darth_ender

To put it frankly, I thought that perhaps splitting The Hobbit into two films was a good idea, but making three out of it is terrible.  The LOTR books are larger and richer than the lone Hobbit, yet they crammed them all into three lengthy films (and I do prefer the extended cuts).  The Hobbit is still rich enough to make two standard films without taking too many liberties, but now I worry that much of this will simply be Middle Earth according to Peter Jackson, and not very faithful to Tolkein's vision.  I don't know what could be gained by this except perhaps creating an entirely unique bridge between the two tales, but I still don't feel it is wise.  Sorry, I think I've repeated myself enough.  If you still cannot tell, I don't support this move.

The N64 was probably my favorite system, but I emulate with so many systems.  I have a strong affinity for the original NES, as that was still the coolest thing when I was 6.  My best friends all had Nintendos and I did not.  I'd go over to their houses and play advanced games like Super Mario Bros. 2 and The Adventures of Link.  Man, thems was good times.

Now I emulate to relive my experiences from time to time.  Anyone ever check out the real Super Mario Bros. 2?  That is a flippin' hard game.

Why do I keep clicking on this thread hoping I'll actually see something humorous and on-topic?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDzPW-dSDfQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUn4EH67H4o

I know the PT isn't everyone's favorite thing, but I really do enjoy the Maul/Jin/Kenobi duel.  These clips show a little bit of what we missed out on while on Naboo, and these blue screen shots show that Maul actually jumped onto the Queen's ship's ramp and continued to press his attack against Qui-Gon before he gets kicked back down to the desert floor.  There is so little character development for Maul, and I wish that if they couldn't have broadened him as a villain, they could have at least given him more screen time doing the cool stuff that he does.

Indeed, Bob's work shows great promise, and I look forward to the release of this trilogy :)

Ahhhh, cat's out of the bag.  When you told me you couldn't handle an ROTJ edit because you were working on ROTS and other projects, I didn't realize those other projects were the other prequels.  You have no idea how much this pleases me!  I've recently downloaded Q2's and L8twrtr's edits, and have been watching their TPM edits in increments and comparing them to secior's (the best TPM edit I've yet seen).  They all make very good editing choices, but I'd love to some vocal and visual changes as well, and I'm really excited about what I've seen you do thus far.  I'm really so glad to hear that this isn't just a one film correction, because I need to see the whole trilogy get aalenfae'd :)

I hope you at least address the prequels.  I'm sure you'd do a fantastic job, and I'm content to let Adywan handle the OT.  I always read your thread, as you truly are a miracle worker!

No pressure at all, since I imagine this project will take a couple of years at least, but out of curiosity, how long do you anticipate Ep. III will take?  Do you think you'll have the energy to edit all three, considering how much time and love you're putting into this one?

Sorry to offend the Off Topic New Thread Approval Security Guard, but this was a necessary evil.  It had to be done to illustrate my point.  Maybe I should critique a few other wonderful films, but we'll get to that another day.  It's pretty time consuming to recollect an entire movie and try to come up with so many points.

EDIT: I do intend to copy my Batman Begins post in the other thread and move it here, perhaps with a little updating.  I may even move xhonzi's though I fear I may already be offending him by making my point this way.  It still is a valuable lesson in the importance of paying attention to the details in films.

Everyone who has a problem with the Olympics for political reasons should probably take their discussion to the....politics thread?!  Makes sense.  Fitting.  There's no need for everyone to harp on Warb or act so self-assured about their own views.  The beautiful thing about opinions is that we all base our opinions on different rationales and hold different evidence up at different values.  I love the USA too.  Perhaps I'm a blind patriot.  But quit messing with Warbler with nothing but philosophies on nationalism or patriotism that really have no bearing on a decent discussion about the Olympics.

I don't have TV anymore.  Last time I really watched the Olympics was in '96--I was awaiting my high school freshman year.  However, I think they're fun, and hope everyone enjoys watching nations cheering on their athletes.  It's really okay to be proud of the country you represent.

Alright, I'll go ahead and do The Dark Knight, and I'll do it here because I don't want to cloud of the TDKR thread anymore.  TDK has incredibly high ratings from critics, so let's dissect its problems, some of which bug me more than Batman Begins.

1. Why would the bank hostages not simply rotate the grenade in their hands so they could hold the spoon and the grenade with a single hand?  This would give them a bit more flexibility...especially if they wanted to throw the grenade at any one of the robbers or at the bus as it departed!

2. Okay, reassembling shattered bullets by computer to visualize the fingerprint that would only end up on the shell...that's realistic.

3. What motive did any of Joker's thugs have to be loyal to him?  Sure, maybe a few crazies, sure maybe a few under threat of death, but the latter certainly don't form a loyal corp.  And especially why on earth did the Chechen's men turn on him?  What did Joker have to offer them?  He just burned all his money!

4. So Batman rescues Rachel from a 500 foot death...meanwhile, the Joker continues to interrogate and murder Bruce's guests while seeking Harvey as Batman never makes his way back up to the penthouse.  If nothing else, you'd think he'd at least say something like, "Well, better get back up there."

5. Flipping a semi...that was fun to see but...c'mon, really?

6. Converting every ordinary cell phone with their basic and limited microphones into sonars...I don't think so.  Maybe the first two if they were physically modified, but simply altering the software of every preexisting cell phone in Gotham...not gonna happen.

7. Batman crushes the scarecrows van without injuring himself at all. Or while holding Rachel he falls from several stories high without using his cape to glide and lands on the hood of a car (thankfully not on the top, as the vehicle was occupied, and not on the asphalt which was surely even harder), and doesn't get injured then either.

8. How could Harvey be so stupid as to believe that the Joker has no plans, that he's just a dog chasing cars?  He clearly has very elaborate plans, and those plans indeed led his his disfigurement and Rachel's death.

9. How could Harvey then leave Joker's fate to the determination of a coin?

10. How could the Joker smuggle explosives in so many places without ever being noticed?  For instance, it would take weeks to load up a hospital with so many bombs, and the odds of not one being discovered during that time is simply unbelievable.

11. After years of devotion and love, Rachel throws her feelings for Bruce out the window because Harvey, not Bruce, chose to mislead the public.

12. How did Wayne Tower change shape so much, even lowering where the sign was posted, all in the brief interval between the films?

13. Everyone in the police station gets blown up by the cellphone-in-the-stomach bomb....except the Joker and (the guy he held the glass to, as we see later).

14. Who were the six friends that Joker killed?  It seems that every cop that died by the Joker's hand did not die by knife, at least not as we see on film, in spite of Joker's bragging.

15. Gordon said six dead, two of them cops...let's count: Maroni, his chauffer, and his door-getter, plus Wuertz and Harvey.  That's five, including one cop.  I thought Ramirez lived to fight another day.

16. The convoy stops for nothing.  Of course, that means they can't be smart enough to take a safer road when clearly a burning firetruck was intended to divert them to the lower roads.

17. Batman won't kill anyone, but that doesn't stop him from shooting parked cars from such a distance that he doesn't know if they are occupied.  Thankfully he stopped before getting to the car with the kiddos.

18. Ric Olie must have been Gordon's co-driver in the armored truck.  "Is that a bazooka?...Okay, that's not good....Lower fifth? We'll be sitting ducks."  Thanks, Captain Obvious.

19. It sure would have been smart if Batman took a radio into that building at the end...he could have radioed to the police that the clowns were really the hostages and saved a lot of work and injuries...including a real death of one of the stuntmen during the filming of that scene!

20. Joker clearly wanted chaos, but to this day I'm still confused by his motives.  He gets the mob to hire him for massive amounts of money and captures and burns Lao on top of his pile of cash for...what?  He changes his mind on what to do with Batman, whether he should reveal himself or remain hidden or just be killed.  For a man who simply wants to see the world burn, even the means to that end seem to be shifting and uncertain.

21. While Joker's little anecdotes of his scars are fun, his lectures about being ahead of the curve or about schemers are kinda long and boring and seem out of character to me.

22. Ledger's acting was fun the first few times, but I have to be honest, after multiple viewings, I'm just not that impressed anymore.

Call me a heretic.  I still love the movie, but it has flaws.  Oh well.  Not going to let that ruin my experience ;)

I seem to remember it being written somewhere that it was six months...I even thought it was stated in the movie, but now I'm not so sure.  Joker does say, "Let's wind the clocks back a year. These cops and lawyers wouldn't dare cross any of you," implying that a year before, Batman was non-existent or not yet considered a serious threat.  Still, not that much time.

Anyway, now I think I'll have to make a list for TDK.  I'll put it in my other thread when I have time, but now the official new thread police are complaining about too much Batman in that very thread, so maybe I'll hold off a day or too.

He means he took the oldest on a date, realized she was a menace, and wanted nothing to do with any of her two sithters because they'd likely just be clones.

^While not as big a Trekkie as Warsie, I do enjoy Star Trek.  You may have convinced me to spend my meager earnings on this series.  Thanks for the nice report.

http://youtu.be/mVnMxAZjMsI

Has this been found already?  It's a CGI Han Solo animation, and it's pretty cool.  And it's unofficial.

Yes, this is self-depracating humor for all of us.  It's really not intended to target or offend anyone, but rather an opportunity for us all to consider how we view movies, and maybe take a step back.

I'll start.  And though I deliberately didn't start this in the General Star Wars thread, to illustrate my point I'll begin with the Holy Grail of originaltrilogy.com.  That's right, I'm going to critique The Empire Strikes Back:

1. It takes years to travel at the speed of light from one star system to another.  But in this movie, without light speeds, the Falcon can cover those distances (from Hoth to Anoat to Bespin) in months at most (if we stretch our timeframe, which really is never very clear, but I don't think even Hoth to Anoat was more than a day).

2. Which way is down on that asteroid.  It appears as if Leia, Han, and Chewie are standing on what turns out to be the tongue of the space slug.  Considering the slug's position, wouldn't that make gravity pull them sideways?

3. And how was gravity so strong?  Seems like earth gravity on this relatively small celestial body?

4. And if there were no atmosphere, their blood would boil and their vessels burst in response to the pressure difference.

5. What were the Rebels thinking during the Battle of Hoth?  Every single Rebel troop in that trench wasted his time and many their lives by shooting at those walkers.

6. Why did Rogue Squadron, Luke included, target the walkers that were clearly less of a threat?  They took down the generic walkers that weren't as close to the shield generator.  They should have focused on the closest first.

7. How did Fett get to Cloud City, call the Empire there, and all the wheeling and dealing get done before Han and Co. arrived?  He couldn't have possibly done so without knowing where they were going, and at the speeds they were headed, there was little he could have done to determine that for quite some time.

8. Doesn't the Falcon have any sensors, or even a rearview mirror, to know they were being tracked?

9. Doesn't the Star Destroyer have some kind of surface sensor to know there was something attached to them?

10. Asteroids are never that close in a real field.  If the field were that dense, it would actually be a dust cloud.

11. "No.  No.  That's not true.  That's impossible!  Nooooooo, noooo!"  Return of the Whiner.

12. Luke struck Vader's arm pretty hard with his lightsaber.  How come it did so little damage?  If a walker's armor can be so easily pierced by a lightsaber, I can't imagine Vader's armor is tougher.

13. Luke kept his fighter "on manual for a while."  Again, celestial distances are much larger than most realize.

14. It never is very clear that Luke flew sideways into the suction shaft.  I know I'm not the only one who thought that was the bottom of the pit rather than the side.

15. Why is Wedge still around?  That guy never does anything but survive.  He's now Rogue 3, when all he did in the last movie was run instead of getting behind Vader and his wingmen and defend Luke and Biggs.

16. The movie drags in the middle.  We get a lot of spiritual stuff and a lot of cheesy romance, while the plot takes a long time to get somewhere.

17. Luke's a moron.  He goes to Cloud City to rescue Han and Leia, but he forgets about it so he can simply satisfy his pride and face Vader in an obvious trap (as if Leia's warning weren't enough).

18. How do mynoks fly with those bat-like wings?  Last I checked, there's no air in space.

19. Why do the TIE fighters get whacked to death by asteroids, the smaller star destroyer loses its bridge from an asteroid, and yet the Executor flies through the field untouched?

20. Why do all the ships, regardless of their shape and the direction of the indeterminable light source, cast circular shadows during the asteroid flight?

I love this film.  It has flaws.  It's not perfect.  Who cares?  We can enjoy imperfect movies.  Someone else take a great movie, and find its flaws.  It's really not hard at all, and you might look at all movies a little differently.  We don't need to be film apologists, but at the same time we don't need to cast such a critical eye that we can't simply enjoy a bit of entertainment.

Yes, but that movie is so silly.  I'm looking for something serious ;)

Good post, Cobb.  You've shaped my views a bit, and I appreciate that.  I'll just add a couple more comments to yours.

DominicCobb said:

5. What is Talia’s motivation exactly?  She is trying to fulfill her father’s mission or not?  Is Gotham still the festering cesspool that concerned the league of shadows?  Didn’t Batman/Dent/Gordon clean it up almost completely?  Did Talia want revenge on her father’s killer?  She said that was just a bonus.  Was she concerned about the organized crime and corrupt cops?  Or capitalism run wild?

Same argument I presented against Ra's himself.  They were convinced Gotham was corrupt, so they corrupted it as much as possible to justify their actions.  Talia also simply had a desire to finish what Daddy started.  But also, I suspect they felt the rich were corrupt for remaining rich...the OWS argument.

The argument was that they cleaned up the streets based on a lie, which proved that Gotham was truly beyond saving (if that was the only way to stop crime). 

That too, but I think my point is interesting, both as a potential plot problem, but also as a true problem with many criminals: they're so convinced they're right that they will manipulate circumstances from their natural sense to vindicate themselves.

6. I thought Bane was really interesting and scary until Talia appeared holding his leash.  This turned him into a petty thug in my mind.

Agreed, this made him weaker, almost like the Poison Ivy/Bane relationship.  I wish that more Talia had been revealed, and that Bane maintained more of a mutual partnership than a subservient loyalty.  But it didn't destroy it for me.

I don't get this. One of my friends said the same thing, but I don't see where this comes from. How is Talia holding his leash? It seemed to me like they were working in tandem and did have a mutual partnership. I don't know where this subservient thing comes from. The only time we even saw Talia give Bane any orders was when she told him to keep Batman alive so he could see the fire. And then after she left he disobeyed that order. 

I wish I didn't say make the Poison Ivy comparison, as that was an unnecessary exaggeration on my part.  However, I do feel that it did weaken his character a bit.  Perhaps I'd see them more as equals on a second viewing, but as I said anyway, it didn't destroy it for me (my real feelings, as opposed to the foolish Batman and Robin comparison).

7. How did the Daggett/Bane/Talia thing work anyways.  Before the ending, I thought Daggett hired Bane because he was a skilled mercenary, didn’t realize he bit off more than he could chew... and actually thought that Bane would just disappear once the job was done.  However Bane saw an opportunity and didn’t want to let it go, so he took advantage of it.  Once we learn that Bane and Talia have been working together all along... where does Daggett come in?  Did Talia manipulate Daggett to do what he did?  How did she put Bane in contact with Daggett?  Outwardly Talia and Daggett appear to be bitter rivals. Was this simply a show?

I admit, on one viewing, I was confused by this whole interwoven relationship.  But in the end, I think I'd answer your last question: yes.

When I saw the film a second time I realized that Bane and Talia were really in charge the whole time. As to how they got Daggett to hire Bane, I think it's up to your imagination. There was really no where they could have explained this within the film, but I'm sure there is an explanation. I'm pretty sure though that Daggett had no idea that Miranda was involved. He was simply a pawn.

See, I think I'd understand a lot more a second time.  I think it was all just part of the manipulation, a show perhaps, but whatever it was, it was a means to get to Bruce.

11. John Blake figured Bruce was Batman because he was faking being happy?  I think that’s a bridge too far.  I think you could fix this with. Blake: All of the orphans idolized you.  The Billionaire orphan!  We’d come up with elaborate fantasies about you.  And what could be better than a billionaire orphan playboy, than a billionaire orphan playboy who was also the Batman?  It was ridiculous to be sure, but then it started to make sense.  Bruce Wayne came to Gotham the same time Batman did.  Batman went into hiding the same time Bruce Wayne became a recluse.  Of course, I wasn’t totally sure, until you let me in today.

I agreed and didn't like this explanation.  Yours is much better.

I think this is how Blake found out. They could have included it, yes, but the point of the conversation was mainly to build John Blake's characterI.

 I do like xhonzi's dialogue alteration.  It wouldn't have detracted from developing Blake, but would have offered me a better explanation.

17. But then he sleeps with Talia.

No argument there.  If they'd developed this further, it'd be more believable as he tried to finally let Rachel go, but instead it comes off as a high school rebound when he finds out about the letter.  Besides, I imagine most know about my distaste for sex outside of marriage in films anyway.  They could have simply shown Talia and Bruce kissing in the room with the sheets covering all the furniture, then let people draw their own conclusions.  I suspect this was to make her treachery more painful for the viewer, but that didn't work for me.  We needed to see a relationship more than [JohnAdams]sexual combustability[/JohnAdams].

I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that Bruce Wayne probably banged a few chicks when Rachel was still alive. While we never see him do it, so it's easy to believe he's this chaste hero, waiting for Rachel. But I think it would be entirely in keeping with the Bruce Wayne playboy character. 

Probably the main place I'll disagree with you.  Bruce Wayne's playboy persona was only an act, and not one that needed to be kept up with superficial girls in the bedroom.  He was deeper, inside he was...he was more.  I think he really maintained such chastity till that point.  Remember, we're talking about an obsessive man here.  I could see his obsessive loyalty to Rachel as equally powerful as his obsession with fighting crime.

26. I thought the ending was a total cheat.  I am so sick of fake deaths in films, and superhero films are some of the worst.  I thought Nolan might have been above it.  Guess not.

Again, I agree.  Wholeheartedly in fact.  If they had to do anything, I would have cut all allusions to his surviving except the fixed up autopilot and Alfred looking at the camera and nodding.  Even then, how did he get the bomb far away enough from Gotham, then get himself far away enough from the bomb, all without being noticed?  Did he have a jet powered Bat-glider?  Did he get off before it got very far, just as it passed behind a building?

Showing him in the Bat seconds before it explodes was an editing cheat, in my opinion. I think he got out while he was still over Gotham. But sometimes you got to make those types of cheats for dramatic reasons. I'm not going to get into it, because I have before, but the ending, as-is, is perfect in my opinion.

Agree to disagree :)

And this is probably the final kicker for me:  Bruce was Batman for how long before the end of TDK?  2 years?  Can it be that long?  Could it be as short as a couple of months?  And then he goes into 8 years of retirement.  He reappears for a couple of nights and then disappears for 5 months... and is back for one more day before he's "dead" again.   There’s no room for any more Batman stories.  No other villains.  Nothing.  I understand that Nolan and company wanted to tell the end of the Batman story

Of course there was plenty of room, but I think Nolan's justification for not leaving this one open for a sequel was quite reasonable...better to end on a high note than to have a final, franchise-crushing failure like Spider-man 3.  I think the greatest error in the three films that led to your complaint was the timeframe between the first and second film (6 months later), which left little room for imagined in-between stuff (or that horrible Gotham Knight interquel, if you accept that).  Fix that 6 month gap, make it like 3 years, and it'd be better pacing for the whole arc.

I don't see how this is even a critique. Am I missing something here? I've never seen anyone criticize a movie before because you can't make any more stories.

I'm with you that I didn't want it to be left open to sequels.  I'm more bummed at the way the timeframe worked out.  With more than six months between the first and second movie, I could believe that Batman had more time to clean things up, maybe met a few other tough baddies in between, really gained a reputation as a permanent piece of Gotham, and then disappeared.  But even that's not enough of a complaint for me to dislike the movie.  It's simply a point to be made.

Unlike all the complaints about The Dark Knight Rises, there'd be no confusing plot because everything would be expounded so clearly.  It could start at the moment when he was born...

Ric's mother: Oh, he's such a handsome little baby.  And look...he's bald on top.

Ric: Goo gatchon pitty quik.

Ric's father: What did he say?

...and to his training days...

Ric's flight instructor: Yes, Ric.  Why are you here?

Ric: I'm here to be a pilot in Her Majesty's fleet.

Ric's flight instructor: I know that.  You've been in the Royal Flight Academy for two years.  I mean, why are you in my office?

Ric: Uh...look over there!

Ric's flight instructor looks away and Ric darts out of the room.

I'm serious, guys.  What do you think? ;) 

^Told you I did.  Reckless is George.  Now...matters are worse.

Out of curiosity, how long is this "little break" from the DVD going to be?  Not trying to rush or be rude, but I'm excited to have a nice DVD version.

xhonzi said:

darth_ender said:

Many of your points are valid.  I don't know that I'll have a response for everything, and I do not presume that all my responses will sufficiently rebut your critiques, nor that the story conveyed the point well enough on screen.  However, some of it may stick, and you may enjoy the film better in future viewings.

 

Thanks, Ender, for the thoughtful reply. 

But it looks like you agreed with 18 of my points

I counted six, Mr. Wayne.  Or it might have been 7, but then it wouldn't be quite as clever a movie reference.  Reading it myself, I feel like only 6 or 7 of your points were valid enough to draw me out of the movie to the point where I'd complain about it.  The rest I acknowledged where you were coming from, but did not see them as sufficient grounds for complaint.

and offered a soft rebuttal on 2 of them.  Was this your intention?

I'd say they were mostly soft rebuttals, and maybe 2 hard rebuttals.  My intention was to respect your views while explaining why I differed, not to say, "Xhonzi's an idiot for disagreeing with me."  We are talking largely about opinions here, and really very few facts are part of the discussion.

EDIT: Allow me to suggest that if you take my response to your list in light of my Batman Begins list (again, a film I LOVE), you'll see that I'm making some of the complaints of equal value...yeah, they're problems if we're talking about real life...but we're not (i.e. Talia's motives).

Many of your points are valid.  I don't know that I'll have a response for everything, and I do not presume that all my responses will sufficiently rebut your critiques, nor that the story conveyed the point well enough on screen.  However, some of it may stick, and you may enjoy the film better in future viewings.

xhonzi said:

I didn’t hate this movie, but I certainly am having a hard time saying I liked it.

It’s a lot like Prometheus where anything good is pulled down by all of the bad... but in this case I don’t think the good is as good.

A lot of it came down to the accumulation of little things which all added up to a big negative:

1. The plane hijacking was cool.  But the CIA guy was really dumb and incompetent to be taken in that way.  Also, whoever investigated the crash...  The wings and tail were pulled off but the plane didn’t crash for another couple of miles?  And a guy (still in a body bag?  I don’t remember) whose bloodtype (some of it, anyways) matches a wanted physicis must be the physicist in a plane crash that doesn’t look accidental and probably wasnt’?  And no one looks into this?

Wings problem occurred to me immediately as well.  My rationale: the larger plane is moving slowly and the crashed plane dropped straight to the ground.  If the wings were really torn off the plane, then it would hurl a short distance like a missile before crashing.  Not adequate, but it was not a distracting enough point for me.  Re: the body bag guy...they probably did an actual genetic test (not blood type test) on his blood, but his body was mangled enough that it was not recognizable.  A serious investigation would likely recognize that other DNA (i.e. skin) did not match and the problems with the crash altogether, but this did not bother me as far as the movie went. 

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.

Definitely a stupid physicist, but this is not unrealistic.  Many people do stupid things and risk countless other lives to save their own.

3. Let’s talk about the reactor/bomb some more.  So, without the core, it will become unstable to the point that it will explode.  I’m not a nuclear physicist (but I did stay in a Holiday express last night) but wouldn’t an instability make it more and more likely everyday that it will go off, but with no degree of certainty when that will be?  Isn’t that the definition of instability?  Is it like a non-licensed electrician putting some faulty wiring in my house that will, without a doubt, someday, given enough time, burn my house down... and then putting a digital countdown timer to the exact second that it will light up?  I think a 5 month calculation is fine, but I think you would have a margin of error of no less than a month.  Certainly not down to the second.  And when you’re getting close to that margin, I think driving it around on a truck would probably be the last thing you’d want to do with it.  Strike that... the last thing you’d want to do is detonate an explosive right next to said truck, causing it to violently vere into the railing and drop 30 feet to the street below... with the police commissioner in the trunk with it.

Agreed.  I felt this way watching the film, though I still suspended disbelief for this one.

4. Did Talia still have the clicker?  Did Batman tape the jammer to the bomb when he flew off with it?  I hope against the former, but in its event I hope in favor of the latter.

I believe Gordon attached the jammer, and I think Talia died before the bomb went off anyway, didn't she?

5. What is Talia’s motivation exactly?  She is trying to fulfill her father’s mission or not?  Is Gotham still the festering cesspool that concerned the league of shadows?  Didn’t Batman/Dent/Gordon clean it up almost completely?  Did Talia want revenge on her father’s killer?  She said that was just a bonus.  Was she concerned about the organized crime and corrupt cops?  Or capitalism run wild?

Same argument I presented against Ra's himself.  They were convinced Gotham was corrupt, so they corrupted it as much as possible to justify their actions.  Talia also simply had a desire to finish what Daddy started.  But also, I suspect they felt the rich were corrupt for remaining rich...the OWS argument.

6. I thought Bane was really interesting and scary until Talia appeared holding his leash.  This turned him into a petty thug in my mind.

Agreed, this made him weaker, almost like the Poison Ivy/Bane relationship.  I wish that more Talia had been revealed, and that Bane maintained more of a mutual partnership than a subservient loyalty.  But it didn't destroy it for me.

7. How did the Daggett/Bane/Talia thing work anyways.  Before the ending, I thought Daggett hired Bane because he was a skilled mercenary, didn’t realize he bit off more than he could chew... and actually thought that Bane would just disappear once the job was done.  However Bane saw an opportunity and didn’t want to let it go, so he took advantage of it.  Once we learn that Bane and Talia have been working together all along... where does Daggett come in?  Did Talia manipulate Daggett to do what he did?  How did she put Bane in contact with Daggett?  Outwardly Talia and Daggett appear to be bitter rivals. Was this simply a show?

I admit, on one viewing, I was confused by this whole interwoven relationship.  But in the end, I think I'd answer your last question: yes.

8. If Talia/Bane knew the bomb was going to go off, and this was allegedly what they wanted all along, why give Batman, the cops the chance to stop it?  Just click the Button as soon as Batman shows up/the cops riot and make sure your 5 month siege ends with an earth-shattering-kaboom even if it is 10 hours premature.

Agreed.  But that's Hollywood for ya.  It's not like this is the first time this plot hole emerges in a film.  In fact, when has it ever been otherwise?

9. Batman hid “The Bat” on top of a skyscraper with a camo net for six months?

Yeah.  Don't know what to say there.  Only possible explanation: he owned the building and no one messed with it, but without explaining that on film, that's not clear.  I was surprised and simply expected him to head out of town to Wayne Manor and pick it up really quickly.

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 saw trucks taking GD Twinkies and pop-tarts to a convenience store... how could a couple hundred thugs manage the herculean effort of feeding 8 million Gothamites everyday.  I didn’t see a lot of people in the streets... how were people getting food?  How could a single organization provide for that many shut ins?  This is something that takes a million people to do, each pursuing their own employment, all day everyday to do, and that’s when people come into their shops with money and trucks bring whatever the people want to buy?

Like I said, I believe a system was worked out with the outside world.  Your point is valid, that feeding that many people would be really difficult.  Foodinsurance.com maybe? ;)

11. John Blake figured Bruce was Batman because he was faking being happy?  I think that’s a bridge too far.  I think you could fix this with. Blake: All of the orphans idolized you.  The Billionaire orphan!  We’d come up with elaborate fantasies about you.  And what could be better than a billionaire orphan playboy, than a billionaire orphan playboy who was also the Batman?  It was ridiculous to be sure, but then it started to make sense.  Bruce Wayne came to Gotham the same time Batman did.  Batman went into hiding the same time Bruce Wayne became a recluse.  Of course, I wasn’t totally sure, until you let me in today.

I agreed and didn't like this explanation.  Yours is much better.

12. “Did you come back to die with your city?” “No!  I came back... to stop... you!”  Really?

Agreed completely.  I laughed to myself as I tried to anticipate some iconic line and then...wut?

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.

Agreed in the real world.  It is a movie, though, and he's an overly-principled character.  I don't imagine they'd depart that much from his comic book origins.  But think about the projectiles he launches from his Batmobile, Batpod, and Bat.  All of them have guns of some sort.  I guess he's just against handguns.  As humorous as it is, it doesn't bother me because it's an integral part of an 80 year-old character.

14. Blake, a trained cop, uses his gun once, looks at it in disgust and then throws it away?  I know killing a perp can be very difficult for the most seasoned officers to cope with... but this seemed like a cheap moment to try to make Blake seem like the perfect Batman replacement.

Yeah, probably.  Didn't bug me too much considering that was obviously what they were going for.

15. I have to agree with Warb- Batman seems to trust Selina much more than he should/would.  She was directly responsible, several times over, for what was going on.  Once she and Batman established some kind of working relationship, she betrayed him and caused the people of Gotham to suffer for 5 months.  If she had a change of heart, she should have had to work much harder to earn Batman's trust back.  She should have been trying to convince him... not he her.

Agreed.  But he is apparently a brilliant psychologist and perceived her good.  In the end, even if she did turn out to be good, I don't think he should have ended up with her.  She's still a treacherous feline fatale and I'd only trust her as a temporary business partner in defeating a common enemy.  But again, that relationship is a pretty integral part of the comic book Batman/Catwoman relationship.  She's been a traitor for however long her character has existed.  I don't think it could be easily changed for this film.

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.

I think Cobb answered this one very well...Rachel was more than just a woman to him; she was sanity, she was the life after Batman, and he knew her since childhood.

17. But then he sleeps with Talia.

No argument there.  If they'd developed this further, it'd be more believable as he tried to finally let Rachel go, but instead it comes off as a high school rebound when he finds out about the letter.  Besides, I imagine most know about my distaste for sex outside of marriage in films anyway.  They could have simply shown Talia and Bruce kissing in the room with the sheets covering all the furniture, then let people draw their own conclusions.  I suspect this was to make her treachery more painful for the viewer, but that didn't work for me.  We needed to see a relationship more than [JohnAdams]sexual combustability[/JohnAdams].

18. Why did Bane totally wreck Batman when they first fight, but Batman can easily take him on after a couple months of recovering from a broken back?  Was he in better fighting shape after being in the jail.

It didn't seem easy to me.  He just decided to focus on breaking the mask with the anesthetic, as he'd learned its function in the prison.  Plus, he had some serious righteous anger fueling him.

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!

I laughed at that too.  Again, not like it's the first time a Hollywood film did this.  But remember, "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me."  Not Bruce's first cryptic reminder during a time when he needs to get his butt moving.  It's typical of films, I'm afraid.

20. Gordon says "Bruce wayne?!?" to make sure that no one in the audience is thinking, "What is that Bat-Man talking about?!?" after the clue and the flashback.  Maybe test audiences still didn't know Bruce's secret identity until they added this clever bit of exposition in.

Rachel Dawes said:

Bruce?

Who cares?  I don't think the audience needed help with that.  I think they wanted a confirmation that Gordon figured out Riddler's Batman's clue.

21. Not that Bruce seemed very concerned about hiding his secret identity in this movie.  Again, Bruce and Batman return to the scene on the same day.  He shaves the beard and loses the cane (wouldn't these have been good disguises) and expects no one (except John Blake, whose expertly honed orphan skills can't be fooled!) to figure out he's Batman?

Just like the first time he does so in Begins.  Again, a typical movie problem that doesn't bother me.

22. Wayne Manor was rebuilt and already looked 100 years old and somehow they got the exact same Bed?  Hmm... smells more like they just returned to location.

He rebuilt it, brick for brick.  Didn't you know they have a Ye Olde Bricks and Mortar Co.?  No, I agree with you.  I didn't care, but I had the same thought.

23. I agree with Gaffer that the OWS/99% thing was laid on too thick.  Dude, I got it.

I believe it was pointed out that the script written a movie filmed prior to OWS.  However, I don't think they're painting the OWS-ites as the good guys necessarily.  It seems to me that they are shown to be like the French revolutionaries, and Batman is the Scarlet Pimpernel rescuing the aristocrats.  I did not feel that Christopher Nolan (enjoying his millions, I'm sure) was painting the rich as evil, but merely as the target of an unhappy populace.

24. For the first time, the Batman growl-voice annoyed me.  Perhaps everything else above had suspended my suspension of disbelief...  Perhaps I have heard too many spoofs of the voice... that Bale's voice sounded a lot like in this movie.

No argument there, though actually I found it more tolerable in this film than TDK.  FYI, not a rebuttal, but his voice was altered in post-production.

25. Batman's first night back in Gotham- he has about 20 hours to stop the bomb from killing everyone- and he spends the entire night rigging skyscraper windows and the bridge supports to burn a Bat signal when he pushes a button?  Was that really the best use of his time?  How many people (besides Bane) even saw them?  I heard the Bale voice spoof growling- "Look!  I... spent all night... rigging those fires... because fires are cool... bats are cool... bats on fire are super cool... except that they're hot... because they're on... fire."

ALLOL.  That's very funny, I'll be honest.  But I imagine he spent time getting his plans together.  But this was also a moment to inspire hope in those he would need as allies, while placing some dread into the hearts of his enemies.

26. I thought the ending was a total cheat.  I am so sick of fake deaths in films, and superhero films are some of the worst.  I thought Nolan might have been above it.  Guess not.

Again, I agree.  Wholeheartedly in fact.  If they had to do anything, I would have cut all allusions to his surviving except the fixed up autopilot and Alfred looking at the camera and nodding.  Even then, how did he get the bomb far away enough from Gotham, then get himself far away enough from the bomb, all without being noticed?  Did he have a jet powered Bat-glider?  Did he get off before it got very far, just as it passed behind a building?

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.

We're talking about TDKR, not TDK.  Oh, wait, you meant TDKR.  I feel it was a focus on Bruce, not Batman.  I felt that the only time we were taken too far from him was while he was in prison.

28.  WaitforthetwisthereitcomesJohnBlake'sfullnameiswaitforitwaitforitwaitforROBINJohnBlake
holycarpyoudidn'tseethatonecomingisn'tthatawesomewetotallyfooledyouandwe'reawesome
becausehisfirstnameisfrinkinROBINhowawesomeisthatitissoawesomeIbetyoycan'tbelievehowawesomeitis

Oh yeah, well...okay, I got nothing on this one.  Should have called him Richard or Dick or Tim or Jason or Terry or even...Jean-Paul!  That would have been interesting, and would have made sense if a certain John Blake were trying to alter his name to fit in better.  But it did make me think that a Nightwing spinoff might be interesting, as it could easily tie in or be left out of people's Batman canon if they desired.

And this is probably the final kicker for me:  Bruce was Batman for how long before the end of TDK?  2 years?  Can it be that long?  Could it be as short as a couple of months?  And then he goes into 8 years of retirement.  He reappears for a couple of nights and then disappears for 5 months... and is back for one more day before he's "dead" again.   There’s no room for any more Batman stories.  No other villains.  Nothing.  I understand that Nolan and company wanted to tell the end of the Batman story

Of course there was plenty of room, but I think Nolan's justification for not leaving this one open for a sequel was quite reasonable...better to end on a high note than to have a final, franchise-crushing failure like Spider-man 3.  I think the greatest error in the three films that led to your complaint was the timeframe between the first and second film (6 months later), which left little room for imagined in-between stuff (or that horrible Gotham Knight interquel, if you accept that).  Fix that 6 month gap, make it like 3 years, and it'd be better pacing for the whole arc.

I forgot to mention another Batman Begins critique I meant to include in my earlier list.  Consider this a replacement for the errant point about the toxin: how could a man, clinging to a snowy cliff by nothing more than his sweet gauntlets, manage to curl a 200+ lb, 6'4" man in armor in order to save him?  Even with all his training, I find it hard to believe anyone could be that strong.

And as a final note, for those offended by my comment on armchair critics, forget not that I said I'd like to do my own review of all three films, which means I'm an armchair critic too.  I'm just saying that we expose ourselves to too much film analysis here, either by the pure hatred most have of the prequels and SEs, or by fanediting ourselves which leads us to be "oversaturated" (my reason for choosing that word) with too much knowledge about every insignificant part of the films we touch.  Fortunately I suck and fanediting and I don't hate the prequels, so I'm above all of you in that regard.  ;)

DominicCobb said:

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.

Well said, sir.  Thanks for backing me up, and your last paragraph is very true.

xhonzi said:

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).

I hope to rebut some more, but honestly it's frightening looking at that list and imagining the time to try to at least temper your comments with a different viewpoint.

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 hear ya.  It did work for me better than for you.  Bear in mind, Begins pulled me out in multiple occasions, but I'll be honest, most movies do, especially fiction or fictionalized non-fiction.  Many of the points I mentioned actually pulled me out during Batman Begins.  Perhaps my suspension of disbelief is more conscious than others...I know I'm doing it.  I watch something happen, think, "Nuh-uh, can't happen, but that's okay," and keep watching.  There are movies I just can't do that with, but I didn't find that problem with TDKR.  I can respect that you did, but my point was simply that perhaps all of our perspectives have changed since watching Begins.  Back then we were innocent.  Now we're all overly-intellectualized movie critics.

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.

:)  LOL.  Yeah, I can respect that you and many others found it distracting.  Again, I'm not trying to insult; rather I'm trying to give a different perspective.  I'll try to get back to your critiques soon.

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.

I was saving this for my big rebuttal, but I'll just say it now...didn't they emphasize that a system of shipping supplies and food into the city from the outside world was developed when discussing the random person with the bomb trigger?  It seems I remember them saying something about no outside influence except shipment somewhere, or at least it was inferred.  Could be wrong.

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.