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.