TDKR Oscar Chances? - Part 1

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

Regardless we have someone's word vs someone elses. Someone saying there was a lot of applause and others saying there wasn't. So who know's? we weren't there.

3 people vs one.

Besides regardless of what anyone is quoted as saying seeing the film so soon after the tragedy had to have affected feelings and perceptions. All of this is being based on one showing again just one screening the day after aurora.

Why would the shooting affect the quality of the movie? Either they like it or they don't. Doesn't work using the shooting as an excuse for the judges thinking it was weak.

[Bruce Malone]

It has nothing to do with the quality but how you connect to the film. I've heard stories of big batman fans who saw TDKR not long after the incident and felt very uncomfortable but upon later viewings enjoyed it much more.

I really enjoyed the film but my second time seeing it not long after aurora and with the stock exchange scene especially i could really sense some of the uncomfortableness and anxiety in the theatre.

The 3rd and last time i saw it theatres a couple of weeks or so later that feeling had disappeared. I'm sure the voters were trying to appear professional and say they were judging the film only on its merits but they're still humans and that feeling so soon after is unavoidable.

[Anno_Domini]

We shall see when the nominations are revealed.

[atomicbattery]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

It ain't just coming from Bret Easton. He's just saying what the others are saying as well. This movie ain't winning diddly squat at the Oscars. Ya can bank on it.

The goalposts have been moved a bit in this thread. I don't think that even TDKR's most passionate champions (I include myself in that number), imagine that it could win. But I think that a nomination is a reasonable hope. It has that RottenTomatoes score which is very comfortably within the range of past Best Picture nominees, and some highly respected advocates in its camp.
I've been listening to Kenneth Turan's reviews on NPR's Morning Drive for years. As the film critic for the L.A. Times he's in the most exclusive group of influential critics, and he strongly urged the Academy to nominate the film for Best Picture in his review. I have never heard him do that for any film.
TDKR is also culturally relevant, if opinion pieces in the New York Times editorial page are any indication. In fact, I would say more so than any film since Forrest Gump, which prompted lots of discussion after it was adopted by cultural conservatives as an indictment of societal change in the 60's and 70's.

I feel very strongly that this movie deserves a Best Picture nomination.
But do I think that it will get one?
Probably not.
This year may be unprecedented in the number of prestige projects from directors with long Oscar pedigrees. Lincoln, The Master, Life of Pi, Zero Dark Thirty, Le Miz and Anna Karenina are all absolute or near-locks, and that's six right there.
Then you have Silver Linings Playbook (which fills the As Good as It Gets/The Kids Are All Right dramedy niche that the Academy loves), Argo, The Hobbit, Hyde Park on the Hudson, and even The Sessions and Django Unchained with source material/subject matter that Academy members likely will feel more comfortable voting for than a movie about a guy in a cape.
Too bad.

[regwec]

Regardless of the quality of TDKR, I don't understand some of the claims made for its cultural impact. Now, I am speaking as a Briton, but here it simply didn't have one that I noticed. At all. I remember Joker stuff everywhere after TDK, but there was no broader social response to TDKR at all.

[Bruce Malone]

There was actually a bit here in north america. If you can find the social context thread there were a ton of articles that came out debating the politics of the films and what it represented towards society and what political slant if any the film had and if it will have impacts on the election?

Certainly more so than came out analyzing the avengers. It was not on the same level of TDK however but bane and his motivations etc. were brought up quite a bit as well.

[atomicbattery]

regwec- here is one that I found to be quite perceptive (even though I'm not a huge fan of Douthat):

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/op...-now.html?_r=0

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

It has nothing to do with the quality but how you connect to the film.

The quality is what makes you connect to the film.

I've heard stories of big batman fans who saw TDKR not long after the incident and felt very uncomfortable but upon later viewings enjoyed it much more.

They must be an anomaly because I've never heard of stuff like that. The shootings were not even because of TDKR. It didn't inspire that looney to shoot up the theater. He called himself the Joker.

Originally Posted by atomicbattery

The goalposts have been moved a bit in this thread. I don't think that even TDKR's most passionate champions imagine that it could win.

That's a good thing. Less chance of disappointment then.

Originally Posted by regwec

Regardless of the quality of TDKR, I don't understand some of the claims made for its cultural impact. Now, I am speaking as a Briton, but here it simply didn't have one that I noticed. At all. I remember Joker stuff everywhere after TDK, but there was no broader social response to TDKR at all.

Yup. It's just not as much of a cultural event.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by regwec

Regardless of the quality of TDKR, I don't understand some of the claims made for its cultural impact. Now, I am speaking as a Briton, but here it simply didn't have one that I noticed. At all. I remember Joker stuff everywhere after TDK, but there was no broader social response to TDKR at all.

I've honestly never heard anybody make this case.

TDK was a phenomenon because it was the first comic book movie to be seen as otherwise, because it followed a well respected and enjoyed film in BB, and because it featured an incredible performance by an up and coming actor everybody loved who's life was cut short before release. TDKR only had the middle one, and that was actually a detriment because really it's expectations would never be reached.

[Fudgie]

Why can't those expectations be reached?

[Anno_Domini]

That can be said for any film when asking why can't the expectations be reached.

[CConn]

TDKR had two pretty damn good performances by two of the biggest up and coming stars in Levitt and Hardy.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

Why can't those expectations be reached?

Because many people just wanted TDK 2.0, and Nolan did not want to deliver that.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by TheBat812

Because many people just wanted TDK 2.0, and Nolan did not want to deliver that.

If by TDK 2.0 you mean another movie with Joker and Dent in it then anyone who thought they'd get that are living in fantasy world and should be ignored. If you mean TDK 2.0 as in something that could be as quality as TDK was then that was very possible. Nolan just didn't deliver it.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

If by TDK 2.0 you mean another movie with Joker and Dent in it then anyone who thought they'd get that are living in fantasy world and should be ignored. If you mean TDK 2.0 as in something that could be as quality as TDK was then that was very possible. Nolan just didn't deliver it.

No, I mean something that delivered all the same hits, same structure, same stuff that made TDK a success. Nolan, to his credit, wants to do more and everything changes depending on the story you're telling.

We're talking about expectations and what many people were looking for out of the follow up to TDKR. IE, narratively, it makes sense why there is so little time spent of the general populace, but since it was shown in BB and TDK, there is an expectation that it would and should be there. I know you disagree, but obviously the Nolan's thought it was the right choice, and my own taste in cinema matches them here. I hope you don't think they didn't discuss how much they should include the general populace in the film, because I'm absolutely positive they had many discussions on the matter. And for them it always came back to - "This is Bruce's story first and foremost."

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by TheBat812

No, I mean something that delivered all the same hits, same structure, same stuff that made TDK a success. Nolan, to his credit, wants to do more and everything changes depending on the story you're telling.

What do ya mean by same hits and same structure? Same structure as in same story? Same hits as in same villains? What? People wanted a great villain to follow on from Joker? That's not unreasonable. People wanted the same tension and excitement? Not unreasonable either me thinks. Should have been that way when there's a siege on the city.

Unless you mean the same characters and story from TDK then expecting a movie as quality as TDK is not unreasonable. Ya set a standard and you try to stick with it. Or even go above it if ya can.

We're talking about expectations and what many people were looking for out of the follow up to TDKR. IE, narratively, it makes sense why there is so little time spent of the general populace, but since it was shown in BB and TDK, there is an expectation that it would and should be there.

Ehhh that also came from the actual story in Rises which was about a revolution in a city. A story about people in a city revolting. Not unrealistic to expect time spent on the populace of the city going through that revolution.

It's not like Nolan was telling a story that wasn't perfect for that. It was even more perfect for it than the last two were. There was so many things that were perfect for it in it.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

What do ya mean by same hits and same structure? Same structure as in same story? Same hits as in same villains? What? People wanted a great villain to follow on from Joker? That's not unreasonable. People wanted the same tension and excitement? Not unreasonable either me thinks. Should have been that way when there's a siege on the city.

Unless you mean the same characters and story from TDK then expecting a movie as quality as TDK is not unreasonable. Ya set a standard and you try to stick with it. Or even go above it if ya can.



Ehhh that also came from the actual story in Rises which was about a revolution in a city. A story about people in a city revolting. Not unrealistic to expect time spent on the populace of the city going through that revolution.

It's not like Nolan was telling a story that wasn't perfect for that. It was even more perfect for it than the last two were. There was so many things that were perfect for it in it.

I just explained this in the other thread, but we've already established the people of Gotham, having been with them through traumatically intense events, and now the lack of having them in the film is disconcerting for the viewer, just like it is for Bruce and the people of Gotham. Sometimes showing something as little as an empty street can feel more desolate and hopeless than a shot of a bunch of families in their living rooms. For me it worked very well.

[BaleISBatman4ev]

I think by TDK 2.0 were talkin another crime thriller with the mob and probably the riddler as the villain... TDKR opted for a revolution/war movie the likes of Count of monte christo and tale of two cities.

[jmc]

If any of the three films needed to have ordinary citizen being given focus it was this one.

[Anno_Domini]

Imo, if any of the three films needed to have the ordinary citizen given the focus, it would have been the film that didn't focus too much on Bruce Wayne, and that's why it worked with The Dark Knight.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by BaleISBatman4ev

I think by TDK 2.0 were talkin another crime thriller with the mob and probably the riddler as the villain... TDKR opted for a revolution/war movie the likes of Count of monte christo and tale of two cities.

Overall. It was a satisfying end to the trilogy, I think. I've said I appreciated the change in tone. It seemed, honestly more like Rocky meets the Last Samurai or something. I just didn't find it as serious as many claim. I think though trying to retread TDK would've been a huge mistake. They were pigeonholed into doing a "physical" threat because after Ledger died someone like Black Mask would've been Joke Lite.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by jmc

If any of the three films needed to have ordinary citizen being given focus it was this one.

Exactly. Of all the villain's schemes, this one affected the people of Gotham more than any other. I'm not just talking about the siege that was premised on being a revolution with the people, but the Harvey Dent cover up being revealed, too. Batman's big comeback after 8 years should have sparked reaction from regular Gothamites, too.

[jmc]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Imo, if any of the three films needed to have the ordinary citizen given the focus, it would have been the film that didn't focus too much on Bruce Wayne, and that's why it worked with The Dark Knight.

That makes zero sense given film one was also a Bruce Wayne focused story.

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Imo, if any of the three films needed to have the ordinary citizen given the focus, it would have been the film that didn't focus too much on Bruce Wayne, and that's why it worked with The Dark Knight.

Absolutely.

One of the funniest aspects of some criticisms , is how people speak about a movie that doesn't exist . This is not a movie about Gotham's repercussion to the actions (bat or the fake propaganda by bane). They can flounder as much as they want. They can project whatever political mumbo-jumbo they would like to see....but the movie does not want to touch that.

Gotham is handled perfectly , and beautifully balanced to help to develop the core of the movie. Bruce Wayne.

[jmc]

The people of Gotham are exactly like the background characters in Inception - nameless, faceless, beings. That is far from being handled perfectly.