You dislike the Dark Knight films because they don't play like comics, but also don't like Chris Reeves' Superman (one of the only roles in history in which it is literally played like the comic, to good effect)?
What can I say? I grew up on the animated series and the '90s comics, both of which featured the heavily extravagant aspects of the Batman mythos which flared my imagination and swept me into that universe. Take all that away and you take away what drew me to the character and his world in the first place, leaving some pale imitation in its place.
And I never said I dislike Reeve's Superman; perhaps he was a little stiff in places, but otherwise he played the character to as close to perfection as is possible. No, it's his Clark I dislike, at least in the first two films and the fourth. I'm not a fan of the pre-Crisis "Clark is Superman's disguise" interpretation of the character, and, frankly, Reeve's portrayal of the character comes off as a ridiculously absurd parody of that characterization. I do think he played Clark better in the third movie, though; the clumsiness is dialled down and you almost get the sense that Clark is an actual character rather than a mask.
Remember though that the Reeves' films were shot in the late 1970s and reflect the comics up to that point. Probably more inspired by the 1940s and 1950s comics that the writers, director, producer and cast grew up reading. That was as far as the mythos went at that time.
Though I do see what you mean: the other characters, while having a slightly whimsical "comic book" style flair to them, are fairly realistic. Perry White and Louis Lane, Ma and Pa Kent, etc. Even Jimmy "gee whiz" Olson, I can picture that there is actually a naive kid out there that behaves like him. Clark Kent just comes off like he is mentally retarded at times. Although at the same time, the villains are equally ridiculous, so the rules get violated regularly enough that it just becomes part of the world. I mean what, no one can tell Superman is Clark because he isn't wearing the glasses?? You have to just accept stuff like that. That's the way the comics were at that point, too. Donner's Superman films were widely seen as the most realistic interpretation of the character ever done up to that point, which opened the door to the more down-to-earth and gritty portrayals in the early 1990s.
zombie84 said:
Remember though that the Reeves' films were shot in the late 1970s and reflect the comics up to that point. Probably more inspired by the 1940s and 1950s comics that the writers, director, producer and cast grew up reading. That was as far as the mythos went at that time.
Fair enough then. I'm interested in how you responded to Superman Returns. Yea or nay?
People are of course entitled to their own opinions, but that doesn't mean that they're not completely wrong. ;)
For my part, I really liked the movie. I've seen it twice now, and look forward to watching it again. I'm quite a fan of Christopher Nolan's films and his realistic version of Batman, and seeing all three as a triple feature on a 70-foot screen really showed how well they work together as a complete story. I do admit that the third installment isn't quite as good as the second, which itself isn't quite as good as the first (Batman Begins will always be my favourite), but all of them are extremely enjoyable in their own way.
It seems to me that Selina is the movie's secret weapon. She's not quite essential to the plot, but her presence makes things a lot more interesting and ties it together in a way that wouldn't have worked as well if she hadn't been included. The end, in particular, is very compelling from the character development perspective, in no small part due due to this. Anne Hathaway totally nailed the part, I think.
The supporting characters in the Nolanverse are made to shoulder the burden of proving their universe's reality. The primary two in TDKR are Catwoman and John Blake.
I saw this Tuesday night and came out initially thinking of putting it on par with TDK, perhaps slightly better, and still far behind Begins.
Then I kept thinking about it, and got a bit angry....and angrier...and angrier...
I originally thought TDK was empty. Oooh boy was I wrong. The wider the scope, the worse these films get.
TDKR is nothing but a extremely too long collection of scenes and setpieces with only a hint of narrative focus. This focus is hard won with a slow first third or so, and then completely disregarded by the inane piling up of plot twist after plot twist after setpiece after revelation with each undoing the one that had just gone before in the final third of the film.
And then it is capped off by the most jaw droppingly silly been done before coincidental please everyone possible ending that is all wrapped up with a big bow on top. And it completely undoes what little shred of Batman's character is left. Pitiful.
And I'm still confused as to how I feel over the damn thing. I do feel it is worse than TDK overall, and most of you all know my huge problems with that film.
I saw one of the 15/70mm IMAX prints, and if at all interested-go see this. this is a one time deal for now of seeing a 70mm film print theatrically. Warning: this gets loud and you may need earplugs if sensitive to piercing sounds. The image wasn't all too impressive to be perfectly honest, with the design of IMAX not really being one for theatrical narrative films. I got the distinct impression of peering through a slightly dirtied round the edges porthole, and the standard Panavision looked flat but with much better color than what would have been the standard digital presentation.
Sound was overly loud in the opening, quieted down and was generally unimpressive. I was more excited by the projector hum in the quiet scenes.
DuracellEnergizer said:
I don't hate the series so much as I'm left cold by it.
I'm not much of a fan of Nolan's films in general to begin with. I do like two of his films - The Prestige and even Batman Begins - and initially enjoyed The Dark Knight well enough. As I saw more and more of his films, though, I was turned off by the convoluted and pretentious storylines he tends to favour. In retrospect, I grew to dislike TDK for the same reasons.
I liked Begins surprisingly. I didn't want another origin story and went in unaware of the project otherwise. It's a good film with narrative focus, design and character. Just think of how much better TDKR would have been if only Ra's had been allowed to just come back!! that said, there were problems and all of these were addressed in the tie-in novelization which is a really great read. Far better than the film in every way.
Then I saw a sneak preview of The Prestige and thought: "What the hell is going on?" I like magicians, historical films, mystery thrillers, films built around adversaries (ex: The Duellists) and could not have been more bored/confused even with the Bowman himself appearing. I thought, "well at least this wont ever get anywhere, it's awful."
Then I start hearing months later about how great this movie is. Did I miss something? TDK only took this to an insanely higher level.
I saw Memento, because it's one of those movies that everyone raves about in film school. Aside from the single story gag, there is nothing of any resonance. It is slow, dull, tepid and genuinely uninteresting like every other Nolan film that I have seen save for Begins which must have been a fluke or something and Inception which I still have not seen and thus must continue to be ignored...;)
And then there is Nolan's attempt to make Batman and his world realistic. I don't like that idea AT ALL. I like a gothic Gotham and a nightmarish Arkham Asylum, I like the impossible characters like Man-Bat and Mr. Freeze, I like the idea that Batman can team up with a superpowered alien from another world and fight supernatural threats like vampires and zombies. Nolan takes all that away in his films and, frankly, makes the Batman and his world as dull and boring as possible.
Not only was Batman's character mostly stripped away, but so was romanticism, adventure, escapism, and a great deal of emotion. Not saying that the over the top fantasy elements are always necessary, but Nolan makes Batman feel like a psychological probe into the society of a city instead of a tale of the winged avenger.
I also haven't been fond of most of the characterization in his films. Apart from Ledger's Joker, I'm indifferent to almost everyone in the films; Oldman's Gordon, Caine's Alfred, Eckhart's Harvey Dent/Two-Face, etc. - all blah as far as I'm concerned. And, frankly, I dislike Bale's Bruce/Batman. I hate the bulky Batsuit, the smoker's Batvoice, and the "Bruce Wayne is a selfish playboy dumbass" routine. Yeah, I know it comes from the comics, but I still hate it; it irks me as much as Christopher Reeve's Clark Kent.
There is no Wayne in the sequels, just a caricature. The problem is that the characters if looked at closely enough never seem to actually do much of anything other than serve the demands of the plot at their given times.
I always took the Reeve portrayal of Kent as a throwback to 30's screwball comedy, sort of the bumbling straight man who just couldn't be that dumb...or could he? (Think Ralph Bellamy)
Aside from the dream talk with Ra's, there was one moment in the film I genuinely adored. This is the scene of the mock court in a tattered hall where the police etc. are put before a joke trial in front of the new judge on high, Scarecrow. This could come straight from a comic book panel and is at once chilling and endearing. It is of course a throwaway moment, but my favorite.
More to come on this thing, but I'm still puzzled as to what I make of it all.
VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
Saw it last night! It was ok, kinda 'Return of the Jedi' ok. Not as good as the second film, but not as bad as I thought it would be. The trailers etc never really got me that excited.
One thing I did notice tho, during the stock market hostage scene, they emerge from the building in daylight, have a little bike ride, go underground, Batman turns up, go overground and it's night time!!! Big whoops!!
Saw it last night. Thought it was a lot better the TDK, which I've never been a huge fan of.
Kind of nice to see a trilogy of a superhero movie not completely destroy itself. It isn't perfect, but it feels like so many series try to go for a trilogy these day really screw it up in the end making an entirely unwatchable third movie.
captainsolo said:
I saw Memento, because it's one of those movies that everyone raves about in film school. Aside from the single story gag, there is nothing of any resonance. It is slow, dull, tepid and genuinely uninteresting like every other Nolan film that I have seen save for Begins which must have been a fluke or something and Inception which I still have not seen and thus must continue to be ignored...;)
I would have to say that's exactly where I am on all things Nolan. I just don't get the cult following. Your mention of how "everyone raves about in film school" reminds me of other instances where things can take on a cult status with people blindly following without questioning (Apple products).
My Batman\007 nerd friend is like that. In his mind, Nolan is on par with Spielberg, Kubrick, Scorsese, Howard, Hitchcock, etc. If Nolan makes a film, it's automatically phenomenal - months before it's even released. To me, it borders on The Emperor's New Clothes.
Because I liked Batman Begins so much, I decided to give other Nolan films a look. Other than The Dark Knight, I've yet to make it more than 15 minutes or so with any of them. Way too much convoluted story - every time out. It's like he films his entire idea & thought process for a film, without ever bothering to reduce it or fine tune it.
I found Inception to be particularly unpleasant. I lost interest almost immediately. I felt like I'd seen it all before. It came dangerously close to being an ad for the software they used for the CGI, a la The Matrix. Sometimes less is more.
Anyway, I'll end up seeing this (cable or theater) because it's Batman and I'm a huge fan of the character since the 60s. However, after barely making it through Dark Knight, I don't expect much.
Tobar said:
2. How cowardly/stupid the physicist must have been to willingly go along with the plot, knowing that they would kill him. If he was trying to preserve his own life, he only deferred his execution. Way to go bud, not only do you die but your actions ensure that you take 8 million of your closest friends with you
During the arena sequence Bane makes it clear that they have his family and that if he doesn't deliver they will kill them.
I must have missed that. I think I understood about 90% of Bane's dialogue, but there were a few things that slipped past me. Still... what a coward.
23. I agree with Gaffer that the OWS/99% thing was laid on too thick. Dude, I got it.
I read that earlier and think they are mostly being truthful. I don't think the OWS movement occurred and they thought "let's put this in a movie!". But it was certainly in full swing when they were shooting/cutting the movie. My concern isn't even that it's in the movie, just that I thought it was poorly handled.
27. Why was this even a Batman movie? He's hardly in it. It's more about Bane and John Blake. Why not just make that movie. It's almost like Nolan made a Batman movie under duress. He was contractually obligated to put Batman in at least 15% of the movie, so he did... but that didn't stop him from making 3 or 4 other characters be more interesting and have more screen time.
Do you think Batman was in more of The Dark Knight than he was in this? That film was completely the Joker's show. This film was about Bruce's journey. Besides they established early on that his body is completely wrecked. Sure he could temporarily compensate with those bracers but there's no way he could sustain that indefinitely.
I don't think Batman was in TDK enough either, but Bruce started the movie being Batman, was Batman the entire movie, and was Batman at the end. TDKR has very little Batman (less than TDK, I'm guessing) and not much more Bruce.
Warbler said:
xhonzi said:
13. I know Batman hates guns. But how many innocent lives is he willing to spend to keep this ideal? He fights Bane mano-e-mano and almost loses (twice!) when a well placed bullet to the head could have ended things pretty quickly. 8 million lives are on the line, but Batman still refuses to use a gun. [JohnAdams]Incredible.[/JohnAdams] Henry Jones, Jr. could have ended that fight a lot sooner and wouldn’t have put so many innocent lives on the line.
get this through you your head, Batman doesn't use guns and he doesn't kill. That is part of his character. His parents were killed with a gun. Batman fans would have been outraged if Nolan decided to have Batman use a gun to kill Bane.
Get this through your head: I know Batman doesn't use guns or kill... except for... you know... when he does.
Even so, my complaint is that in a situation like this, not using a gun is ridiculously selfish and risky and stupid. Period end of sentence!
Warbler said:
xhonzi said:
10. How did the occupation work, exactly? Did people still go to work? I don’t think there are any farms in Gotham, so food supplies on the island would be gone within 2-3 days.
I think the food supply would last longer than that, especially if people rationed what they ate.
How much longer? Like, 4 days? Or 5 months? Rationing is what you do when you're at home with people you love. Ransacking the place and taking everything you can carry is what you do when a maniac bombs the bridges and you want to try to take care of your family.
In any case, it doesn't really matter how long it takes for them to be out of food... they would be out of food in short order. The movie shows supply trucks showing up... but I can't begin to imagine it being anywhere near efficient enough that very many people are alive at the end of the 5 months.
xhonzi said:
16. Bruce is still broken up about Rachel 8 years later? Truth be told, I think Harvey in TDK acts a little too over the top at her passing. Maybe my wife of 10 years, but not a girl I had been dating long enough to be quasi-engaged. Rachel must be some girl that both Harvey and Bruce can't live without her.
heartbreak can do a number on you.
Tell me more, Warbler.
30. When the wall of cops run at the mob of thugs, who spray bullets at the wall o' cops, and none of the cops get shot until they can see the whites of their eyes. Those cops were pretty much shoulder to shoulder. Every bullet fired in their general direction would have killed somebody.
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
No offense intended to anyone when I say this, but I guess the sort of critiques I'm reading here should be expected from the folks at a site like originaltrilogy.com; you know, the folks who analyze a movie not from how much it entertained them, but rather based on too many objective qualities, or those who get develop such a particular angle on how a story should develop due to their efforts at fanediting. This is a site filled with armchair movie critics, the overanalytical and the oversaturated.
Since Batman Begins is my favorite or close second in the series (I'd have to see how TDKR holds up to repeated viewings) and is one of my favorite movies of all time, you'll understand that what I am about to say is not intended to critique the film itself, but rather to provide an analogy to those who are reading too much into TDKR. It seems that a light is held up to BB while the others are judged by some bizarre qualities that affect enjoyment, rather than simply sitting down and letting the film please them.
Problems with Batman Begins:
1. Batman should have experienced a "Darth Maul ending" as he clung to his grappling hook attached to the train and collided with several objects including sheet metal.
2. The microwave emitter should have caused everyone to cook over whom it passed on the train, as humans are largely made of water.
3. The pattern of the microwave emitter is inconsistent, as it trashed the Narrows immediately, but seemed to only affect the pipes over which it passed on the train.
4. Check out the water pressure at a fire hydrant. That's from the city water supply. How could the Arkham inmates poor water into a city water pipe that should be under extreme pressure?
5. Why was Batman unaffected by the toxin when he turned it on Crane? He was right next to him.
6. I thought Batman didn't kill anyone. As Alfred said, "It's a miracle no one was killed," and he said that for the audience's wellbeing, after Batman crushed all those cop cars.
7. Batman/Gordon also should have at least injured, if not killed, dozens more with their destruction of the elevated rail and the explosion from the microwave emitter. Was there really no one in that underground garage?
8. Now that I'm saying it, Batman does go on with wanton destruction whenever it serves his purpose in all three films, and somehow no one gets injured as he blows up cars or rides his bike through a mall. I know this is getting away from BB, so this will be my one exception.
9. How could they not find the Batmobile? It's massive and they had a helicopter. Even if they lost it at the last moment, all they had to do was follow where Batman's path led until they got to a dirt road with massive tire tracks leading back to a cave beneath Wayne Manor. I think a pretty undevoted police investigation would still have found what they were looking for.
10. I can't help but wonder how Bruce got the black Batmobile from Wayne Enterprises to Wayne Manor. Did he simply drive at night, make no wide turns, follow the speed limit, and always use his turn signal to attract no attention?
11. How did the Batmobile avoid crashing through the tiled roof of that one building.
12. That puny little rocket might garner some speed, but it couldn't lead to a rampless jump without angling downwards and putting out far more thrust and flame.
13. Economics are never merely citywide. Gotham alone could not be trapped in a depression while the rest of the country (or world) is doing fine, especially with today's economics.
14. Ra's al-Ghul's motives were pretty convoluted. He created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Gotham's corrupt. So we try to destroy it economically and thus make it more corrupt. But those darn Waynes died due to the actions of a gunman (who was motivated by the League's economic actions, but of course it's not al-Ghul's fault at all, it's Thomas's for not taking action). This makes the city a better place. We have to make it corrupt again so we can destroy. The League was able to infiltrate it and make it corrupt again. It sounds like much of its evil is due to the League's own actions, and that the League considers itself plenty evil to blend in so well among them.
15. Batman released a couple of inmates from Arkham with his little pyrotechnics. That was silly.
16. Oh, I almost forgot, how did he manage to park the Batmobile close to Arkham without anyone noticing?
17. How did the toxic water vapor not affect thousands of other Gotham residents as the sewer tops popped off and released the gas into the air? You even see several people by it.
18. How could the police not tie so many crimes to Falcone? Everyone knew that he ran things, but somehow they couldn't make any legal connections.
19. How stupid is it to give that little blond boy your cool little Spy Kids tool to show all his schoolmates? If Batman was smart enough to keep his own fingerprints off it, I suspect that the tool could still be traceable to its point of origin through a serial number or manufacturer. If it wasn't a Wayne Enterprises toy, its purchase could sitll likely be tracked.
20. How did the nearly paralyzed, only half-conscious Batman get down from that roof when affected by the toxin so deeply? Did Alfred climb up there to get him? Did he manage to gain his wits just enough to get down without killing himself, though he clearly seemed almost completely incapacitated when climbing up there and calling Alfred? It would have taken a few more minutes for him to arrive, and by that point Bruce would be further affected.
Now I love this movie. It's literally in my top 5 films. But it has its flaws, and these I just thought up in a few minutes. Sometimes the patrons of this site take themselves and their films a tad too seriously. Sit back, try and enjoy it once for what it is, and then proceed to dice it up upon subsequent viewings. You're all very intelligent folks, but that doesn't mean you can't sit and enjoy a bit of mindless entertainment now and then.
Regarding the gun argument, xhonzi's right exactly. What's more important, completely avoiding guns because they are "morally wrong," or continue to allow the bad guys to use guns and kill many more innocents while you stick to your moral code and unsuccessfully fight without them? In a sense you are indirectly responsible for all the deaths you could have prevented had you taken more effective action.
But I'm defending the movie, so scratch that comment ;)
xhonzi said:
Warbler said:
xhonzi said:
13. I know Batman hates guns. But how many innocent lives is he willing to spend to keep this ideal? He fights Bane mano-e-mano and almost loses (twice!) when a well placed bullet to the head could have ended things pretty quickly. 8 million lives are on the line, but Batman still refuses to use a gun. [JohnAdams]Incredible.[/JohnAdams] Henry Jones, Jr. could have ended that fight a lot sooner and wouldn’t have put so many innocent lives on the line.
get this through you your head, Batman doesn't use guns and he doesn't kill. That is part of his character. His parents were killed with a gun. Batman fans would have been outraged if Nolan decided to have Batman use a gun to kill Bane.
Get this through your head: I know Batman doesn't use guns or kill... except for... you know... when he does.
The only time I know of that he used a gun was in golden age, at the very beginning when they were still developing the character, and in Final Crisis. Other than that, he hasn't.
My point is, not using a gun and not killing is part of the Batman mythos.
xhonzi said:
Even so, my complaint is that in a situation like this, not using a gun is ridiculously selfish and risky and stupid. Period end of sentence!
you may be right, but you also must realize that if Nolan had depicted Batman using a gun and killing, it would have outraged hardcore Batman fans.
xhonzi said:
Warbler said:
xhonzi said:
10. How did the occupation work, exactly? Did people still go to work? I don’t think there are any farms in Gotham, so food supplies on the island would be gone within 2-3 days.
I think the food supply would last longer than that, especially if people rationed what they ate.
How much longer? Like, 4 days? Or 5 months? Rationing is what you do when you're at home with people you love.
it is what you do when you know your food supply is limited.
xhonzi said:
Ransacking the place and taking everything you can carry is what you do when a maniac bombs the bridges and you want to try to take care of your family.
what good would ransacking the place and taking everything with you do? with the bridges out and the maniac threatening to blow the city up if anyone tries to leave, where are you going to go?
xhonzi said:
In any case, it doesn't really matter how long it takes for them to be out of food... they would be out of food in short order. The movie shows supply trucks showing up... but I can't begin to imagine it being anywhere near efficient enough that very many people are alive at the end of the 5 months.
There is food inside many people's houses, there food in all the restaurants in the city, there is food in all the supermarkets and convenience stores in the city and whatnot. It one conserved properly, it could last awhile.
xhonzi said:
xhonzi said:
16. Bruce is still broken up about Rachel 8 years later? Truth be told, I think Harvey in TDK acts a little too over the top at her passing. Maybe my wife of 10 years, but not a girl I had been dating long enough to be quasi-engaged. Rachel must be some girl that both Harvey and Bruce can't live without her.
heartbreak can do a number on you.
Tell me more, Warbler.
nope, too personal.
5. Why was Batman unaffected by the toxin when he turned it on Crane? He was right next to him.
Because he'd already been inoculated. It's the same reason why he, Rachel, and Gordon were unaffected when the fighting in the Narrows occurred.
Honestly, ender, I think your list is much nit-pickier than a lot of the problems people have been talking about with this movie. Not to mention that, and I can't speak for everyone, but most of the my own problems didn't seriously affect my enjoyment. Some were more damning than others. Others were just slightly silly.
I do find it odd, though, that in that whole big list of yours, you didn't mention the one glaring problem I had with BB: the whole first scene where Bruce declares his intentions not to kill. He tells the League of Shadows to stuff it. He will not kill people. Then he blows the whole place up, most likely killing everybody except for Ducard. That prisoner didn't seem in any shape to escape the blast. I mean, he was tied up, so he probably died anyway. So instead of killing one man because it's morally wrong, he ends up killing everybody except one man, and it's not even the man he was trying to stop from killing!
In your scene where you're trying to express the thematic importance of not killing people, it really hurts to punctuate that point with a big explosion showing bodies flailing through the air. At least with the Batmobile and train sequences, while it's implausible no one was killed, it's not impossible. In this sequence, it's like they went out of their way to show as many people die as possible.
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
darth_ender said:
1. No offense intended to anyone
2. This is a site filled with armchair movie critics, the overanalytical and the oversaturated.
Pick one.
xhonzi said:
19. Two minutes until a nuke goes off in downtown Gotham, but Batman stops to makeout with Catwoman, and then give a cryptic hint to Gordon about his real identity (does he think he's the Riddler?). Really? Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb!
Just in case my subtlety was lost on anyone.
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
Ender- your list compared to my list brings out a good point. You are absolutelty right about (most of) the things on your list, yet it doesn't stop my enjoyment of Batman Begins. Most of you must think I'm right with my list, as only 5 of my 30 points were rebutted (ostensibly).
Please allow me to make this comparison: All video games are infinitely repetitive. You push a joystick- you press a button. Repeat. When someone says "That game was too repetitive!", it's utter nonsense because all games are repetitive. A terrible game is not any more repetitive than a great one. But when someone says something like that, what they're really saying is: "I wasn't sufficiently distracted by story, viscerals, gameplay mechanics, flow, fun, etc. to not realize that all I was doing was pushing a joystick and pressing a button." All a great novel is is really just a string of words. But if, when reading a novel, you are caused to stop and look at the words, it means 1. something is very wrong with the words to cause them to fail to convey something greater or 2. something is wrong with the metastructure and it doesn't sufficiently merit attention away from the carrier signal.
Batman Begins works for me because whilst I can recognize the errors in logic, none of that is on my mind when I'm actually watching it. For many of you, The Dark Knight Rises similarly works. For me it did not. The list I compiled are not things that I thought about later, but are things that were constantly pulling me out of the narrative. Things that made me stop reading the novel, and look at the words, as it were. Things that made me facepalm or laugh out loud right in the middle of a scene where I should have been cheering it on, or gripping the edge of my seat.
I think the problem could have been solved in one of two ways: 1. Had the good parts been better, I would have been less likely to notice the bad parts. or 2. Fewer/less stupid bad parts. I don't care how good the good parts are, some of that stuff will yank you out of the movie faster than you can nuke a fridge.
Warbler said:
xhonzi said:
Ransacking the place and taking everything you can carry is what you do when a maniac bombs the bridges and you want to try to take care of your family.
what good would ransacking the place and taking everything with you do? with the bridges out and the maniac threatening to blow the city up if anyone tries to leave, where are you going to go?
Back to your home. With food for your family. I wasn't suggesting people would leave Gotham... just that restaurants, convenience stores and super markets (if they had them) would be empty pretty quickly. You remember Katrina? People were taking electronics, let alone food.
xhonzi said:
In any case, it doesn't really matter how long it takes for them to be out of food... they would be out of food in short order. The movie shows supply trucks showing up... but I can't begin to imagine it being anywhere near efficient enough that very many people are alive at the end of the 5 months.
There is food inside many people's houses, there food in all the restaurants in the city, there is food in all the supermarkets and convenience stores in the city and whatnot. It one conserved properly, it could last awhile.
I'm still not sure what time period you're suggesting here. It was an island full of 8 million people. How much food do you think was there, and how long are you suggesting it would last? And why do you think people would conserve it properly? Everyone was in a state of panic and disorder. If you think there's more than a half week's worth of food at the supermarket at any given time, I think you have a critical misunderstanding of how much people eat.
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
I agree with ender here. I find a lot of people are overanalyzing this film. Yes there are some nitpicks, but, I mean, there have really been only a handful of perfect films, ever. So I'm not going to nitpick all of your argument, but I'll say a few things.
xhonzi said:
27. Why was this even a Batman movie? He's hardly in it. It's more about Bane and John Blake. Why not just make that movie. It's almost like Nolan made a Batman movie under duress. He was contractually obligated to put Batman in at least 15% of the movie, so he did... but that didn't stop him from making 3 or 4 other characters be more interesting and have more screen time.
Do you think Batman was in more of The Dark Knight than he was in this? That film was completely the Joker's show. This film was about Bruce's journey. Besides they established early on that his body is completely wrecked. Sure he could temporarily compensate with those bracers but there's no way he could sustain that indefinitely.
I don't think Batman was in TDK enough either, but Bruce started the movie being Batman, was Batman the entire movie, and was Batman at the end. TDKR has very little Batman (less than TDK, I'm guessing) and not much more Bruce.
This is an argument I've had with some friends of mine. Just because Batman is in the film for a fraction of the run time doesn't mean the movie isn't all about Batman. Because it is.
Warbler said:
xhonzi said:
13. I know Batman hates guns. But how many innocent lives is he willing to spend to keep this ideal? He fights Bane mano-e-mano and almost loses (twice!) when a well placed bullet to the head could have ended things pretty quickly. 8 million lives are on the line, but Batman still refuses to use a gun. [JohnAdams]Incredible.[/JohnAdams] Henry Jones, Jr. could have ended that fight a lot sooner and wouldn’t have put so many innocent lives on the line.
get this through you your head, Batman doesn't use guns and he doesn't kill. That is part of his character. His parents were killed with a gun. Batman fans would have been outraged if Nolan decided to have Batman use a gun to kill Bane.
Get this through your head: I know Batman doesn't use guns or kill... except for... you know... when he does.
Even so, my complaint is that in a situation like this, not using a gun is ridiculously selfish and risky and stupid. Period end of sentence!
Well, yeah, maybe he should have used a gun if he couldn't defeat Bane, but... you know... he did.
xhonzi said:
16. Bruce is still broken up about Rachel 8 years later? Truth be told, I think Harvey in TDK acts a little too over the top at her passing. Maybe my wife of 10 years, but not a girl I had been dating long enough to be quasi-engaged. Rachel must be some girl that both Harvey and Bruce can't live without her.
heartbreak can do a number on you.
Tell me more, Warbler.
It's not just that Rachel died. The thing is, ever since his parents died, Bruce Wayne has never been Bruce Wayne. He didn't know what to do with his life, until he decided on revenge. He couldn't fulfill that, and decided to fight crime instead. So he became Batman, and decided to be Batman for as long as he needed. When he was done would be with Rachel and they would live a life. After TDK, Bruce retired as Batman, but, without Rachel, he wasn't sure what to do with his life. He tried building the fusion reactor to help save the world, but shut it down when he realized its danger. After that, he wasn't sure what to do. Bruce has always been a broken man since the death of his parents. Now that he doesn't have something to do, he just sits around, Howard Hughes style. But, fortunately, during the course of TDKR, Bruce learns that to live you really need to live. So no, it wasn't just heartbreak.
xhonzi said:
Warbler said:
xhonzi said:
Ransacking the place and taking everything you can carry is what you do when a maniac bombs the bridges and you want to try to take care of your family.
what good would ransacking the place and taking everything with you do? with the bridges out and the maniac threatening to blow the city up if anyone tries to leave, where are you going to go?
Back to your home. With food for your family.
and what would you do once you got home with the food and you know the food supply is limited? You'd ration the food that you have, to make it last as long as possible.
xhonzi said:
xhonzi said:
In any case, it doesn't really matter how long it takes for them to be out of food... they would be out of food in short order. The movie shows supply trucks showing up... but I can't begin to imagine it being anywhere near efficient enough that very many people are alive at the end of the 5 months.
There is food inside many people's houses, there food in all the restaurants in the city, there is food in all the supermarkets and convenience stores in the city and whatnot. It one conserved properly, it could last awhile.
I'm still not sure what time period you're suggesting here. It was an island full of 8 million people. How much food do you think was there, and how long are you suggesting it would last?
longer than 2-3 days, that's for sure.
xhonzi said:
And why do you think people would conserve it properly?
because that is what one does when the food supply is limited?
xhonzi said:
Everyone was in a state of panic and disorder.
everyone? in any emergency there are going to level headed people that think things through instead of panicking.
xhonzi said:
If you think there's more than a half week's worth of food at the supermarket at any given time, I think you have a critical misunderstanding of how much people eat.
again, would people in this situation be eating as much as they normally eat?
Gaffer Tape said:
5. Why was Batman unaffected by the toxin when he turned it on Crane? He was right next to him.
Because he'd already been inoculated. It's the same reason why he, Rachel, and Gordon were unaffected when the fighting in the Narrows occurred.
My bad. You're right.
Honestly, ender, I think your list is much nit-pickier than a lot of the problems people have been talking about with this movie. Not to mention that, and I can't speak for everyone, but most of the my own problems didn't seriously affect my enjoyment. Some were more damning than others. Others were just slightly silly.
Some really aren't that nitpicky. They in fact pulled me right out of the movie as I watched them. And similarly, while some things did the same for me with Rises, I didn't notice even half of what xhonzi pointed out.
I do find it odd, though, that in that whole big list of yours, you didn't mention the one glaring problem I had with BB: the whole first scene where Bruce declares his intentions not to kill. He tells the League of Shadows to stuff it. He will not kill people. Then he blows the whole place up, most likely killing everybody except for Ducard. That prisoner didn't seem in any shape to escape the blast. I mean, he was tied up, so he probably died anyway. So instead of killing one man because it's morally wrong, he ends up killing everybody except one man, and it's not even the man he was trying to stop from killing!
In your scene where you're trying to express the thematic importance of not killing people, it really hurts to punctuate that point with a big explosion showing bodies flailing through the air. At least with the Batmobile and train sequences, while it's implausible no one was killed, it's not impossible. In this sequence, it's like they went out of their way to show as many people die as possible.
That's funny because I'd thought that very thing many times, but when composing this list it didn't cross my mind. Probably because as I was watching the first two movies in anticipation of the third, I had to help my son get to sleep early on in the film and missed this part, thus it wasn't as salient in my memory. But yes, big problem!
Anchorhead said:
darth_ender said:
1. No offense intended to anyone
2. This is a site filled with armchair movie critics, the overanalytical and the oversaturated.
Pick one.
Honestly, no offense intended, though I wrote with some bluntness. I find myself among this crowd, and I am more of an armchair critic now than before coming to this site. What I mean is that this is where this sort of group conglomerates and reinforces such views, and I think it is becoming damaging to our perspective. I simply like to just enjoy a movie now and then, regardless of its flaws. My point is simply that we can step back and be less analytical now and then.
Warbler said:
xhonzi said:
Warbler said:
xhonzi said:
Ransacking the place and taking everything you can carry is what you do when a maniac bombs the bridges and you want to try to take care of your family.
what good would ransacking the place and taking everything with you do? with the bridges out and the maniac threatening to blow the city up if anyone tries to leave, where are you going to go?
Back to your home. With food for your family.
and what would you do once you got home with the food and you know the food supply is limited? You'd ration the food that you have, to make it last as long as possible.
Hmm... I guess you're right. Maybe I should have said that when I said:
Warbler didn't quote it, but xhonzi said:
Rationing is what you do when you're at home with people you love.
I'm not sure if we're disagreeing here. I said people would loot the stores, take it home and ration it with their families. Therfore, other people, who missed the looting, would starve to death. Are we disagreeing here? Because you're really just quoting me back to me.
xhonzi said:xhonzi said:
In any case, it doesn't really matter how long it takes for them to be out of food... they would be out of food in short order. The movie shows supply trucks showing up... but I can't begin to imagine it being anywhere near efficient enough that very many people are alive at the end of the 5 months.
There is food inside many people's houses, there food in all the restaurants in the city, there is food in all the supermarkets and convenience stores in the city and whatnot. It one conserved properly, it could last awhile.
I'm still not sure what time period you're suggesting here. It was an island full of 8 million people. How much food do you think was there, and how long are you suggesting it would last?
longer than 2-3 days, that's for sure.
I give up. Can you narrow it down for me? All I've got is "longer than 2-3 days" (that's for sure!). Care to take a guess? Can you at least confirm whether you think it would last 5 months? I will readily agree that some people could be eating well for a while. But the general populace is going to be out of food extremely quickly. I'm not sure where you're getting your data of how much food would be on the island of Gotham, maybe it's a comic book, but I'm basing my numbers off of the real world.
Again, unless you think it's 5 months, I'm not sure why we're having this conversation. Perhaps you do think it's 5 months. I have no idea what you think, other than you like to argue.
Warbler:again, would people in this situation be eating as much as they normally eat?
That's my whole point, Warbler. I think most people won't be eating anything. Except for shoe leather. And delicious PanakacakesTM.
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
DominicCobb said:Even so, my complaint is that in a situation like this, not using a gun is ridiculously selfish and risky and stupid. Period end of sentence!
Well, yeah, maybe he should have used a gun if he couldn't defeat Bane, but... you know... he did.
You must not have watched the same movie I watched. In your version, did Batman not have his back broken and get sent to a hell-hole for 5 months during the which countless people were killed and/or terrorized? And then, at the end of their later fight, Bane distracts Batman long enough for Talia to slip a knife betwixt his ribs and only due to the long odds of Catwoman actually coming back AND SHOOTING him (with guns) is Bane defeated?
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.