- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: After the 2nd viewing of each, TDKR >>>>>> Avengers
Posted on 12/5/12 at 2:33 pm to RonBurgundy
Posted on 12/5/12 at 2:33 pm to RonBurgundy
quote:
Ken Wantanabe was marketed as Ra's in BB. Would you say he was the main antagonist in BB? or Liam Neeson's character-who was Bruce mentor in the first act?
Ra's al Ghul *was* the main antagonist in Batman Begins. The twist of that movie was that Ducard, Bruce's mentor, was Ra's al Ghul the entire time. Ken Watanabe's character was just a decoy. Hardly the same thing.
And, as has been asked above, would you consider Darth Vader or Emperor Palpatine the main antagonist of the original Star Wars trilogy?
0
Posted on 12/5/12 at 2:35 pm to Tactical1
quote:
He was
He might have been the top dog, but he wasn't the main antagonist.
Posted on 12/5/12 at 2:36 pm to Tactical1
quote:
He was.
He was not. The Emperor was briefly mentioned in passing a few times in Star Wars, had a brief cameo in Empire Strikes Back, and wasn't even a huge character until Return of the Jedi. If you think Emperor Palpatine was the main antagonist in The Empire Strikes Back then you are simply saying that to support your argument.
There is a difference between being the leader and the main antagonist. They can be two different people in a movie. Blofeld's organization was behind Dr. No in the first James Bond movie but Dr. No was the main antagonist. The same thing goes for From Russia with Love. Blofeld's organization was behind the events of the film but Grant, one of his agents, was the main villain of the movie.
This post was edited on 12/5/12 at 2:39 pm
Posted on 12/5/12 at 2:38 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
God I hate people comparing these two movies. They both set out with completely different goals and both completely succeeded
agree with the first part - disagree on the second. TDKR (while a good movie) didn't succeed
Posted on 12/5/12 at 2:41 pm to molsusports
quote:
TDKR (while a good movie) didn't succeed
Where did it fail?
Posted on 12/5/12 at 2:42 pm to molsusports
I am fricking with you guys, I think you are taking this a bit to literally and you seem to be personally offended by other peoples opinions on film.
Posted on 12/5/12 at 2:43 pm to molsusports
quote:
agree with the first part - disagree on the second. TDKR (while a good movie) didn't succeed
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. The only thing the film didn't succeed in doing, at least in my opinion, was living up to the massive hype surrounding it after the release of The Dark Knight. Only the greatest movie ever made would have been able to meet expectations of the general population.
This post was edited on 12/5/12 at 2:44 pm
Posted on 12/5/12 at 2:43 pm to EarthwormJim
quote:
That's like saying Emperor Palpatine was the main antagonist in Star Wars.
He absolutely was as shown in episodes 1-6
Posted on 12/5/12 at 2:43 pm to EarthwormJim
quote:
Who cares if Bane was really second in command. He was clearly the main antagonist in the movie.
That's like saying Emperor Palpatine was the main antagonist in Star Wars.
For the Return of the Jedi/TDKR I think there's a decent comparison between Vader/Palpatine and Bane/Talia - for the first two Star Wars movies the comparison doesn't work with TDKR because the Emperor wasn't a prominent character
Posted on 12/5/12 at 2:47 pm to RonBurgundy
quote:
He absolutely was as shown in episodes 1-6
Episodes 1-3 don't exist so your point is invalidated.
Posted on 12/5/12 at 2:48 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. The only thing the film didn't succeed in doing, at least in my opinion, was living up to the massive hype surrounding it after the release of The Dark Knight. Only the greatest movie ever made would have been able to meet expectations of the general population.
And I respect your right to love every part of the movie and claim it completely succeeded.
FWIW - there was a very long thread where people discussed TDKR ad naseum. I won't rehash everything but I thought the movie lost me with the silliness of the back injury/how it was treated, the escape from the pit (hey, why not just climb that rope? what? a child made that leap a super athletic man could not?), and most of the post-occupation Gotham issues in which neither the city, nor the police trapped in the tunnels made sense with any critical thought. ETA - and yes, the giant cheat in which Batman really escaped implausibly a nuclear level explosion that would have killed him even if he had the time (which he did not) to make it far enough from Gotham to save the city.
This post was edited on 12/5/12 at 2:51 pm
Posted on 12/5/12 at 2:48 pm to RonBurgundy
quote:
He absolutely was as shown in episodes 1-6
I'm not talking about 1-3, since Darth Vader is only in it about 2 minutes.
In the original Star Wars trilogy Darth Vader was without a doubt the main antagonist, because an antagonist has to be a focal character in a movie by definition.
That description fits Bane as well.
Posted on 12/5/12 at 2:51 pm to RollTide1987
even then in Jedi Palaptine certainly was and that changes the entire "original" saga into the story of Vader to a redemption one, not one of evil.
Regardless, Bane was clearly the hired goon whom Taila and her father went back for. He was not the main antagonist of the film.
Regardless, Bane was clearly the hired goon whom Taila and her father went back for. He was not the main antagonist of the film.
Posted on 12/5/12 at 2:54 pm to RollTide1987
People that normally like to argue movie Semantics tend to be film snobs.
Seriously, "this actors name was above or below this actors name so this is a clear indicator as to who the main antagonist is" or "Those movies don't exist in my world so, your opinion is invalidated"
It just sounds like a way of dismissing any legitimate argument to fit your already made up mind.
Seriously, "this actors name was above or below this actors name so this is a clear indicator as to who the main antagonist is" or "Those movies don't exist in my world so, your opinion is invalidated"
It just sounds like a way of dismissing any legitimate argument to fit your already made up mind.
This post was edited on 12/5/12 at 2:55 pm
Posted on 12/5/12 at 2:57 pm to RonBurgundy
quote:
even then in Jedi Palaptine certainly was and that changes the entire "original" saga into the story of Vader to a redemption one, not one of evil.
That doesn't change the fact that for 2/3 of the trilogy, Vader was the main antagonist. What he did for his son, at least in my opinion, does not make up for all the evil shite he did in Empire, New Hope, and even Revenge of the Sith.
As I have said in my above posts, the leader of an evil organization doesn't always have to be the main antagonist of the film. Dr. No was the main antagonist in Dr. No, despite the fact that he worked for an organization bigger than himself. Robert Shaw's Grant was the main villain in Dr. No's sequel, From Russia with Love, despite the fact that he was a mere agent working for the same criminal organization.
Talia may have been the leader of the League of Shadows but Bane was the main antagonist of the film because he was the greatest threat to the hero.
This post was edited on 12/5/12 at 3:02 pm
Posted on 12/5/12 at 2:59 pm to Tactical1
quote:
It just sounds like a way of dismissing any legitimate argument to fit your already made up mind.
Ironic considering you focused in on that one addendum in the post and ignored the rest of my argument.
Posted on 12/5/12 at 3:06 pm to molsusports
quote:
And I respect your right to love every part of the movie and claim it completely succeeded.
But you see I don't. I think The Dark Knight Rises, after careful consideration, is more than likely the weakest film in Nolan's trilogy - but that doesn't make it a bad movie. I give it an A- while I give Batman Begins an A and The Dark Knight an A+. All three are solid films but I just feel The Dark Knight Rises had a few flaws that hurt the story a little bit.
This post was edited on 12/5/12 at 3:07 pm
Posted on 12/5/12 at 3:09 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
That doesn't change the fact that for 2/3 of the trilogy, Vader was the main antagonist. What he did for his son, at least in my opinion, does not make up for all the evil shite he did in Empire, New Hope, and even Revenge of the Sith.
It doesn't change the fact that the story was set-up to be a redemption story for Vader and since you don't count Revenge to exist, can your point even be valid
Regardless of screen time in the trilogy, Palpatine most certainly is the main antagonist. If the trilogy is one continuous story of the Rebels finding freedom from oppression of the Empire then the parallel story is Anakin Skywalker freeing his weight of past sin and slavery to Emperor Palaptine shown even in the scenes in Empire. By the end of Empire, Vader openly talks about killing the Emperor, to the protagonist of the film-Luke. There is no possible way you can consider him the antagonist of the film if he is contemplating. By Jedi he is nothing more than a "yes man".
now back to Bane-whom very much fits the mold of someone taking orders the entire time, Bane has zero motivation to attack Batman/Bruce or Gotham as an individual, but Tailia does the plan was her all along and she is pulling the strings.
Posted on 12/5/12 at 3:22 pm to RonBurgundy
quote:
now back to Bane-whom very much fits the mold of someone taking orders the entire time, Bane has zero motivation to attack Batman/Bruce or Gotham as an individual, but Tailia does the plan was her all along and she is pulling the strings.
It doesn't matter who is calling the shots. The main antagonist is the one who is actually one of the focal point of the movie. That's Bane.
This post was edited on 12/5/12 at 3:23 pm
Posted on 12/5/12 at 3:24 pm to RonBurgundy
quote:
Regardless of screen time in the trilogy, Palpatine most certainly is the main antagonist.
How can a villain be the MAIN villain in a film if he/she is rarely seen? Screen time is everything. As absent as Liam Neeson was from the second act of Batman Begins, his character of Ra's al Ghul still had more screen time than the Scarecrow and Carmine Falcone - combined. Can you name more than three action movies where the main antagonist doesn't introduce themselves until the final 15 minutes of the movie?
The main antagonist is someone who is the protagonist's main focus in the movie. Bane was that main focus. All of the attention, throughout the film, is centered on him and his actions. The fact that he may or may not have been getting his marching orders from Talia changes nothing.
This post was edited on 12/5/12 at 3:27 pm
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News