TDKR Oscar Chances? - Part 1

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by regwec

I am sorry that no Nolan Batmovie will get any recognition at the Oscars, but the fact is that it should have been TDK if any. Giving it to TDKR would be bizarre- it is a relatively weak follow up to TDK, and objectively a fairly run of the mill action movie.

Objectively a run of the mill action movie? I'd have to object, sir. The scale of the action in this film, and how they shot so much of it practically, is unparalleled in this day and age.

[Demon Hunter]

Can you please elaborate on what exactly was Skyfall that good? Twice as good as TDKR?
This was the first Bond movie I've seen in a very long time, so I kinda fail at seeing the greatness of this movie. To me particularly it felt the same as any other action movie out there.

[Robin91939]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

You make some sense and all, but....what about The Master? That HAS to be nominated for an Oscar, imo.

I have yet to see The Master to be honest. Included with Les Miserables and Zero Dark Thirty it is the only film that I have not seen (the latter two through no fault of my own lol).

I think that Beasts of the Southern Wild and The Master could both get nominations. I just feel that as an overall achievement, as a stand alone film and as part of a genre-defining trilogy The Dark Knight Rises deserves to be recognized.

I don't think it will be recognized. As another poster (Visualiza) mentioned, The Matrix was another film that changed the way cinema operated for more than a decade and wasn't honored at all.

Though I loved The Hurt Locker, Avatar redefined the way films have been made since. Though it wasn't completely snubbed, I feel it should have won.

Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises will be and have become the benchmark of what a comic-book film/blockbuster can be. This trilogy has redefined the genre of the tent-pole genre. It gave us Casino Royale and Skyfall. To a smaller degree it gave us Iron Man and its predecessors. I understand that much of this can also be traced back to Singer's X-men films and Rami's Spider-man films (and I feel like X2: X-men United and Spider-man 2 deserved SOME kind of recognition). But when you have a superhero film being compared to The Godfather: Part II by filmmakers and critics alike and the Academy snubs it, there's a problem.

For all of the faults with the film that fanboys are complaining about -- many are solely "Batman" problems and not "film" problems. This was an incredibly well-made film. A beautifully shot film and a wonderfully acted film. 20 years from now, we will still look back at The Dark Knight Trilogy as a landmark achievement for not only the genre, but film in general. It will be sad that when we do, we'll remember how it was ignored and not celebrated. Not celebrated for what it was, and not celebrated for all of the films that it paved the way for.

-R

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by regwec

TDKR got a lot of criticism in some parts of the British press for not being left wing enough. That seems stupid to me, but it is clear that the arts establishment are always unwilling to laud anything that is "off message".


I completely agree- Skyfall is twice the film that TDKR was.

I am sorry that no Nolan Batmovie will get any recognition at the Oscars, but the fact is that it should have been TDK if any. Giving it to TDKR would be bizarre- it is a relatively weak follow up to TDK, and objectively a fairly run of the mill action movie.

Oh , how i would love that TDKR would be a run of the mill action movie...but then i look back at the summer and think im probably in the bizarro world.

[Kahran Ramsus]

Originally Posted by redhawk23

Rotten Tomatoes doesn't measure how postivie the reviews are, just whether or not they are positive.

It actually does. They have a separate category for average rating.

Skyfall got an 8.2/10.
TDKR got 8.0/10.

[Anno_Domini]

I don't see how Skyfall is "twice" the movie TDKR is. If we go by that logic, then Casino Royale must be the biggest film ever since CR is better than Skyfall.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Complaining about SkyFall isn't going to get TDKR's a best picture nom. I liked TDKR but it isn't even in my top ten movies this year.

If Rises gets a nom fine, it's not a bad movie, but I'd perfer SkyFall take the big blockbuster genre movie slot because I found it to be a much better film and ironically it was mostly just a ripoff of TDK.

[Omegabat]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

Complaining about SkyFall isn't going to get TDKR's a best picture nom. I liked TDKR but it isn't even in my top ten movies this year.

If Rises gets a nom fine, it's not a bad movie, but I'd perfer SkyFall take the big blockbuster genre movie slot because I found it to be a much better film and ironically it was mostly just a ripoff of TDK.

Wait...you want "mostly just a ripoff"(by your own admission) to get the best pic nomination?

I'd preferred TDKR to Skyfall but even I wouldn't call Skyfall mostly just a ripoff.

I'd rather have TDKR get the nomination cause it had a vastly superior female lead,a better and more unique villain,better and more unpredictable story,better overall performances.
IMO TDKR's plotting and pacing may be off compared to Skyfall but it also had more issues to deal with(concluding the trilogy) and a greater scope.

Also Skyfall had it's own fair share of problems,ahem Silva getting himself caught just to...um why exactly did he get himself captured again?

[weezerspider]

Originally Posted by Robin91939

My main gripe is that The Dark Knight was a film that changed popular culture and has REMAINED in the consciousness of popular culture AND cinema for the 4 years since its release.

No film nominated in 2008, certainly not the film that won (Slumdog Millionaire) can say the same. The Dark Knight was a transcendent film. It was a Michael Mann/Christopher McQuarrie crime-thriller meets a James Cameron tent-pole action film, meets a superhero film, meets a social commentary.

My main question with awards like this is usually, "Which of these great, worthy films of any given year will most fondly and vividly be remembered 10-15 years from now?"

I would say that in 2008 that film would be The Dark Knight. In 2009? Avatar. In 2010? Inception. In 2011? This was a strange year. I felt The Descendants and Moneyball were stronger films than The Artist, but I get it...

As far as this year, I feel that The Dark Knight Rises needs to be nominated just on resonance alone. As a part of a whole, and as a film on its own it is wholly deserving. This will be a film that will be remembered and talked about much longer than a Moonrise Kingdom, etc. This is a film that was part of a trilogy that was a game-changer for a genre. A trilogy that made a genre truly credible. Reward it. Make it TRULY credible and deem it legitimate.

If there are ten nominations, The Dark Knight Rises should sneak in.

1.) Argo
2.) Armour
3.) Beasts of the Southern Wild
4.) Django Unchained
5.) The Dark Knight Rises
6.) Les Miserables
7.) Life of Pi
8.) Lincoln
9.) Silver Linings Playbook
10.) Zero Dark Thirty

(alphabetical)


-R

I agree with your philosophy to an extent, but I also think artistic merit should still play a pretty big role or else we'd have **** like Twilight being contenders. Its hard though because sometimes the more artistic films in many ways ARE more remembered then well received tent-pole films. I mean 2007 had a very well received blockbuster in The Bourne Ultimatum, but most cinephiles would think of There Will Be Blood or the BP winner, No Country For Old Men first. It just depends...I guess basically I'm saying, I agree somewhat, but disagree somewhat.

[CJ]

Originally Posted by Robin91939

This was an incredibly well-made film. A beautifully shot film and a wonderfully acted film.

"WHEEEERE'S THE TRIGGER!?! WHERE IS ITTTTT!?!
ARGH! YOU WOULD NEVER GIVE IT TO AN ORDINARY CITISHUN!!
TELL ME WHERE THE TRIGGER IS!!"

"I AHM THE LEAGUE UF SH-ADOOOOHS!"

"So YHOU CAME BAHCK, TO DIE WITH YOUR CITY."
"No.. I came back to stop you."

Originally Posted by Robin91939

For all of the faults with the film that fanboys are complaining about -- many are solely "Batman" problems and not "film" problems.

I don't have a problem with a focus on Bruce Wayne. I remember the first time I saw Batman Begins in 2005, I was so engrossed in the story of Bruce Wayne and his training with the League of Shadows, that I completely forgot it was a Batman movie, making his change to Batman even more dramatic and exciting.

I don't mind character development with Bruce Wayne, quite the opposite, I was curious to see how he would cope after the events of TDK, (and those parts were handled terribly, like when the "great lie" was exposed, only to be forgotten about within seconds, leaving no impact on the story whatsoever) but for a Batman movie that is nearly THREE HOURS LONG to have less than 20 minutes of Batman in it, something's wrong.

To focus on a new character like John Blake for such a long period of time, while neglecting the main character, in the finale of the series, yeah, something's wrong.

Catwoman felt shoehorned into the story. Christopher Nolan even said that he didn't even want Catwoman in it. Jonah pressured him into it. Hmmm.. that reminds me of another movie.

The whole thing felt like a pointless retread of Batman Begins.

If Ledger were still alive, I have no doubt TDKR would have been a fantastic film that could have won some Oscars. Instead, Nolan was so shaken up by Ledger's death, that he didn't even want to mention the character he played.

I understand why The Joker wasn't re-cast. Nolan had too much respect for Ledger, and that's fine, but when the characters in TDKR discussed scenes that were directly tied to The Joker in TDKR, I felt like they were tiptoeing around any mention or even reference of The Joker. Like when Blake discussed the Prewitt building scene. Blake didn't think Batman was guilty of killing Dent, and talked about how Batman took down the SWAT Team. He made no mention of The Joker, the one who orchestrated the entire scene, or how strange it was that Batman would go through all the trouble to capture The Joker, and stop him from blowing up the ferries, only to then go and kill the city's DA. It doesn't add up.

The lie that Batman and Gordon covered up, the lie that ate away at Gordon in TDKR, the lie that was exposed by Bane, was directly linked to The Joker, and still, no mention of him. If someone wanted to make a great film, they wouldn't shy away from something so crucial to the story.

For those who say The Joker's story is done, I have this to say: If they can get an actor like Liam Neeson to take the time to make a pointless cameo as Ras in this movie, and get Cillican Murphy to make two pointless cameos in both TDK and TDKR, then they could easily toss in a mention of The Joker, a character who had a far greater impact on the series in general than those other two characters I mentioned.

TDKR was a very flawed movie, IMHO.

[Raoul Duke]

rises did have some great performances. but it also had performances that stunk the place up. matthew modine i'm looking at you. and also marion cotillard who seemed to be sleep walking through the movie until her death scene where ironically she came to life and gave a parody esque death.

[Raoul Duke]

Originally Posted by Demon Hunter

Can you please elaborate on what exactly was Skyfall that good? Twice as good as TDKR?
This was the first Bond movie I've seen in a very long time, so I kinda fail at seeing the greatness of this movie. To me particularly it felt the same as any other action movie out there.

it had better writing, in terms of the actual plot and the characterisation. with some nice unobtrusive nods and references to previous bonds. it was serious yet still witty and slick. craig gives an award worthy performance. the cinematography is some of the best ever. the scene in shanghai in particular is one of the most beautifully shot scenes i've ever seen. the one take fight scene in front of the neon is the type of shot i've yet to see nolan and pfister achieve. the editing is vastly superior to rises' which to be fair isn't difficult. the action scenes are superior. the finale isn't rushed as hell and isn't ruined by terrible acting and some of the worst stunt work i've ever seen.

skyfall is a superior film in every single way.

[Agent Orange]

Skyfall is a good film but it's incredibly lazy at the same time. The overwhelming praise that it garnered continues to baffle me.

[Raoul Duke]

in what way is it incredibly lazy?

[Omegabat]

Originally Posted by CJ

"WHEEEERE'S THE TRIGGER!?! WHERE IS ITTTTT!?!
ARGH! YOU WOULD NEVER GIVE IT TO AN ORDINARY CITISHUN!!
TELL ME WHERE THE TRIGGER IS!!"

"I AHM THE LEAGUE UF SH-ADOOOOHS!"

"So YHOU CAME BAHCK, TO DIE WITH YOUR CITY."
"No.. I came back to stop you."



I don't have a problem with a focus on Bruce Wayne. I remember the first time I saw Batman Begins in 2005, I was so engrossed in the story of Bruce Wayne and his training with the League of Shadows, that I completely forgot it was a Batman movie, making his change to Batman even more dramatic and exciting.

I don't mind character development with Bruce Wayne, quite the opposite, I was curious to see how he would cope after the events of TDK, (and those parts were handled terribly, like when the "great lie" was exposed, only to be forgotten about within seconds, leaving no impact on the story whatsoever) but for a Batman movie that is nearly THREE HOURS LONG to have less than 20 minutes of Batman in it, something's wrong.

To focus on a new character like John Blake for such a long period of time, while neglecting the main character, in the finale of the series, yeah, something's wrong.

Catwoman felt shoehorned into the story. Christopher Nolan even said that he didn't even want Catwoman in it. Jonah pressured him into it. Hmmm.. that reminds me of another movie.

The whole thing felt like a pointless retread of Batman Begins.

If Ledger were still alive, I have no doubt TDKR would have been a fantastic film that could have won some Oscars. Instead, Nolan was so shaken up by Ledger's death, that he didn't even want to mention the character he played.

I understand why The Joker wasn't re-cast. Nolan had too much respect for Ledger, and that's fine, but when the characters in TDKR discussed scenes that were directly tied to The Joker in TDKR, I felt like they were tiptoeing around any mention or even reference of The Joker. Like when Blake discussed the Prewitt building scene. Blake didn't think Batman was guilty of killing Dent, and talked about how Batman took down the SWAT Team. He made no mention of The Joker, the one who orchestrated the entire scene, or how strange it was that Batman would go through all the trouble to capture The Joker, and stop him from blowing up the ferries, only to then go and kill the city's DA. It doesn't add up.

The lie that Batman and Gordon covered up, the lie that ate away at Gordon in TDKR, the lie that was exposed by Bane, was directly linked to The Joker, and still, no mention of him. If someone wanted to make a great film, they wouldn't shy away from something so crucial to the story.

For those who say The Joker's story is done, I have this to say: If they can get an actor like Liam Neeson to take the time to make a pointless cameo as Ras in this movie, and get Cillican Murphy to make two pointless cameos in both TDK and TDKR, then they could easily toss in a mention of The Joker, a character who had a far greater impact on the series in general than those other two characters I mentioned.

TDKR was a very flawed movie, IMHO.

So apparently a Joker cameo or reference would have eliminated all the flaws cause you know that's what your post seems to imply

[Omegabat]

Originally Posted by Raoul Duke

it had better writing, in terms of the actual plot and the characterisation. with some nice unobtrusive nods and references to previous bonds. it was serious yet still witty and slick. craig gives an award worthy performance. the cinematography is some of the best ever. the scene in shanghai in particular is one of the most beautifully shot scenes i've ever seen. the one take fight scene in front of the neon is the type of shot i've yet to see nolan and pfister achieve. the editing is vastly superior to rises' which to be fair isn't difficult. the action scenes are superior. the finale isn't rushed as hell and isn't ruined by terrible acting and some of the worst stunt work i've ever seen.

skyfall is a superior film in every single way.

What about the plane hijack in Rises? that was absolutely stunning to watch.And if the editing in Skyfall is so glorious then why does movie mistakes have much more mistakes listed for Skyfall than Rises?
How exactly is the action superior? Rises had better combat scenes unquestionably and had greater quantity of vehicular stunts.

And terrible acting? so one scene with Talia is suddenly terrible acting.

You've simply given your opinion on why you think Skyfall is better and that's all fine and dandy but you haven't used any specific examples to prove your point.

[I Am The Knight]

TDKR should've been called Don't Say His Name

[Greens]

When they talk about the events that happened in The Dark Knight, YOU know exactly what happened and who caused it. A Joker reference is not crucial to the story. It would have been nice to hear his name again, but I don't mind it one bit.

[TheGuy]

Gordon had lines that referred to the Joker.

"And now this evil rising from where we tried to bury it."
"Letting the bad guy..."(Gordon talking to Blake about the lie)

[CJ]

Originally Posted by Omegabat

So apparently a Joker cameo or reference would have eliminated all the flaws cause you know that's what your post seems to imply

If you even bothered to read my entire post, you'd see I made many other criticisms about the movie.

But, on the subject of The Joker..

The final scene with Batman/Bane, I feel, would have been more exciting and dramatic if it was between Batman and The Joker instead.

That scene was Batman's "rise" his chance to get payback against Bane for all he put him through. Gotham rallying together with Batman to take back their city. Fully aware that their "white knight" was a fraud. I think a scene like that would be so much more powerful if it was The Joker Batman was fighting. Bane had no connection with Harvey, so him revealing the truth, doesn't really give the scene much power.

And when you think about it, Bane didn't really put Bruce through all that much. Bane punching Bruce around, then dropping him into a hole doesn't compare to what The Joker did to Bruce.

The Joker plunged Gotham into chaos in TDK, took away its white knight, made Batman into a wanted man, and left Bruce stricken with grief. Sure Batman stopped him at the end, but it felt like a hollow victory. Bruce just stared at the Joker, jaw hanging open in horror, when he learned of Harvey's change. The Joker cackled, and Batman retreated like a dog with its tail between its legs. It felt like there was definitely unfinished business between the two.

Harvey was The Joker's ace in the hole, the one thing that made The Joker feel like he had won. (Even Batman and Gordon thought this) but in TDKR, the people of Gotham learned the truth, and still stood up against the people terrorizing their city, and they backed up the hero that The Joker thought they would cast out. They hadn't lost hope as Batman and Gordon feared. Quite the opposite. They developed a sense of courage.

Imagine the big finale of TDKR, with everyone in Gotham fighting against The Joker's men, while Batman and The Joker have their final battle. Batman finally getting payback against The Joker for everything he's done. No more mindgames or tricks to give The Joker an inflated ego. Just two men duking it out after 8 long years. It wouldn't be like the scene in the interrogation room, where The Joker was all too happy to get the stuffing beat out of him. He would be pissed and desperate.

It would be a fair fight, so much more satisfying for Batman to have his true victory over him, and a fitting finale for Nolan's Batman, with the two most iconic characters in comic-book history having their final confrontation on such an epic scale.

Of course, with Ledger gone, that would never happen..

But still, it seems silly to tiptoe around any mention of him in TDKR, when he was responsible for several plot points of the film.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Raoul Duke

it had better writing, in terms of the actual plot and the characterisation. with some nice unobtrusive nods and references to previous bonds. it was serious yet still witty and slick. craig gives an award worthy performance. the cinematography is some of the best ever. the scene in shanghai in particular is one of the most beautifully shot scenes i've ever seen. the one take fight scene in front of the neon is the type of shot i've yet to see nolan and pfister achieve. the editing is vastly superior to rises' which to be fair isn't difficult. the action scenes are superior. the finale isn't rushed as hell and isn't ruined by terrible acting and some of the worst stunt work i've ever seen.

skyfall is a superior film in every single way.

I loved Skyfall, but I'd disagree that all the nods were unobtrusive. Some of them felt like they were nearly breaking the 4th wall.

[Omegabat]

Originally Posted by CJ

If you even bothered to read my entire post, you'd see I made many other criticisms about the movie.

But, on the subject of The Joker..

The final scene with Batman/Bane, I feel, would have been more exciting and dramatic if it was between Batman and The Joker instead.

That scene was Batman's "rise" his chance to get payback against Bane for all he put him through. Gotham rallying together with Batman to take back their city. Fully aware that their "white knight" was a fraud. I think a scene like that would be so much more powerful if it was The Joker Batman was fighting. Bane had no connection with Harvey, so him revealing the truth, doesn't really give the scene much power.

And when you think about it, Bane didn't really put Bruce through all that much. Bane punching Bruce around, then dropping him into a hole doesn't compare to what The Joker did to Bruce.

The Joker plunged Gotham into chaos in TDK, took away its white knight, made Batman into a wanted man, and left Bruce stricken with grief. Sure Batman stopped him at the end, but it felt like a hollow victory. Bruce just stared at the Joker, jaw hanging open in horror, when he learned of Harvey's change. The Joker cackled, and Batman retreated like a dog with its tail between its legs. It felt like there was definitely unfinished business between the two.

Harvey was The Joker's ace in the hole, the one thing that made The Joker feel like he had won. (Even Batman and Gordon thought this) but in TDKR, the people of Gotham learned the truth, and still stood up against the people terrorizing their city, and they backed up the hero that The Joker thought they would cast out. They hadn't lost hope as Batman and Gordon feared. Quite the opposite. They developed a sense of courage.

Imagine the big finale of TDKR, with everyone in Gotham fighting against The Joker's men, while Batman and The Joker have their final battle. Batman finally getting payback against The Joker for everything he's done. No more mindgames or tricks to give The Joker an inflated ego. Just two men duking it out after 8 long years. It wouldn't be like the scene in the interrogation room, where The Joker was all too happy to get the stuffing beat out of him. He would be pissed and desperate.

It would be a fair fight, so much more satisfying for Batman to have his true victory over him, and a fitting finale for Nolan's Batman, with the two most iconic characters in comic-book history having their final confrontation on such an epic scale.

Of course, with Ledger gone, that would never happen..

But still, it seems silly to tiptoe around any mention of him in TDKR, when he was responsible for several plot points of the film.

You haven't made any point whatsoever,all I see here is you just complaining about the lack of Joker in the movie,your idea of making TDKR better is simply having Joker walk out of City Hall with goons instead of Bane and forgive me but what fight? pretty sure Joker wont even last 5 seconds in combat.
Joker's story ended with TDK,they never promised you another appearance,so that's not a flaw or plothole also the actor died,get over it.

[The Joker]

Omegabat sounds like the type of poster C. Lee was talking about yesterday.

[Omegabat]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Omegabat sounds like the type of poster C. Lee was talking about yesterday.

I actually respect you and your opinions,even if I dont agree with them,always thought you were a thoughtful and objective poster.So with that said what exactly did this C.Lee say about posters like me?

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Omegabat

I actually respect you and your opinions,even if I dont agree with them,always thought you were a thoughtful and objective poster.So with that said what exactly did this C.Lee say about posters like me?

Well thanks for the kind words. He said he'd been getting many PM's from posters afraid to post any critical opinions about TDKR here because they get derided for it by posters here.

Posting eye rolling smileys and telling CJ to 'get over it' etc sounds like the type of thing he was talking about.