Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle/Catwoman XXXIV

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by jmc

A boot in the arse that could been handled a hundred different ways. Sorry, you guys can spin it however you like, this full circle nonsense was done for no reason.

I get you don't like it. But calling it nonsense is just sour grapes and exaggeration. It may not be how you would have preferred the story to go, but it makes sense in the context of the story. Whether you like the story is another matter, but I think the plot has a sounder logic to it than other fanboy movies this year (The Avengers, The Amazing Spider-Man and Skyfall come to mind).

Originally Posted by Fudgie

Quoted for truth.

They only dragged out the siege for months so Bruce could recover and train so he could come back and kick ass. No reason to bring the LOS back. It was the same stuff as before. Hey lets try and destroy the city again with an evil machine. Hey lets have a Al Ghul pretend to be someone they really ain't.

Yawn.

You could really say that about most comic book stories. I agree that it would have been better if it was only class warfare. However, the only way to even make it barely semi-believable was to add the nuke to the equation, otherwise the US government would have stopped Bane in like a day. It does fall on an old convention of the genre. Bt so do the comic books on a monthly basis. I accept the nuke as a needed Macguffin to do something that we haven't actually seen done in this genre on screen or page before. It is the ideological scope/bent of Bane's plan and its personal impact on Bruce--something that allows him to grow beyond his pain in a way he never has in the comics--that makes it unique. That is why it is the only Batman story of its kind. For that I can appreciate it, even if the nuke is uninspired.


But really, you clearly hate this movie. Why do you post about it for months? I was severely disappointed in the new Spider-Man movie and do not spend a lot of time on those boards.

[jmc]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

I get you don't like it. But calling it nonsense is just sour grapes and exaggeration. It may not be how you would have preferred the story to go, but it makes sense in the context of the story. Whether you like the story is another matter, but I think the plot has a sounder logic to it than other fanboy movies this year (The Avengers, The Amazing Spider-Man and Skyfall come to mind).

Alright, let me rephrase. There were no links threads left hanging from film one as much as people protest there is, that story was done. Going full circle should have justification behind it, and there is no justification for the LoS and Talia in Rises. Any dangling threads from film one were artificially created for this movie, and in doing so screws up Bane and worse Catwoman in the process and that's kinda what pisses me off about the movie.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Originally Posted by jmc

Alright, let me rephrase. There were no links threads left hanging from film one as much as people protest there is, that story was done. Going full circle should have justification behind it, and there is no justification for the LoS and Talia in Rises. Any dangling threads from film one were artificially created for this movie, and in doing so screws up Bane and worse Catwoman in the process and that's kinda what pisses me off about the movie.

I'm giving you a hand.

Full ciricle is too lazy a story device for Nolan. I love Nolan as a filmmaker yet have criticisms but one of them is not lazy plots. Rises is just a super lazy movie, decent but lazy. I still think that Ledger's death had something to do with why the movie turned out the way it did.

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I feel I may be the only one that was actually happy that the film had nothing to do with The Joker in any way, shape or form.

[jacobed]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

I'm giving you a hand.

Full ciricle is too lazy a story device for Nolan. I love Nolan as a filmmaker yet have criticisms but one of them is not lazy plots. Rises is just a super lazy movie, decent but lazy. I still think that Ledger's death had something to do with why the movie turned out the way it did.

There's nothing lazy about it.

[Panthro]

Originally Posted by DaRkVeNgeanCe

I feel I may be the only one that was actually happy that the film had nothing to do with The Joker in any way, shape or form.

I'm fine with the fact that the film had nothing to do with the Joker in any way, shape or form. Would a reference to the Joker been nice? Yes. Is it a deal breaker? No.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by TheSymbol

There's much hate around Anne's performance.i dont understand that.
There is only one little scene in the movie when she plays kind of over the top in a way i dont really like.Thats the part where she confronts dagett for the first time.but for the rest of the film she's great.

I've seen virtually no hate for her. She's actually one of the most popular parts of the movie, I'd say. She's certainly my favorite character in it.

I'd say IMDB, the hell hole of the internet, is the only place you'd see real hate for her.

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

I'm giving you a hand.

Full ciricle is too lazy a story device for Nolan. I love Nolan as a filmmaker yet have criticisms but one of them is not lazy plots. Rises is just a super lazy movie, decent but lazy. I still think that Ledger's death had something to do with why the movie turned out the way it did.

I second this. There's a lot of repetitive plot furniture and lazy writing in TDKR.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by jmc

Alright, let me rephrase. There were no links threads left hanging from film one as much as people protest there is, that story was done. Going full circle should have justification behind it, and there is no justification for the LoS and Talia in Rises. Any dangling threads from film one were artificially created for this movie, and in doing so screws up Bane and worse Catwoman in the process and that's kinda what pisses me off about the movie.

I disagree that either were screwed up. I do agree BB's story was over, but just as I find a second Death Star redundant, I do not think it screwed up the Emperor or Vader in the process. Agree to disagree.

[The Caped Knight]

Originally Posted by DaRkVeNgeanCe

I feel I may be the only one that was actually happy that the film had nothing to do with The Joker in any way, shape or form.

It wasn't needed The Joker had his time in TDK and that was more than enough. Each film had a villains that connected with the overall theme of the film and in TDKR - Bane fit the bill.

Anyhow this Catwoman thread, Let's give this feline femme fatale the credit and appreciation she deserves as Anne did such a phenomenal job

[Doc Samson]

Originally Posted by jmc

Alright, let me rephrase. There were no links threads left hanging from film one as much as people protest there is, that story was done. Going full circle should have justification behind it, and there is no justification for the LoS and Talia in Rises. Any dangling threads from film one were artificially created for this movie, and in doing so screws up Bane and worse Catwoman in the process and that's kinda what pisses me off about the movie.

What's lazy about revenge, if it's warranted? Bruce's quest for revenge drove much of the early parts of BB, but it didn't make Dent's fall any less compelling in TDK, at least not to me.

Gotham still standing & Ras Al Ghul's murderer still alive are the dangling threads, if you will. Could Nolan have gone a different route? Sure, but I can't see how choosing to draw parallels back to the beginning, for the end, is the horrible decision some of you guys make it out to be.

[CaptainClown]

The LoS is part of the reason of the formation of Batman, and thus can be seen as the undoing of him as well.

IMO - The League seems to have been using Gotham as it's testing grounds for destruction. However it continued to survive despite everything they threw at it. So they (what was left of the league) decided that they should take matters into their own hands. Also the league at this point were the 3rd tier of the league. The lowest rung with something to prove since they couldn't run with Rah's. So my guess would be that they aren't exactly as disciplined.

[Doc Samson]

Originally Posted by CaptainClown

The LoS is part of the reason of the formation of Batman, and thus can be seen as the undoing of him as well.

IMO - The League seems to have been using Gotham as it's testing grounds for destruction. However it continued to survive despite everything they threw at it. So they (what was left of the league) decided that they should take matters into their own hands. Also the league at this point were the 3rd tier of the league. The lowest rung with something to prove since they couldn't run with Rah's. So my guess would be that they aren't exactly as disciplined.

Even more than that, I think it's just a different approach & ideology. Ras was more of a religious, cult leader type figure. Bane/Talia are more militaristic & dictatorial. I liken it to Osama Bin Laden & al-Zarqawi. Although al-Zarqawi was somewhat linked to Bin Laden, his methods were more extreme, even for Al Qaeda. Once he started massacring civilians Al Qaeda wasn't comfortable with, they betrayed him and helped give up his location.

Ras was more about the "theatricality & deception," fashioning the League as ninjas in the mountains. Obviously Bane had no issues exposing himself publicly on television and allowing his men to carry military grade weaponry freely.

[J.Howlett]

Originally Posted by Anita18

On paper it's rather silly, putting the city through ALL THIS TROUBLE just to get back at one man (only Joker gets away with that on paper ), but the sincerity of how they acted and shot it is unmistakable. That's the aspect that wins me over on it.

But it all really circles around Bruce.

Whether you buy it is personal preference. But you can't say they did it "for no reason." You just don't like that reason.

For me, it's not silly at all considering the metaphor of what Gotham stands for in this trilogy.

Gotham is a stand in for his parents and their legacy. More specifically, his father's. So putting Gotham through all of that is even more soul crushing in the eyes of Talia and Bane because they know what Gotham really means to Bruce...

[jmc]

Originally Posted by Doc Samson

What's lazy about revenge, if it's warranted? Bruce's quest for revenge drove much of the early parts of BB, but it didn't make Dent's fall any less compelling in TDK, at least not to me.

Gotham still standing & Ras Al Ghul's murderer still alive are the dangling threads, if you will. Could Nolan have gone a different route? Sure, but I can't see how choosing to draw parallels back to the beginning, for the end, is the horrible decision some of you guys make it out to be.

Because coming from a director like Nolan it is lazy.

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

I'm giving you a hand.

Full ciricle is too lazy a story device for Nolan. I love Nolan as a filmmaker yet have criticisms but one of them is not lazy plots. Rises is just a super lazy movie, decent but lazy. I still think that Ledger's death had something to do with why the movie turned out the way it did.

Super Lazy ? Yeah right...

One thing is not to like the movie. The other is to project that by saying that the director was lazy , was negligent just because you didnt like it. Its kinda crazy how people mix movie criticism with movie enjoyment. There's not an ounce of laziness in the movie.

[TheSymbol]

Originally Posted by jmc

Because coming from a director like Nolan it is lazy.

it's not lazy it's logical.

[BatLobsterRises]

Nolan is a slave to story. He went full circle because he and his co-writers felt they needed to go there to properly cap off their tale.

Laziness does not even begin to come into the picture here.

I actually love that TDK is the odd one out in the trilogy. It sits in the middle as its own fully realized story, yet it has deep connections to the other films and is the turning point of the whole thing.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by CaptainClown

The LoS is part of the reason of the formation of Batman, and thus can be seen as the undoing of him as well.

Yet it was his clashes with The Joker and Harvey Dent that robbed him of Rachel and put him into 8 years of misery and retirement. Nothing the LOS did to him had that much of an effect on him. TDK even left more lasting physical injuries on him since the leg injury and need for a cane was a result of his fall with Dent.

Originally Posted by jmc

Because coming from a director like Nolan it is lazy.

Exactly. Batman Begins left no loose ends with the LOS. They were defeated and Ra's was killed. There was more justification for the Joker to come back since he lived ("I think you and I are destined to do this forever") and his breaking of Harvey Dent was covered up by Batman and Gordon.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by jmc

Alright, let me rephrase. There were no links threads left hanging from film one as much as people protest there is, that story was done. Going full circle should have justification behind it, and there is no justification for the LoS and Talia in Rises. Any dangling threads from film one were artificially created for this movie, and in doing so screws up Bane and worse Catwoman in the process and that's kinda what pisses me off about the movie.

Yup, darn right. We didn't hear diddly squat about Ra's having a daughter or Bane or anything like that in Begins. It was all made up in Rises because Joker wasn't available to come back, which we all know he would have.

But nay we had to have the LOS try and destroy Gotham again with another nasty machine, and get an Al Ghul to pretend to be someone else again.

Yawn. Lazy.

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

I'm giving you a hand.

Full ciricle is too lazy a story device for Nolan. I love Nolan as a filmmaker yet have criticisms but one of them is not lazy plots. Rises is just a super lazy movie, decent but lazy. I still think that Ledger's death had something to do with why the movie turned out the way it did.

Quoted for truth.

Originally Posted by jmc

Because coming from a director like Nolan it is lazy.

Yup. Nolan is capable of a lot better. The first two Batman flicks are proof of what he can do when he gets his creative juices flowing. He was on auto pilot with Rises. Maybe that's why there was such a big deal about auto pilots in it hahaha.

Originally Posted by The Joker

Yet it was his clashes with The Joker and Harvey Dent that robbed him of Rachel and put him into 8 years of misery and retirement. Nothing the LOS did to him had that much of an effect on him. TDK even left more lasting physical injuries on him since the leg injury and need for a cane was a result of his fall with Dent.

Exactly. Batman Begins left no loose ends with the LOS. They were defeated and Ra's was killed. There was more justification for the Joker to come back since he lived ("I think you and I are destined to do this forever") and his breaking of Harvey Dent was covered up by Batman and Gordon.

Yup when ya look at it TDK events had like the biggest game changing vents of the trilogy.

[CoolCadaver49]

Forgot this was the Hathaway/Catwoman Thread. In an effort to steer things back on topic...

Originally Posted by TheSymbol

There's much hate around Anne's performance.i dont understand that.

I have not seen one other person on this board that disliked Hathaway/Catwoman (besides myself). People comparing her performance to Ledger's Joker? I don't see it. Personally, I found her to be grating, but then, I hate the idea of Catwoman (as a romantic interest for Batman) anyway. It makes no goddamn sense.

Batman: Stop right there, thief! I'm here to arrest you!
Catwoman: I have a vagina. Meow.
Batman: Okay, I guess I'll let you off easy THIS time...

The same goes for Talia (in the comics). Batman needs to learn to keep it in his pants for the greater good.

I guess that's more a criticism of the character rather than the actress. But I think that it's still a valid criticism. Nolan didn't HAVE to make Catwoman the love interest; she could have just been a flirty villain on her own merit (a la Poison Ivy).

I mean, why exactly does Bruce trust Selina in TDKR? I just don't get it. I'd be pissed if someone stole a family heirloom/my wallet/my car. I certainly wouldn't elope to Europe with that person. I'm really open to suggestions, because the inclusion/implementation of her character (as I interpret it) in TDKR bothers me a bit.

/Rant

EDIT: Well, if we really are gonna go off the rails here, I would like to say that I find the inclusion of the LOS a bit disappointing. It's not really lazy or a re-hash, but it makes the Nolan Bat-universe seem so much smaller. I agree with the analogy to the Death Star II of RotJ.

[CaptainClown]

Originally Posted by Doc Samson

Even more than that, I think it's just a different approach & ideology. Ras was more of a religious, cult leader type figure. Bane/Talia are more militaristic & dictatorial. I liken it to Osama Bin Laden & al-Zarqawi. Although al-Zarqawi was somewhat linked to Bin Laden, his methods were more extreme, even for Al Qaeda. Once he started massacring civilians Al Qaeda wasn't comfortable with, they betrayed him and helped give up his location.

Ras was more about the "theatricality & deception," fashioning the League as ninjas in the mountains. Obviously Bane had no issues exposing himself publicly on television and allowing his men to carry military grade weaponry freely.

Ya that is exactly what I think of when I see the LoS in TDKR. Which is why I have no problem with them doing what they are doing in the movie. They feel like what is left of the league trying to keep the same M.O. but for something petty.

Originally Posted by The Joker

Yet it was his clashes with The Joker and Harvey Dent that robbed him of Rachel and put him into 8 years of misery and retirement. Nothing the LOS did to him had that much of an effect on him. TDK even left more lasting physical injuries on him since the leg injury and need for a cane was a result of his fall with Dent.

Ya. I agree it was the Joker and Harvey Dent which probably had the most impact on his personal life. However, I think it is valid to think that the LoS continued to infiltrate Gotham after the end of Rah's and was still working in the shadows during TDK.

Talia at some point during the retirement approaches Bruce with the 'alternate energy source' during his 8 year retirement. As well as prove she is somebody of good standing. So I am thinking the LoS have always had a hand in Gotham cities turmoil and might have been trying to tip the scales towards anarchy. Possibly by trying to encourage the mob to organize. Maybe with Scarecrow pushing his drugs in the street.

but ultimate I think that Harvey & Rachel were casualties of the chaos created by the league and the exploitation of that chaos by The Joker. (I like to think of the Joker as a lurking variable that messes up EVERYBODY'S plans)

[Fudgie]

I hate those conspiracy theories that make stuff up that the flicks never show. Conjecture city. LOS were done after TDK. Tatelia said she came to Gotham with her energy project three years ago. That was five years after TDK. Then 6 months before Rises main story they go and grab Pavel for the nuclear bomb stuff.

Ya are dead right about Joker and Dent messing up Bruce's life the most. That's why they're the best villains of the trilogy. They really screwed up Batman's life.

[CaptainClown]

Ya, I want to talk about it more. however I feel it would be high jacking a thread from devoted Anne Hathaway fans.

But to address what you are saying. Yes they had no presence in TDK. I am just arguing that it isn't that much a stretch to believe that they still were working and regrouping. Since they have to rebuild and recruit more people into the League. Though the story is not about them in TDK.


NOW, on topic. I think Anne did a great job. I am happy that they coordinated her high heels into the action. I was honestly really afraid that it would simply there for style. Her performance is top notch and ya.

So what do you guys think about a spin-off with Catwoman. It is on the front page of the superherohype website?


Also is there a proper thread to discuss the story as a trilogy?

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by CaptainClown

Ya. I agree it was the Joker and Harvey Dent which probably had the most impact on his personal life. However, I think it is valid to think that the LoS continued to infiltrate Gotham after the end of Rah's and was still working in the shadows during TDK.

Based on what in TDK?

Talia at some point during the retirement approaches Bruce with the 'alternate energy source' during his 8 year retirement. As well as prove she is somebody of good standing. So I am thinking the LoS have always had a hand in Gotham cities turmoil and might have been trying to tip the scales towards anarchy. Possibly by trying to encourage the mob to organize. Maybe with Scarecrow pushing his drugs in the street.

The energy project was mothballed three years prior to Rises. That's still five solid years later after the events of TDK. Nothing about that suggests they were involved in anything in TDK and nothing in TDK or Rises suggests they were. If they were they would have been more clued in about what happened with Harvey Dent instead of accidentally learning about it in Gordon's convenient confessional letter 8 years later. I can't really discuss baseless conjecture about encouraging the mob or pushing Scarecrow to deal drugs. There's nothing in TDK to support any of it. It's just fan theory.

Besides we are heavily veering off topic here now.

[CaptainClown]

I agree about the changing topic and want to steer it back. However do you know a place where we can discuss this?

Also Catwoman spin-off. Bad idea imo, though I think Anne would be great (It would be nice to do When in Rome) It just wouldn't be as popular and would conflict with any other Batman series they make.