William Fichtner isn’t Shredder (Confirmed)

[Leo656]

Yeah, it was a little different, but that wasn't just any mustache Neeson had, it was a distinctively Evil one.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Alright, alright, maybe I was a little harsh. Sorry. But c'mon... the mustache? That didn't at least give you a little hint? I got all my info on that movie in Wizard, I didn't know who anyone was playing, I saw the pictures and was like, "Oh, snap! Neeson's playing Ra's!" Then I read the caption where they said he was Ducard, and was like, "Wait... wha'?" I immediately knew there was a swerve coming. Evil Mustache.

That, and while Ducard was a comics character, he was super-minor, and I didn't think they'd spend money on Neeson just to make him an obscure supporting cast member. I just did the math and figured if the most well-known actor in the movie wasn't playing the main lead, he had to at least be playing the main villain. I'unno. I do tend to play detective a lot, in case nobody noticed.

Again, wasn't trying to offend. But I seriously only ever heard people say it was too obvious if anything. Sorry to presume.

No offense taken on my part, I'll be the first to admit it was a rookie mistake. All the signs were leaping off the screen.

[Xav]

May I ask just what were the signs?

[Leo656]

For all his talk about "Ra's" (Watanabe) and how big and important he was, Neeson "Ducard" sure seemed like he had a lot of pull with the League of Shadows. The way "Ra's" was portrayed as so passive when we first see him didn't seem very in-character.

Meanwhile, Neeson/"Ducard" was making epic speeches about The League's plans and acting pretty super-villainous in general. "Ra's" only existed on-screen as "Mysterious Asian" until he picked up a sword and started dueling with Bruce, then got a roof dropped on him. The way Neeson's character behaved was completely in-character with Ra's. Then, if absolutely nothing else, the final clue is when we see Bruce drop him off after saving his life, and then the character is never seen or mentioned again. Literally a half hour into the movie at the absolute latest, you know something is up. You know "Ducard" is still alive, and that even though the movie has shifted gears into the Scarecrow storyline, you know something still has to happen because you saw a major villain like "Ra's" get killed off super early despite being too important to the mythology to have that happen. "Ra's" is dead, even though he can't be, you know you have to see Ducard again at some point because we didn't see him die... thus, evidence strongly suggests, at that point, that Ducard will reappear before the end of the film, as the real Ra's. Which is obviously exactly what happened.

Even though I thought it was obvious, I loved how it was something a person who paid close attention could have figured out before it was revealed. The best twists are ones that are "fair", maybe not telegraphed, but something that you can go, "Wow, I should have known!" Conversely, Talia was pretty tacked on. It made perfect sense when they explained it, but before that, you only could have guessed she was Talia based on, "Yeah, I had a feeling they'd put Talia in it somehow," not based on any on-screen evidence.

[Slade]

You know, I had no idea who Neeson was supposed to be instead of Ra's. I just looked at him and figured he was Ra's. Haha. Think I might have been spoiled on Talia.

[pennydreadful]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Frankly, I'm all for secrecy and misdirection and whatnot, but flat-out lying about anything is always wrong. That's one of my biggest beliefs in life, that lies are an insult to the intelligence of the listener - "I'm saying something untrue, and this person is stupid enough to believe it!" - and there's never a valid reason for it. If you can't believe the words a person is speaking, then they in turn have absolutely zero value as a human being, because our ability to properly communicate with and trust each other is one of the few things that elevates humans above beasts.

Others may feel differently. I feel lying is abhorrent under any circumstances whatsoever, and that there's a huge difference between keeping something under wraps and flat-out saying the opposite of the truth. I can respect the former but never the latter.

Again, we don't know enough to know yet which one they actually did with this movie. We'll find out soon enough. But if they did lie outright, just in the name of enticing a few of the fence-sitters into the theater, well, that's shady.

FWIW, I think animals communicate much better than people. They don't get bogged down in all the BS that humans do - you can tell if they're happy, hungry, horny, pissed off, scared... Animals live purer, more honest lives than humans ever could.

Re the Bay being a lying liar who lies through his lying hole... I can't even get into the morality of being untruthful - it's simply that it's a stupid thing to lie about, and it's annoying to me because of that. It's not clever, it's not being tricky, it's just stupid and flat-out irritating. I mean, at the end of the day, they're here to sell us a product. Lying to me about your product doesn't really incline me to hand over my money to you. If I buy laundry detergent, I expect it to get my whites white, or I'll throw it back in your face (or possibly just write an angry letter).

Originally Posted by Werecat

Woah I know this is sarcasm but this is edging close to hate speech. Keep it down. Honestly, that is worthy of a ban in some forums. I should know 'cause I made a few jokes...I don't blame them.

These forums are pretty permissive and laid-back - you'll get used to it.

[unlundun]

...but it did get people talking about the film, even bad publicity is good publicity. Its an interesting choice and could have easily backfired, but it made people care about the film..or at least show some interest in tmnt.

[samxsteal]

Originally Posted by unlundun

...but it did get people talking about the film, even bad publicity is good publicity. Its an interesting choice and could have easily backfired, but it made people care about the film..or at least show some interest in tmnt.

Exactly lol

[Xav]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Yeah, it was a little different, but that wasn't just any mustache Neeson had, it was a distinctively Evil one.

Why actually more of an evil goatee.

[slingtheory]

I'm curious what he means about the original origin making things too complex. Didn't slinter explain the whole thing in a 5 minute flashback in the original movie? Judging from what we've seen I don't see how their new origin could be any less complicated. Good to finally know what the thing on donatellos back is though. Guess shell cells don't have wi fi

[Sumac]

I didn't know that Neeson was Ra's until the end of the BB. I seriously bought that it was some big asian guy. On the other hand, I didn't know that BB was reboot of the Batman movie franchise and thought it was prequel to the Batman'89...at least such rumors existed back then.

In the end, I didn't really cared about reveal as I didn't like this movie.

[Leolead]

I think this movie will open with Splinter (pre mutated) and it will go through the origin in the begining (i hope)

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Xav

Why actually more of an evil goatee.

True, true. Definitely some sinister facial hair, either way. Anyone walking around with a Mirror Universe goatee in a film is always a villain. It's one of The Rules.