The Dark Knight Rises TDKR Oscar Chances? - Part 1

[DACrowe]

Again, it's how she says it. Robin, I like that name. Don't you like it??

The problem, for me, is the "conviction" in which the words are spoken, like she doesn't want you to miss the fact that he is Robin. Robin. R-O-B-I-N. She breaks the 4th wall for me. I realize now that I've been thinking too much about this woman's performance, but since people brought up the Robin thing ...

Maybe it would've been better if JGL had said the name, I'm sure he would've made it sound a bit more natural, instead of just handing her his ID as if his name was Voldemort

I think it's nitpicking. It didn't break the fourth wall. She naturally explains that she likes it. It is done as a "blink and you miss it" type of moment in how quick and passing it is. Compare that to the big reveal of Moneypenny or literally ending Skyfall with Bond call Mallory M in the original office, complete with a freaking freeze frame.

To be clear, I like both approaches, but I loved it in July and everyone I saw it with reacted well. This is just a weird online thing.

 

[DACrowe]

No, it didn't do it much better than BB. It was the exact same formula only much more dragged out. In Begins the Microwave emitter is simply a device used to bring Ra's and Batman together in a clash. It was also symbolic of how their methods to bring justice to a city were so different. It wasn't dragged out, it wasn't overly focused on and it served a simple but effective purpose.

I highly disagree. The "emitter" in BB was just a way to have the doomsday weapon without calling it a bomb. It existed solely for Batman to stop from going off in the Third Act. Yes, Batman had to stop the "bomb" from going off in the Third Act of TDKR, but it was used that way to create a reason for Bane to take over the city. Bane's plan was to reflect what a military coup might look like in American culture and the bomb was the plot device to allow Nolan to explore that. He shows great inequality in Gotham--as we see right now in America--and introduces a villain who preys on that inequality to feed his own agenda. It raises some interesting ideas and the bomb allows Nolan "to go there."

The bomb in BB is just a bomb that needs to be stopped. It is also why I think the Third Act is by far the weakest section of BB because it becomes so conventional at that point.

Since you mentioned Raimi, he handled it better than both Nolan and Donner did, because Doc Ock's fusion reactor was never intended to be a lethal device by the villain. It was a physical manifestation of Ock's life's dream, and served as a parallel to Peter Parker's arc. Peter was being irresponsible by giving up being Spider-Man so he could live his dream of a normal life, and Ock was being irresponsible by doing evil things to make his dream happen. In the end they both take responsibility and give up their dreams to do the right thing.

The fusion reactor did not even become a threat until the end when Ock rebuilt it, much like how the microwave emitter didn't become a threat until the finale either. Whereas Gotham was living under 5 months of the threat of a ticking time bomb dragged out to the hilt. TDKR milked the city being under threat of it for that long just to give Bruce the time to recover in the pit and escape and make a big comeback. That's all. Another Batman busting his hump to stop another lethal Wayne Enterprises device an Al Ghul in disguise is using to destroy Gotham.

If you think that's some kind of brilliant innovative writing then fair play to you. But I think it was just a tired recycling of a plot line used already in this franchise. A very inferior version, too.



I would if I thought it did. But I don't.

That's the point. It was more than a doomsday device. Unlike SM2, BB, the Death Star and whatever else you want to compare it to, the bomb in TDKR was there to allow the story to go in a direction we have never seen in this genre or really in any mainstream Hollywood film. It allowed them to go to a new place, even if they had to rely on a convention that was used in BB. But unlike the first film, it did not follow the formula of that convention.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I think it's nitpicking. It didn't break the fourth wall. She naturally explains that she likes it. It is done as a "blink and you miss it" type of moment in how quick and passing it is. Compare that to the big reveal of Moneypenny or literally ending Skyfall with Bond call Mallory M in the original office, complete with a freaking freeze frame.

To be clear, I like both approaches, but I loved it in July and everyone I saw it with reacted well. This is just a weird online thing.

Let's be honest. The reason people don't like it is because his name is John Blake instead of Tim Drake.

 

[The Joker]

TDKR will always remain the low point of the series for me. I found the entire thing pretty conventional. While Batman begins and maybe even TDK had some conventionality to them, Begins offered me a darker Batman movie then I had seen before, and for that, I'm grateful to Nolan.

Exactly. BB and TDK went somewhere, and offered something new. Rises just washed, rinsed, and repeated several of the plot furniture points used by Begins.

I highly disagree. The "emitter" in BB was just a way to have the doomsday weapon without calling it a bomb. It existed solely for Batman to stop from going off in the Third Act. Yes, Batman had to stop the "bomb" from going off in the Third Act of TDKR, but it was used that way to create a reason for Bane to take over the city.

Yeah, and it was used as a device for Ra's to come and attack Gotham. Same thing just one was not dwelled upon having Gordon and other characters spending half the movie running around like headless chickens trying to find it, while the other was in that way and was used to drag out a siege that went nowhere except allowed Bruce to recover and come back as Batman.

You say it allowed the movie to go somewhere. It didn't allow the movie to go anywhere except set up a stage for an action climax of find the bomb and chase the bomb.

Bane's plan was to reflect what a military coup might look like in American culture and the bomb was the plot device to allow Nolan to explore that. He shows great inequality in Gotham--as we see right now in America--and introduces a villain who preys on that inequality to feed his own agenda. It raises some interesting ideas and the bomb allows Nolan "to go there."

I know why it was it done. But intention and execution are two different things. What did it show except poor desperate people will take from rich people, and murderers, thieves and rapists broken out of jail will join in with the man holding the city hostage?

Didn't need a bomb to show that. Which is really obvious, too.

The bomb in BB is just a bomb that needs to be stopped. It is also why I think the Third Act is by far the weakest section of BB because it becomes so conventional at that point.

The bomb in TDKR was just a bomb that needs to be stopped, too. Same plot, different ending.

That's the point. It was more than a doomsday device. Unlike SM2, BB, the Death Star and whatever else you want to compare it to, the bomb in TDKR was there to allow the story to go in a direction we have never seen in this genre or really in any mainstream Hollywood film. It allowed them to go to a new place, even if they had to rely on a convention that was used in BB. But unlike the first film, it did not follow the formula of that convention.

No, that's your point, not mine. I say again Raimi handled it better than both Nolan and Donner did, because Doc Ock's fusion reactor was never intended to be a lethal device by the villain. It was a physical manifestation of Ock's life's dream, and served as a parallel to Peter Parker's arc. Peter was being irresponsible by giving up being Spider-Man so he could live his dream of a normal life, and Ock was being irresponsible by doing evil things to make his dream happen. In the end they both take responsibility and give up their dreams to do the right thing.

The fusion reactor did not even become a threat until the end when Ock rebuilt it, much like how the microwave emitter didn't become a threat until the finale either. Whereas Gotham was living under 5 months of the threat of a ticking time bomb dragged out to the hilt. TDKR milked the city being under threat of it for that long just to give Bruce the time to recover in the pit and escape and make a big comeback. That's all. Another Batman busting his hump to stop another lethal Wayne Enterprises device an Al Ghul in disguise is using to destroy Gotham.

Where did TDKR's bomb plot allow the story to go except show that when a terrorist takes over the city, the good people will just hide like sheep, the criminals will join in the mayhem, and the poor and desperate will take what they can get.

Again we didn't need a 5 month bomb threat to show that. All TDKR did was use a cliche device to drag out a villain take over. But the end result was the same. Batman must stop villain from destroying Gotham after the villain spent 5 months letting poor people take from rich people, let criminals run around free, while the decent people stayed frightened and hidden in their homes. I don't see this as any kind of brilliant new ground.

 

[TheGuy]

I highly disagree. The "emitter" in BB was just a way to have the doomsday weapon without calling it a bomb. It existed solely for Batman to stop from going off in the Third Act. Yes, Batman had to stop the "bomb" from going off in the Third Act of TDKR, but it was used that way to create a reason for Bane to take over the city. Bane's plan was to reflect what a military coup might look like in American culture and the bomb was the plot device to allow Nolan to explore that. He shows great inequality in Gotham--as we see right now in America--and introduces a villain who preys on that inequality to feed his own agenda. It raises some interesting ideas and the bomb allows Nolan "to go there."

The bomb in BB is just a bomb that needs to be stopped. It is also why I think the Third Act is by far the weakest section of BB because it becomes so conventional at that point.

Yes yes. The bomb had purpose, while the emitter did not. It solely existed just for Batman to stop it.

 

[DACrowe]

Yeah, and it was used as a device for Ra's to come and attack Gotham. Same thing just one was not dwelled upon having Gordon and other characters spending half the movie running around like headless chickens trying to find it, while the other was in that way and was used to drag out a siege that went nowhere except allowed Bruce to recover and come back as Batman.

You say it allowed the movie to go somewhere. It didn't allow the movie to go anywhere except set up a stage for an action climax of find the bomb and chase the bomb.

The bomb in Begins was just a plot Batman had to stop. The bomb in Rises let Bane turn the whole city upside down and explore the collapse of a modern American society. The bomb itself was the point in BB while the bomb is a macguffin in TDKR.

I know why it was it done. But intention and execution are two different things. What did it show except poor desperate people will take from rich people, and murderers, thieves and rapists broken out of jail will join in with the man holding the city hostage?

Didn't need a bomb to show that. Which is really obvious, too.

Actually, it's not. The whole lead up to the movie, I had no idea how this "Bane takes a whole city hostage" concept could conceivably work because the US government would never, ever allow for this. But if he has a nuclear bomb constantly hidden away, ready to go off if they step foot in Gotham, it creates a stalemate situation that allows Bane to play out his social experiment. Even then it takes a suspension of disbelief, but without this macguffin the idea that Bane could lay siege to a major American city for months becomes downright ridiculously stupid.

So, yes, the bomb was needed to go there.

The bomb in TDKR was just a bomb that needs to be stopped, too. Same plot, different ending.

If you think that, you are ignoring the real substance of TDKR. And that is why it is in some ways better. The bomb is just a bomb that needs to be stopped in BB. In the third film, it creates a fascinating situation that my only problem with is that it should have been longer to even more explore what this city would be like.

No, that's your point, not mine. I say again Raimi handled it better than both Nolan and Donner did, because Doc Ock's fusion reactor was never intended to be a lethal device by the villain. It was a physical manifestation of Ock's life's dream, and served as a parallel to Peter Parker's arc. Peter was being irresponsible by giving up being Spider-Man so he could live his dream of a normal life, and Ock was being irresponsible by doing evil things to make his dream happen. In the end they both take responsibility and give up their dreams to do the right thing.

The fusion reactor did not even become a threat until the end when Ock rebuilt it, much like how the microwave emitter didn't become a threat until the finale either. Whereas Gotham was living under 5 months of the threat of a ticking time bomb dragged out to the hilt. TDKR milked the city being under threat of it for that long just to give Bruce the time to recover in the pit and escape and make a big comeback. That's all. Another Batman busting his hump to stop another lethal Wayne Enterprises device an Al Ghul in disguise is using to destroy Gotham.

You're right, it was five months exactly so that Batman could recover. I'm sure if Nolan thought we would buy 2 months or 3 months, he would have made it that number. My point, which you repeatedly ignore, is you only see the bomb as a manifestation of third act confrontation. I think you are missing why it is really in the movie. I don't care if it is only introduced in the third act in BB and SM2. To me that is kind of lazy, because it is only there so the hero has something to stop. Raimi relating the villain's arc to his hero is also nothing new as he did it in all three Spidey films. Using a genre convention, a doomsday weapon, to tell the story of a city socially destroying itself is something we have never seen before. It created a new story possibility, while SM2, as you point out, has the same third act as BB. You may prefer one over the other, but it is the same plot point.

Where did TDKR's bomb plot allow the story to go except show that when a terrorist takes over the city, the good people will just hide like sheep, the criminals will join in the mayhem, and the poor and desperate will take what they can get.

Again we didn't need a 5 month bomb threat to show that. All TDKR did was use a cliche device to drag out a villain take over. But the end result was the same. Batman must stop villain from destroying Gotham after the villain spent 5 months letting poor people take from rich people, let criminals run around free, while the decent people stayed frightened and hidden in their homes. I don't see this as any kind of brilliant new ground.

Name another movie that has explored such a societal collapse in modern America that didn't involve something supernatural like zombies? You can't. That is why it works and makes the movie more interesting than the first in the series.

 

[Dark Knight]

Name another movie that has explored such a societal collapse in modern America that didn't involve something supernatural like zombies? You can't. That is why it works and makes the movie more interesting than the first in the series.

Great point.

 

[C. Lee]

I personally didn't think it was that interesting. The 5 month time period seemed contrived. There was practicly no delving into how the people of Gotham were dealing with it. Next to nothing about how the government was dealing with it. Nothing seemed real or dire to me.

 

[Dark Knight]

TDKR has as much depth as one could hope for.

I don't think it's middlebrow. I think it's low and high brow at the same time, which is what the "thinking man's action movie" is supposed to be. If you took it as a simple revenge plot, that's fine. The movie kind of guides you there. But as you said, there is a lot of food for thought and Bane and Talia's plan actually becomes more fascinating the more you reflect on it.

Nolan's movies are always built for multiple viewings, TDKR is no exception.

Agreed.

 

[The Joker]

I personally didn't think it was that interesting. The 5 month time period seemed contrived. There was practicly no delving into how the people of Gotham were dealing with it. Next to nothing about how the government was dealing with it. Nothing seemed real or dire to me.

Agreed. That is the crux of my point to DACrowe. It didn't go anywhere interesting so I don't get why it's supposed to be some kind of great ground breaking writing. At least the one in Begins served a purpose without being needlessly dragged out for a whole load of nothing but filler while Bruce recovered.

 

[Ryan]

I personally didn't think it was that interesting. The 5 month time period seemed contrived. There was practicly no delving into how the people of Gotham were dealing with it. Next to nothing about how the government was dealing with it. Nothing seemed real or dire to me.

Quoted for truth. I guess I could have looked at the whole "bomb" plot as something new and different if they had shown it. At least with Begins (and I wasn't a huge fan of the emitter) they show the impact of the gas being spread through gotham and the mass chaos that ensued. You'd think with the city being held hostage you'd see some sort of shot of the gotham people fighting to be in the sun as Bane had suggested...but instead you see nothing. All the streets are completely empty. Of course someone will say, well we don't need to see it, but in my case I did. In comparison, Nolan didn't have to spend the time showing the Swat time surroudn the Gotham Stock Exchange, but he did, and to me, I thought that was one of the best scenes in the movie as you really felt the tension of the officers as they braced for another threat.

 

[Dark Knight]

I personally didn't think it was that interesting. The 5 month time period seemed contrived. There was practicly no delving into how the people of Gotham were dealing with it. Next to nothing about how the government was dealing with it. Nothing seemed real or dire to me.

Story wasn't about how the people of Gotham as a whole or how the government were dealing with it really.

Maybe if the film was a two parter they can fit stuff in like that, but it wasn't necessary in a one part film like this. Read the novelization.

This is a Batman movie after all.

 

[C. Lee]

Story wasn't about how the people of Gotham as a whole or how the government were dealing with it really.

Maybe if the film was a two parter they can fit stuff in like that, but it wasn't necessary in a one part film like this. Read the novelization.

This is a Batman movie after all.

Well, you see....the bolded part is my problem. I didn't feel like it was a Batman movie.

When you make a movie about terrorists taking over a major American city for five months...you really should show how the people react to that. Doesn't matter if it is a Batman movie or a James Bond movie. You see how it effects people other than the primary characters. The city looked deserted.

 

[Ryan]

Definately would think if it was a Batman movie we'd have seen more of him in it. I keep forgetting though...it was the "Bruce Wayne" story

 

[The Guard]

I don't see how the bomb in TDKR is any less "something Batman has to stop" than the microwave emitter in BEGINS was.

 

[BatmanBeyond]

I don't see how the bomb in TDKR is any less "something Batman has to stop" than the microwave emitter in BEGINS was.

I don't think DACrowe is arguing against that, just that while the similarities to BB are clear, this convention that was used in both movies was also used to explore an interesting concept in TDKR.

 

[BatLobster]

The difference is, the microwave emitter showed up in the third act of Begins kind of out of nowhere and took the movie into a territory that didn't feel quite natural with the earlier part of the movie.

The fusion reactor in TDKR is more engrained into the plot (offers some nice character touches for Bruce and shows how he tried be useful to Gotham without Batman) and I agree with DACrowe, it was a means to push the story into an extreme direction. Whether or not one enjoyed this direction is a different story, but nonetheless there had never been a superhero film where the villain has had such a drastic and absolute victory that is sustained for a period of months, and the hero has to take back a city that's already been lost.

 

[The Joker]

The microwave emitter was introduced in the second act of Begins when that W.E. guy informed Mr. Earle of the theft of it, which we also saw.

 

[BatLobster]

Well yeah, perhaps technically it's Act 2 but if I recall it's pretty late in Act 2 as the film is gearing up for Act 3.

I'm not saying it literally showed up with no setup whatsoever, but it felt a bit shoe-horned in late in the film. Alas, the movie was extremely focused on Bruce, so I can forgive it.

 

[Deserana]

For me all the way from the first scene to the end of Bane's blackgate speech is damn near flawless! The acting, the pacing, the story... perfect IMO. Then it all drops after that... I love the story on paper but I don't think it is executed to its potential. The five months in one cut is also unforgivable to me and really damaged the film in that area as because the situation didn't seem THAT dire Batman's return was really... cut short. It didn't feel the way it should.

 

[DACrowe]

Agreed. That is the crux of my point to DACrowe. It didn't go anywhere interesting so I don't get why it's supposed to be some kind of great ground breaking writing. At least the one in Begins served a purpose without being needlessly dragged out for a whole load of nothing but filler while Bruce recovered.

I agree that it should have been fleshed out more. I wish the movie was just 10-20 minutes longer so that we could have spent a lot more time in Bane's Gotham. Seen more of his "revolution" and perhaps have a scene of Bruce returning to it (thus making it less jarring) and having a reaction to it.

Even so, I think it works. You seem to view it as a total failure. I do not. I think even if it could have been elaborated on more, seeing Bane destroy civilization is the main thing, besides Hathaway's terrific Catwoman, that makes the movie stand out.

I guess it worked for me. If you view the bomb solely as serving the purpose for the hero to stop, then I agree BB did it better because it was shorter. But the problem with "doomsday machine" plots is that you always know the hero is going to stop them. Therefore there is absolutely no tension in finales like Spider-Man 2 or Batman Begins. In both those movies, the real climax was the train fight/MJ finding out and Bruce getting Rachel the antidote and his house burning down, respectively. In TDKR, they at least succeed in getting most of the audience to believe the hero could and did die at the end--I regret I figured out Batman would live with Catwoman when we see Alfred's Florence fantasy in the first 30 minutes--but at least it yielded for me an interesting storyline never done before.

If the story doesn't work for you, I see why you hate the bomb. But to me the bomb is the macguffin instead of the point, so agree to disagree.

 

[DACrowe]

Definately would think if it was a Batman movie we'd have seen more of him in it. I keep forgetting though...it was the "Bruce Wayne" story

He is in the majority of the movie. I did not realize a mask and a cape was the selling point of the character.

 

[Deserana]

To me only the Bruce child scenes (pre-Wayne murders) and the final minute of TDKR is the ONLY time we see the real Bruce Wayne. In between we see Batman.

 

[Ryan]

He is in the majority of the movie. I did not realize a mask and a cape was the selling point of the character.

Its what brought me to the theatre. I imagine most toy manufacturers have a wider ratio of selling Batman figures over Bruce Wayne. I've heard people complain that there wasn't enough Batman in this movie. I have never read a post for any superhero movie where people complained there was too much superhero. Although having hardly any batman in this batman movie is definately one of my gripes, its small in comparison to the others. I honestly felt there wasn't enough Batman in TDK either, but I still think that was an amazing film.

 

[JackWhite]

I never understood how people felt there wasn't enough of Bruce in the suit in TDK. I mean, Batman is all over that film. I also liked how the third act was pretty much exclusively Batman.

But anyways, I do get the gripes with there not being enough Batman scenes in TDKR. Yes, Bruce=Batman/Batman=Bruce, but it seems like Nolan handled the Bruce Wayne/Batman ratio in the first two films better. BB was perfect, considering it was an origin story. And TDK, IMO, gave us a hell of a lot of Batman in action - whether it was investigating a crime scene, fighting thugs, various meetings with Gordon and Dent, etc, etc.

But I'm still not sure about Rises. If the final battle was a little longer and maybe one or two quick scenes like the one with Catwoman borrowing the bat-pod, it would have probably eased my mind. I knew we wouldn't get as much Batman as the TDK, but I felt we should have at least got the same amount of Batman screen time as BB, not less.