View Single Post
Old November 16 2010, 01:01 AM   #151
Myasishchev
Rear Admiral
 
Myasishchev's Avatar
 
Location: America after the rain
Re: The Dark Knight to have a female villain?

Lapis Exilis wrote: View Post
Admiral_Young wrote: View Post
I would argue again that Talia is the way she is through conditioning and breeding along with training. Talia is meant to be nothing more than a desirable object for men since Ra's means for her to mate with a suitable candidate to be his heir. He would have much preferred a son but got Talia instead and has treated her as such. I don't get what is so hard to contemplate about her. Her entire purpose is to serve the means of her father and that is what generates the conflict between her. She is incapable of having a destiny or life of her own. Every time she has attempted to do so she's been either manipulated by Ra's or forces belonging to Ra or has come back on her own whim. This is the tragedy of Talia al Ghul.
I'm not having any trouble grasping the character - I'm saying the way her "tragedy" is written is dumb. It's a contrived tragedy which anyone as intelligent as she is said to be would easily throw off by realizing, hey, I'm a grown woman, I'm a master assassin with mad organizational skills, and I don't have to please Daddy, who's been treating me like shit all these years, and if Bruce doesn't want me, I don't need him either. The girl needs to read a copy of "He's Just Not that Into You".
The other hilarious/sad part is that Bruce's attractiveness is basically an informed attribute, as well. I mean, I guess he might do it for some chicks, and he's physically probably one the hottest dudes on New Earth, but he's also a dreary, monomaniacal dick (most of the time). I mean, at least when Lois Lane and Lana Lang were beating each other half to death on a regular basis over Superman, you at least got the impression he was desirable, would make a good partner, and was generally kind and not yelly, bossy, angry, intrinsically violent, borderline crazy, or likely to wind up dead any day now. Whereas it's almost preposterous that anyone who knows Batman well enough to know his name could believe it could work out, given that he'll tell you right up front that you'll never compete with the ghost of his mom.

I heartily agree all the way around. Nolan did a very good thing by changing the basic motivation of Ra's away from eco-terrorism (lord, some of the comic book monolgues about why wiping out 9/10ths of humanity to restore the purity of the earth is a brilliant idea on his part are unbelieveably painful) to correcting the corruption of civilization. It's equally as nutty, but it makes for a tighter story as to why Gotham specifically would be targeted, and it was a fun "shadow history" bit in his speech at the end about burning London and loading trade ships with plague rats. It also put the aims of the League into a more reasonable scale - destroying one city versus 9/10ths of humanity. And I personally loved the business about decoy front men and the question - never really answered - about whether or not Ra's al Ghul was immortal.
No way! I liked the ecoterrorism. I wanted the ecoterrorism. And the Lazarus Pits. Take all that away, might as well have just had Batman fight the Jackal. (That is, Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, not history's worst Spider-man villain, at least before Mephisto came along.)

Well of course it didn't make sense - what in comics does? But it was nice to see her actually have a plan of her own for once. She could be such an interesting character, if they could stop playing her as hot Fatal Attraction psycho with a Daddy complex.
Not too terribly much anymore, unfortunately. At least in the old days, they could claim innocence and an audience of children. Neither condition is true these days. : /
__________________

Myasishchev is offline   Reply With Quote