. Makes no sense. That's the utter BS.

I always just figured Ra's was ********ting Bruce to convince him to go along with the LOS' plans.

Conjecture.

Which is something he did like constantly in the entire movie.

Ehhh no the only thing he kept from him was his dual identity as Ra's.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

Ehhh no. City or civilization gets out of hand, they restore the balance to it. Makes sense.

City is crime free and happy, you destroy it. Makes no sense. That's the utter BS.

Keep trying to make sense out of Al-Qaeda. Out of why they destroy things.

[Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

I think you're not reading into things enough.

Talia's whole speech about her father solidifies her insanity & deluded mission statement. Talia & Bane want to believe more than anything that they are indeed fulfilling Ra's Al Ghul's destiny. In truth, they are not. Like the Jihad, there's no way their mass murdering is pleasing Allah. Bruce's reaction is America's reaction. Its confusion & horror.

The whole movie is filled with references to modern terrorism and its effects on Western Civilization. I think had you picked up on them more, you wouldn't have dismissed the villains & their plot to destroy Gotham.

Exactly. Some people don't get it or just refuse to get it. Or some just want to nit pick about alleged "plot holes" which were more like plot omissions from Nolan and Smith.

Sometimes I do think WB's and Nolan should have gone the two part film Harry Potter route for TDKR though, just so some nit pickers could have seen every little detail squeezed in the final film of the trilogy.

Me thinks, the nit pickers still wouldn't have been satisfied though.

[Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I totally see what you're saying. TDKR did feel very much like a sprawling novel that had to be abridged for a movie. I guess what I love about it is that it's not based on a novel despite feeling like that, just the product of decades' worth of great material for this character and good writers finding inspiration in that and treating it like a true piece of American literature.

Yep. Have you read the novelization yet for TDKR?

It's a good read.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

Exactly. Bane & Talia thought they were fulfilling Ra's Al Ghul destiny. They weren't.

About time one of you finally admitted that. Reading this, Batlobster? You were always against that one.

The Jihad think they're fulfilling Allah's wishes. They're not.

The LOS in TDKR is a mutated version of Ra's LOS.

You're deeming their motivations wrong & the writing bad because you failed to understand both.

I understand it fine mon ami. I've been saying this stuff forever against those who kept going on that Bane and Talia were following LOS ideals.

You know basing them on real life terrorist idiots who make no sense doesn't mean they're good villains and their plan is good. Especially when you had Ra's and Joker with good plans that made sense.

Ra's wanted to restore balance to dirty cities like Gotham. Makes sense. Joker wanted to prove Gotham can pushed into being crazy like him. Makes sense.

Killing crime free city. Makes no sense.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

Ehhh no. City or civilization gets out of hand, they restore the balance to it. Makes sense.

City is crime free and happy, you destroy it. Makes no sense. That's the utter BS.

You say they're about ending crime. They're a group of assassins right? Why not just take out all the mobs with in series of well planned assassinations? Total ninja style. It would scare the living crap out of whoever's left more than Batman ever could. And if the mobs rebuilt themselves, do it again.

That would make a lot more sense than murdering the entire civilian population of Gotham, if we're to accept the premise that the LOS are really a bunch of reasonable dudes who just want crime to stop.

Originally Posted by Fudgie

About time one of you finally admitted that. Reading this, Batlobster? You were always against that one.

Wait a minute. I still believe that Ra's and Talia/Bane shared the same set of basic ideals- that of the League of Shadows. So in that sense they are taking the torch from Ra's. I agree that their methods are more extreme, and therefore can't technically be said to be fulfilling Ra's destiny. Plus, Ra's would have never wanted to see Bane and his daughter working together, so it defies him in that sense too. But they absolutely feel that they're honoring Ra's. The truth is more gray. In some ways they are, in some ways they aren't.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by Dark Knight

Me thinks, the nit pickers still wouldn't have been satisfied though.

Me thinks, the apologists would be happy if Batman had a sex change at the end of the movie and defended the idea.

[Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by jmc

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.

Ahh I see. You just didn't want to see the LOS brought back in TDKR. That is your issue.

You would have rather seen some story with Riddler in it? Blah.

The TDKR tied things up nicely from the previous films and made it into a true Trilogy.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

You say they're about ending crime. They're a group of assassins right? Why not just take out all the mobs with in series of well planned assassinations? Total ninja style. It would scare the living crap out of whoever's left more than Batman ever could. And if the mobs rebuilt themselves, do it again.

Because they think the corruption is spread so badly that they were able to infiltrate every level of the city's infrastructure because of it. They think it's beyond saving. They think the only way it can be truly stopped is to kill them. It's crazy but you can see why it makes sense to them.

[Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

Me thinks, the apologists would be happy if Batman had a sex change at the end of the movie and defended the idea.

Me thinks you are absolutely right. Wow.....

[Alexei Belyakov]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

You know basing them on real life terrorist idiots who make no sense doesn't mean they're good villains and their plan is good. Especially when you had Ra's and Joker with good plans that made sense.

Ra's wanted to restore balance to dirty cities like Gotham. Makes sense. Joker wanted to prove Gotham can pushed into being crazy like him. Makes sense.

Killing crime free city. Makes no sense.

The truth is more compelling than fiction. This series took a strong turn towards realism with TDK.

Making the villains shadows of Al-Qaeda makes for a more plausible & captivating picture. You're not just watching a comic book movie. You're watching Batman in the real world, confronting real threats.

You dislike it because its real, but that was the whole point.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

The truth is more compelling than fiction.

This is a comic book movie.

This series took a strong turn towards realism with TDK.

Not that it turned the villains into dullards with stupid schemes. Joker was a terrorist but he was still comic book Joker and his terrorism was based on the Killing Joke graphic novel idea about pushing people to their extremes and making them go bad like him.

Making the villains shadows of Al-Qaeda makes for a more plausible & captivating picture. You're not just watching a comic book movie. You're watching Batman in the real world, confronting real threats.

Making villains like boring real world terrorists removes the captivating fantasy that you want from a comic book movie. If I want to watch terrorists doing stupid things for no reasons except bloodshed then I'll look at the news.

I go to the movies, especially comic book movies for escapism.

You dislike it because its real, but that was the whole point.

I dislike it because it's boring and uninteresting.

It's because of this you can bet your bottom dollar this movie won't be getting any best picture nominations let alone any wins.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by Dark Knight

Me thinks you are absolutely right. Wow.....

I know I am. This thread is the proof.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

Because they think the corruption is spread so badly that they were able to infiltrate every level of the city's infrastructure because of it. They think it's beyond saving. They think the only way it can be truly stopped is to kill them. It's crazy but you can see why it makes sense to them.

That still doesn't quite hold up to scrutiny though. The city is corrupt because many officials are on the mob's payroll. Eliminate the mob (and maybe a few corrupt judges and cops too, to scare people) and that problem is gone and theoretically the city could go back to rebuilding itself. The leap from wanting crime gone to destroying an entire city is massive and begs the question of what the deeper ideals of the LOS are all about. Which they talk about in Batman Begins. You don't burn the world's greatest city to the ground because you want to stop crime, you do it because you want to hit the reset button on civilization. Which is also why one would try to economically attack a city (like they did prior to BB).

BTW that idea about Batman getting a sex change is BRILLIANT. Holy crap, I actually dislike the movie more now that I see what a ballsy and provocative ending Nolan missed out on!

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

[Alexei Belyakov]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

This is a comic book movie.



Not that it turned the villains into dullards with stupid schemes. Joker was a terrorist but he was still comic book Joker and his terrorism was based on the Killing Joke graphic novel idea about pushing people to their extremes and making them go bad like him.



Making villains like boring real world terrorists removes the captivating fantasy that you want from a comic book movie. If I want to watch terrorists doing stupid things for no reasons except bloodshed then I'll look at the news.

I go to the movies, especially comic book movies for escapism.



I dislike it because it's boring and uninteresting.

It's because of this you can bet your bottom dollar this movie won't be getting any best picture nominations let alone any wins.

$447 Million Domestic says the themes presented in this movie weren't boring and uninteresting to the American public.

Also, ARGO, a film about Jimmy Carter's lack of resolve during his presidency and the hostage situation in Tehran is being groomed for Best Picture & Best Director, so I don't see why you would think TDKR's geopolitical allusions are detrimental to its Oscar race.

If anything, its said real themes that will further elevate this film from average CBM in the eyes of the A.M.P.A.S.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Originally Posted by Dark Knight

Exactly. Some people don't get it or just refuse to get it. Or some just want to nit pick about alleged "plot holes" which were more like plot omissions from Nolan and Smith.

Sometimes I do think WB's and Nolan should have gone the two part film Harry Potter route for TDKR though, just so some nit pickers could have seen every little detail squeezed in the final film of the trilogy.

Me thinks, the nit pickers still wouldn't have been satisfied though.

THIS.

ALL of this.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

That still doesn't quite hold up to scrutiny though. The city is corrupt because many officials are on the mob's payroll. Eliminate the mob (and maybe a few corrupt judges and cops too, to scare people) and that problem is gone and theoretically the city could go back to rebuilding itself.

The point is the city is full of rotten people willing to take bribes and do dirty work for the mob.

You and I know the solution to a problem like that isn't to kill everyone, but to a crazy mind you can see why they would think extremist methods like that are necessary. It makes sense.

The leap from wanting crime gone to destroying an entire city is massive and begs the question of what the deeper ideals of the LOS are all about. Which they talk about in Batman Begins. You don't burn the world's greatest city to the ground because you want to stop crime, you do it because you want to hit the reset button on civilization.

They think the only way to get rid of that crime is to hit the reset button on Gotham because they think the crime and despair and corruption is too deeply rooted in Gotham to just be excised like a rotten tooth.

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

$447 Million Domestic says the themes presented in this movie weren't boring and uninteresting to the American public.

Please. If Bay's Transformers can make over a billion, then so can this load of hokey schlock.

Also, ARGO, a film about Jimmy Carter's lack of resolve during his presidency and the hostage situation in Tehran is being groomed for Best Picture & Best Director, so I don't see why you would think TDKR's geopolitical allusions are detrimental to its Oscar race.

That's probably because that was better handled, more interesting, and not riddled with plot holes.

If anything, its said real themes that will further elevate this film from average CBM in the eyes of the A.M.P.A.S.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/...-oscars-judges

[Fudgie]

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.

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.

THIS.

ALL of this.

[Joeyjojo72]

TDKR should be nominated for the technical awards. Catwoman has a slight chance of a nom, but she'll probably get that for Les Mis.

Actual wins are probably not in the cards, given the competition.

And I have to lol at the notion that the NolanBat movies are "realistic". Or that Nolan is in general a "realistic", verite-style director. He isnt.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

The point is the city is full of rotten people willing to take bribes and do dirty work for the mob.

You and I know the solution to a problem like that isn't to kill everyone, but to a crazy mind you can see why they would think extremist methods like that are necessary. It makes sense.



They think the only way to get rid of that crime is to hit the reset button on Gotham because they think the crime and despair and corruption is too deeply rooted in Gotham to just be excised like a rotten tooth.

Okay good. We agree on this point then. You're saying what I've been saying all along, that the LOS condemns the moral character of Gotham as a whole. Which by extension is a condemnation of greed and weakness.

So my question is, these same radical extremists stopped believing that Gotham is a place where evil and greed lurk JUST because the mayor passed a law that made it easier for them to lock up the mob? The end result is essentially the same if they had taken it upon themselves to take out the mob. It would have just been a band-aid. Just like the Dent Act is.

[CConn]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

Ehhh no. City or civilization gets out of hand, they restore the balance to it. Makes sense.

City is crime free and happy, you destroy it. Makes no sense. That's the utter BS.

So you're saying 9/11 was utter BS?

Ehhh no the only thing he kept from him was his dual identity as Ra's.

All he did the entire movie was manipulate Bruce to do what he wanted. It was painfully obvious.