darth_ender

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!

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 ;)

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.

Xhonzi, I'm not sure I get it.  Did you or didn't you like the film? ;)

I admit I had a few similar gripes, though not to the extent that you did, and still I overall loved it.  You forgot to mention that we Batman had about 90 seconds to get 6+ miles away from Gotham with the bomb, meanwhile escaping via some unexplained method and get another 6+ miles away in order to avoid being taken out in the explosion. (IIRC, the explosion had a six mile radius).

Perhaps I'll try to do a point by point and explain away what I can.  But clearly there are issues of realism that both this and the second movie suffered from.  Before this even came out, I attributed such changes to the inclusion of Jonathan Nolan instead of David Goyer as a writer.  I think Goyer kept things a bit more grounded, though Nolan the Younger gets things more intense.

I finally got to see TDKR last night.  Way better than TDK IMHO.  I will probably have to find the time to do a long post that no one will read analyzing the various aspects of all three films that I like and dislike.  However, for the moment I will say this: I feel that TDK had the best ad campaign and garnered a bunch of annoying and excited fans who didn't even bother to see Batman Begins in the theater.  I hung around IMDB at the time and saw a bunch of snotty posters who thought they ran the joint.  Oops, I'm digressing, but the point is that the ad campaign successfully built up a lot of hype, especially surrounding the mysterious Joker.  When Ledger died, that was the catalyst that sealed an "amazing performance" before the film even came out.  I remember a particular thread titled "Heath Ledger Posthumous Oscar Nod" immediately after his death, but six months before the friggin' movie hit theaters!!!  It's like he was destined to be great, even if he was terrible.  And everyone's love of the movie it seems is not based on the story, not based on the message, not based on the subtle themes that are interwoven throughout.  No, it's, "Oh, The Dark Knight is the bestest coz Heath Ledger did an awwwwwwesome Joker."

Now as I depart from my rant, I will say that I enjoy the movie.  But it's my LEAST favorite of the three.  It's plot is not as well structured, it relies more heavily on gimmicks, and it places too much emphasis on the character that should have been shrouded in greater mystery while stealing screentime from the characters of greatest worth, namely Bruce and Harvey.  It has a wonderful ending that caps the nature of the whole film with moral dilemmas, but still, I find it the most inferior.

When I write my lengthy reviews, I'll probably plagiarize myself here.

I've watched several movies lately and I've enjoyed them all to some level.  However, last night I watched Amazing Grace, depicting the efforts of William Wilberforce, MP in the House of Commons circa 1800 as he tries to bring an end to the slave trade among the British Empire.  The movie was very touching and powerful and even writing about it makes me emotional.  Slavery is a great evil, and men like Wilberforce should not be forgotten for their greatness.  And in spite of recent efforts to portray Christians as racist rednecks or hypocrites, this film showed that it was Wilberforce's spiritual transformation as a Christian that allowed him to bring such a great change to the most powerful state on the earth at the time.

10/10

In my office I hear the sound of my ever-cold office mate's space heater, quietly humming as the termperature rises.  In the background I can hear the printer/copier/fax machine printing something.  I have lots to do.  I don't want to.

Oh, and I had oatmeal this morning.

This is fantastic.  It's ironic that I only just decided to get my hands on Movealong's ANH and ESB projects, though I'd read about them many times before.  Then remembering that I had seen this thread in the preservation forum, I decided to see if anything was happening with this.  And it's nearly done!  Exciting and great timing.  Thanks for your efforts.

I like it, MrInsaneA.  Not bad at all.

I ate some bland soup for lunch today.

No no no no no.  You see, it's a utopian society where everyone works in space for free because virtue is its own reward.  Except for the Ferengi dealing in gold-pressed latinum, money doesn't even exist in Star Wars.

I like all six films, though I'm definitely a far bigger fan of the original trilogy.  Seriously, if you are easily offended by "haters", then this might not be the site for you.  I've tried defending the prequels, but it doesn't get you far.  If you want to do that, there are many sites that promote it.  While I think most would welcome you here regardless of your personal preferences, many do talk about the various qualities in a fairly objective manner and what makes a film artistic by generally accepted criteria.  You don't have to agree with anyone, but if you get offended, you may just want to poke your head in another site.

I myself just make fun of people who take things too far with their criticisms ;)

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/The-Lucas-Paranoia-Thread-Was-Did-George-Lucas-use-his-millions-of-dollars-to-put-mind-controlling-microchips-in-your-TVs-BD-and-DVD-players-and-satellite-boxes/topic/13953/

I was going to see it this weekend, but now it looks like it will have to wait till next week.  My wife is being a philanthropist, which means postponing her husband's most desperate needs ;)  I'm skipping any revealing posts, but from the above three, I will comment on my hopes.  I like Tobar's review in particular, because that's what I want to hear.  Those who tell me it doesn't measure up to TDK don't scare me, because those are they who prefer TDK and therefore judge by different standards.  What I love about these movies is the internal struggle of Bruce Wayne and how it plays out in the films.  The first movie really showed me a broken man.  The second movie was exciting for me, but except for the ending with Harvey dying and Batman taking the blame, I did not find it as compelling (though I admit that the ending is fantastic and wrought with the truth about moral dilemmas: is a lie sometimes better than the truth?  Does the true hero have to be the villain?).  If TDKR returns more to its roots and explores a broken man trying to heal a city, but meanwhile trying to heal himself, then I think I can love it more than TDK and hopefully at least as much as BB.

Listening to a soundtrack CD I made several years ago.  It's really good!  It's got the themes to Superman, Batman '89, Willow, Back to the Future, the finale and end credits for Signs, Jurassic Park, and The Hunt for Red October.  It's a really good CD so far, and it's like I'm rediscovering it.  We'll see what else it has.

captainsolo said:

I had no idea the silent Blackmail was commercially available. Whoa. Definitely need one of the PAL sets now.

FanFiltration said:

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Oh how I did not enjoy this film.  I did like how it was moving along up until the Venice boat chase, but went down hill fast after that.  The effects were atrocious.  The Scottish disguise bit was so unlike the Indian Jones from the first two films. Turned into a joke, and some great character's are so under utilized.  Marcus was so kewl in the first movie, but here he is just way too goofy.  *frown*

Too disappointed to rate this one.  

:) It's tired. It's made by people who no longer have the drive for making an Indy film. The script was re-edited numerous times, even while shooting. There are numerous moments completely improvised such as the entire tank sequence and motorcycle chase. The character of Elsa makes little to no sense. Donovan is a terrible, dull, lifeless ripoff of Belloq. Marcus and Sallah are ruined. The opening goes on far too long. The staging of the opening boat scene is putrid. The challenge of the things Indy has to go through at the end is not built up very well and this undermines the danger that should be building tension. 

"You've made me catch a sniffle!"

Good points: Sean, Sean, Sean, Sean a thousand times over. He has the time of his life with Jones Sr. and that gleam in his eyes makes you lament his retirement.

The father-son interaction is priceless and the the best part of the film. "she talks in her sleep."

The way Harrison says: "Yes, sir."

The improved sound design. Aside from some of the smaller humorous moments, that's about it. Each time I see the movie again, I like it less and become more frustrated with it. The father-son dynamic is interesting and dramatic yes, but there is so little around that single speck of gold that that speck can be outweighed by the bad. I might like it better on Laser when I find one.

It's really a three star film, trying but never succeeding to win you over. But I still to this day cannot understand how so many prefer this to the fantastic Temple of Doom.

 I think this film is simply more fun and light-hearted than the previous two, yet still serious enough to find enjoyable (whereas Crystal Skull is so much "fun" that I never enjoy it that much).  When I was younger, this was my favorite.  In my teens I started to enjoy Raiders more, and now it is my favorite.  I still prefer Crusade to Temple, but that's partly due to the similarities to the first film, i.e. the Judeo-Christian theme, the baddies, the reused characters.  However, I see very much where you both are coming from, and the interesting characters of Marcus and Salah are not utilized to their full potential, instead made to look too idiotic.

The father-son dynamic is fun, and is probably the best point for the film.  Some of the effects are weak, I agree, but I never saw them as outside of what is appropriate for the time (of course I was 7 when the film came out).

I will agree that the Temple of Doom gets a lot of unneeded flack.  The female character is weak and there are things that could easily be found offensive and racist to Indians.  Nevertheless, I still enjoy it.  I really like Shortround, I find it very exciting at times (again, my favorite climactic scene of all Indy films), and other qualities I can't put my finger on.  However, my biggest beef with the film is that I don't believe in Indiana Jones as a gung-ho archaeologist and professor.  I see him as a secret agent or superhero.  He's called Dr. Jones, but he does not really utilized such skills as well as he should.  As I aged, I also started to get more of a disjointed character in this film and the two that sandwhich it, and for that reason I enjoy it less than the others.

^Maybe I should be offended, but I'm smiling.

So I've just downloaded The Dark Knight: The Rise and Fall of Harvey Two Face fanedit, one that aims to focus more on Harvey and Bruce.  I'm excited to watch this because that's my TDK is inferior to BB in my opinion.  I also am trying to download TDK Remixed by Jorge, a version which presents the film in an unconventional chronology, utilizing the same techniques that Nolan's Memento did (two timelines, one backwards, one forwards, one colarless, one in colar, and they meet in the middle of the story).  I'm having trouble getting my hands on this, as every available source seems to be a dead end.  Perhaps I will use one of these as my default version.

I did download BB: The Dark Cut a while ago.  It makes a few changes to Batman Begins, such as making the Batmobile automatically take out the train rail (using Batman Begins video game dialogue to make it happen) and a sniper shooting Joe Chill instead of a woman announcing to everyone that Falcone ordered the hit.  Most other changes are subtle, but the most significant change is the deepening of Rachel's voice so she sounds more mature.  It was pulled off surprisingly well, and I find it a nice alternative, though not necessarily preferred--rather it's about equal to the original for me.

^To demonstrate how awful these films are to the whole world, they scored less than a 7/10 on the DominicCobb scale, which is like scoring negative points to everyone else ;)

sansmalrst said:

In Ep. VI, after the rebels are forced out of the bunker at gunpoint, I spotted what appears to be a rebel in a scout trooper uniform (minus the helmet). He's already waiting outside with the other captured rebels, holding his hands above his head. I've made a few screens to point him out:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/82250440@N06/7534863426/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/82250440@N06/7534857248/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/82250440@N06/7534843940/

If you compare with a previous scene from Ep. VI, you can see he really is wearing a scout trooper uniform:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/82250440@N06/7534853506/

I've been wondering what the story for that rebel is, but haven't been able to find anything that sheds further light on this, e.g. no mentioning of a deleted scene with a disguised rebel or so.

Does anybody here know anything more about this? Ideas? Might this hint towards another as of yet unknown deleted or never filmed scene?

I have a feeling I'll have to do some apologizing soon.  I just wanted to distribute a picture throughout the site in hopes of contributing to the OT.com meme database.  It was all in good fun.  Now I feel guilt.  But I can hear what you're thinking.

chyron8472 said:

I watched L8wrtr's Ep. 3 "Dawn of the Empire" fan edit a few days ago, and in it he made Palpatine to "reveal" his "true form" (ie. white and wrinkly) instead of having his appearance change as a result of his force lightning rebounding on himself.

Now, I have an older version of Stankpac's edit (v3.1) which I considered as definitive except for the stupid Yoda-Dance DVD menu. This edit had Palpatine change appearance as a result of the lightning. When I got Stankpac's 3.2 version, the menu had changed but he had also changed Palpatine to "reveal" himself similar to L8wrtr. In his changelog, he gives credit to Kerr for it.

I think I like the force-lightning-rebound better because the movies (nevermind the extended universe) never discuss how being a Sith changes your appearance, nor do they allude to that Palpatine's appearance is false. As a result, his "reveal" is rather a WTF moment in my opinion. Why do so many people like a "reveal" better than a backfire?

What do you prefer and why?

captainsolo said:

My question has always been: Where is this Kryptonian?