The League of Shadows

[The Laughing Fish]

What do people think of how the League of Shadows were portrayed? I got a lot of problems with how they're portrayed in this movie, and how they changed drastically in the third film.

Despite all the talk about how the League were responsible for "sacking Rome" and spending many centuries restoring civilisations through terrorism, I was unimpressed with how they were easily beaten in the end. It never felt like they ever lived up to the hype. I honestly found the ending to be incredibly underwhelming and anticlimactic because it was rushed. And this is despite the film being over two hours long by that point. It was supposed to mean that Batman was so awesome for single-handedly taking down an entire secret society. But the League is re-introduced in the last twenty minutes of the film, and they are quickly defeated, despite being in hundreds in numbers as they attacked Gotham. I honestly didn't not find them that threatening because they return for a short period of time. And what's even worse is it didn't really look like the League put up that much of a fight against Batman, because the action scenes involving them and Ra's al Ghul were so short and incredibly poorly directed. You couldn't tell what the hell was going on because of how badly edited and choreographed the fights were. 

There were quite a few things about the League that left me scratching my head in confusion. For example, I thought it was awkward that the chaos happening all over Gotham immediately ended as soon as Ra's dies. What happened to the League's remaining survivors? Did they just escape or get arrested? Speaking of which, what about all those Arkham Asylum escapees scattered everywhere in Gotham, who were devouring each other? I never got the sense of a satisfying conclusion to what happened to them. And I never understood why Ra's even needed a decoy to begin with. Who is he hiding his true identity from, and why? Was anyone really surprised that he was the "secret" villain at all? I never understood the purpose of this plot twist.

For that matter, I'm disappointed how the League changes in TDKR too. Despite being centuries old, the League gets so depleted following their loss to Batman that they radically reimagine their goals and identity altogether. In BB, the League operated in secrecy and their goal was to rebuild cities by destroying corrupt civilisations that inhabit them. But in TDKR, they got rid of all their martial arts expertise and became a regular terrorist cult; announcing themselves to the world as they take control of Gotham. But their return was pointless because Gotham was no longer "corrupt" thanks to the Dent Act. So that means that their return was only used as a ploy for Talia to get revenge over Bruce for murdering her father...despite the fact that Ra's abandoned her and her mother to rot in the Pit, and kicked her and Bane out of the League shortly after they reunited. It's too ridiculous.

So far in live-action, Ra's al Ghul and the League have been portrayed in this trilogy and were the main antagonists in Arrow's third season, and I didn't like either interpretations. I'm not convinced that Hollywood knows how to portray the League or Ra's al Ghul properly.

[Dagenspear]

What do people think of how the League of Shadows were portrayed? I got a lot of problems with how they're portrayed in this movie, and how they changed drastically in the third film.

Despite all the talk about how the League were responsible for "sacking Rome" and spending many centuries restoring civilisations through terrorism, I was unimpressed with how they were easily beaten in the end. It never felt like they ever lived up to the hype. I honestly found the ending to be incredibly underwhelming and anticlimactic because it was rushed. And this is despite the film being over two hours long by that point. It was supposed to mean that Batman was so awesome for single-handedly taking down an entire secret society. But the League is re-introduced in the last twenty minutes of the film, and they are quickly defeated, despite being in hundreds in numbers as they attacked Gotham. I honestly didn't not find them that threatening because they return for a short period of time. And what's even worse is it didn't really look like the League put up that much of a fight against Batman, because the action scenes involving them and Ra's al Ghul were so short and incredibly poorly directed. You couldn't tell what the hell was going on because of how badly edited and choreographed the fights were. 

There were quite a few things about the League that left me scratching my head in confusion. For example, I thought it was awkward that the chaos happening all over Gotham immediately ended as soon as Ra's dies. What happened to the League's remaining survivors? Did they just escape or get arrested? Speaking of which, what about all those Arkham Asylum escapees scattered everywhere in Gotham, who were devouring each other? I never got the sense of a satisfying conclusion to what happened to them. And I never understood why Ra's even needed a decoy to begin with. Who is he hiding his true identity from, and why? Was anyone really surprised that he was the "secret" villain at all? I never understood the purpose of this plot twist.

For that matter, I'm disappointed how the League changes in TDKR too. Despite being centuries old, the League gets so depleted following their loss to Batman that they radically reimagine their goals and identity altogether. In BB, the League operated in secrecy and their goal was to rebuild cities by destroying corrupt civilisations that inhabit them. But in TDKR, they got rid of all their martial arts expertise and became a regular terrorist cult; announcing themselves to the world as they take control of Gotham. But their return was pointless because Gotham was no longer "corrupt" thanks to the Dent Act. So that means that their return was only used as a ploy for Talia to get revenge over Bruce for murdering her father...despite the fact that Ra's abandoned her and her mother to rot in the Pit, and kicked her and Bane out of the League shortly after they reunited. It's too ridiculous.

So far in live-action, Ra's al Ghul and the League have been portrayed in this trilogy and were the main antagonists in Arrow's third season, and I didn't like either interpretations. I'm not convinced that Hollywood knows how to portray the League or Ra's al Ghul properly.

Ra's didn't leave them to rot in the pit. He didn't know she'd taken his place in the pit. They say this in the movie. He also didn't kick her out of the League either. Talia doesn't imply that in her story. She says that she couldn't forgive her Father for rejecting Bane.

Really, I believe he was supposed to be hiding it from Bruce. Because he wasn't fully sure if he could trust him.

The Joker has asylum patients working for him in The Dark Knight.

Really the League wasn't doing anything in the final battle, but protecting Ra's.

Personally, I don't see it as them changing, so much as the differences being reflected by the leaders.

There are similarities in how Bane and Ra's act to be sure, but Bane shows tremendous disrespect to his men. He's very deceptive and manipulative to them. He more controls them and how they think, than Ra's, who seemed to offer free will to his men. He was their leader because he respected them and they him. Bane took on people who were easily manipulated and weak willed. People he could control. Because that's real difference between Bane and Ra's, Bane wants control, he wants to prove something to himself and everyone else. Ra's wasn't like that really.

[The Laughing Fish]

I'm still baffled to this day by the scene where Bruce blows up the League's monastery that results in many deaths, moments after he refused to execute a man to complete his training. A man who we still have no idea whether or not he survived afterwards.

Like killing off Ra's al Ghul in the end, I have no clue what Nolan was trying to accomplish with this scene. Why couldn't the monastery burning to the ground be caused by someone else who was trying to stop Bruce? Why did he decide to have Bruce burn the whole place to the ground and make him responsible for the deaths that immediately followed?

Some people might defend the scene by saying "Bruce didn't mean to do it", to which I say it's a moot point. If somebody like Zack Snyder had directed a scene where the main character vowed to never kill, only to have people killed seconds later with his reckless actions, people would ridicule him and call him an idiot. And the scene would be parodied on social media. But if Christopher Nolan does it, it's left ignored, and people still perpetuate this myth that he's this brilliant storyteller.

It's mind-boggling.

[Dagenspear]

I'm still baffled to this day by the scene where Bruce blows up the League's monastery that results in many deaths, moments after he refused to execute a man to complete his training. A man who we still have no idea whether or not he survived afterwards.

It seems to me that that wasn't his intention.

Like killing off Ra's al Ghul in the end, I have no clue what Nolan was trying to accomplish with this scene. Why couldn't the monastery burning to the ground be caused by someone else who was trying to stop Bruce? Why did he decide to have Bruce burn the whole place to the ground and make him responsible for the deaths that immediately followed?

Bruce didn't kill Ra's at the end. Him starting the fire seemed to show that Bruce was someone who could orchestrate a plan to escape.

Some people might defend the scene by saying "Bruce didn't mean to do it", to which I say it's a moot point. If somebody like Zack Snyder had directed a scene where the main character vowed to never kill, only to have people killed seconds later with his reckless actions, people would ridicule him and call him an idiot. And the scene would be parodied on social media. But if Christopher Nolan does it, it's left ignored, and people still perpetuate this myth that he's this brilliant storyteller.

It's mind-boggling.

It isn't moot, because Bruce stating a no kill rule and then people dying because he does something when that wasn't his intention isn't him disregarding the rule. It's the rule being broken, but that doesn't mean he intended to break it, so it doesn't erase the rule. Some people take issue with Zack's interpretation, because he has Batman murder people purposefully and with malice of forethought. There's a difference between the 2. That's why we have separate Biblical and legal rules for them. Have a very great day you and everyone!

God bless you! God bless everyone!