|
The Dark Knight Rises (pg. 27)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Quazar |
The "how did he lay all of the explosives without anybody knowing" thing and "how did Batman have time to create a bat signal on the bridge without anyone knowing" are harder to take in this film than similar things in TDK, that's true.
The hospital and ferries somehow being rigged with explosives in TDK was easily dismissed as "because it's the Joker, and that's what the Joker does. It doesn't really have to make sense", a testament to how great the character was.
In TDKR, though, neither Bane nor Batman inspires that level of suspension of disbelief.
That said, I still loved the movie and shrugged off the somewhat-nonsensical stuff, because overall the movie didn't FEEL nonsensical. It's only when you look back and think about it do you realize there was a healthy amount of "check your brain at the door" involved. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Quazar
The hospital and ferries somehow being rigged with explosives in TDK was easily dismissed as "because it's the Joker, and that's what the Joker does. It doesn't really have to make sense", a testament to how great the character was. |
And because two ferries and a hospital is a lot less than every sewer entrance in the city, several bridges and a stadium. But yeah... these little niggles didn't spoil The Dark Knight, whereas this time around I personally couldn't get into the film because of them. Nolan deliberately tried to top TDK and deliver a spectacular finale to the trilogy, but he just went too far for my liking. |
|
|
| Chimney |
| Jack's so good at debating he could persuade people the Earth is flat, if he really wanted to. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
Quite a brilliant review by SYSTEM-J indeed, but for different reasons. Let me explain by looking at what everyone's least favorite mod has to say:
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
PHENOMENAL review.
You brought up quite a few issues with the story that irritated me... I still liked the film though :p |
Sushi, in a rare case of having a clue, understands that despite the plot inconsistencies he can still enjoy the movie, because they are not highly relevant for the movie's specific universe and what it tries to do. Another Aussie, PKC, too expresses how he thinks these issues are true but minor once. But of them understand that Jack is just spewing a load of irrelevant crap that fails to address the actual strengths and weaknesses of the movie.
But watch how both just humbly express their admiration and humbly applaud him, without even thinking about expressing their own concerns. Why? Because they know that if someone rants this long and eloquently about something irrelevant he can and will just kill any contrary opinion by even longer, better worded hammers of text.
So yeah, I agree, brilliant debating skills indeed.
:) :p |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
Perhaps if you put half as much effort into critiquing the film as you did into critiquing my post about the film, someone would give a about your opinion, Meat.
But no... WHY DOES BATMAN HAVE TO BE BATMAN!? |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| PSEUdo Intellectual Hipster opinion ROFLMAOOOoo1!! |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Quite a brilliant review by SYSTEM-J indeed, but for different reasons. Let me explain by looking at what everyone's least favorite mod has to say:
Sushi, in a rare case of having a clue, understands that despite the plot inconsistencies he can still enjoy the movie, because they are not highly relevant for the movie's specific universe and what it tries to do. Another Aussie, PKC, too expresses how he thinks these issues are true but minor once. But of them understand that Jack is just spewing a load of irrelevant crap that fails to address the actual strengths and weaknesses of the movie.
But watch how both just humbly express their admiration and humbly applaud him, without even thinking about expressing their own concerns. Why? Because they know that if someone rants this long and eloquently about something irrelevant he can and will just kill any contrary opinion by even longer, better worded hammers of text.
So yeah, I agree, brilliant debating skills indeed.
:) :p |
i don't read so good but it seems his critique said nothing of whether you would or should be entertained. It was a well written analysis of certain elements and how those elements were hard to deal with given his own admitted bias which he didn't try and hide regarding these types of movies. He gave context to his critique and within that context, it is pretty consistent. And that is what a critique should do. Not tell you what to like but give you some insight into a film within a certain context and let you make your own mind up. I personally think he didn't talk about the costumes as much as I would of liked and it lacked some forced homoerotic inferences i enjoy from more scholarly type reviews. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Perhaps if you put half as much effort into critiquing the film as you did into critiquing my post about the film |
Actually yeah, I should do that. :(
Let me briefly say this: The Batman movies play in a certain universe, they are superhero movies and as such accept the "super" in their heroes and villains. It means that the answer to "how can the Joker plant bombs in a hospital" / "how can Bane plant bombs all over the city" / "how can Batman get back into Gotham and install the bat logo fireworks" is always "because he's The Joker / Bane / Batman". It also means that their character is often so iconic that in any new manifestation (like a movie) they are more a name than an actual person.
So when I say I have a problem with Batman being Batman I mean that I reject this whole premise. It doesn't work for me. I don't want to accept this iconic characters in their comic book world as the basis of an action movie. What I do criticize as inconsequential and irrelevant to the movie's actual problems is when this premise is generally accepted and then individual parts of it are picked out and dissected.
Even more briefly now, I think the movies actual problems are not the plot holes but being overloaded and overambitious.
Edit: Go and wash your laundry, Hal. This is a thread for non-castrated men. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
Batman like any work of fiction is bound by the rules you set which nolan made clear in the first two. Nobody has super powers. He spends quite a bit of time outlining that batman is just a man and closet goth. The premise is quite average and believable for an industry where people like Michael Bay operate. A vigilante with a lot of money is not so out of there. Nolan went out of his way to get this point across. All the characters are more a result of psychological issues, not superpowers. And when things start to implode is when you are given and described this world and then you start to wonder, wait a second, you can't just go from say a spectrum of magic, 10 being a romantic dinner with me followed by me reciting a poem concluding with some good old fashion meth fuelled marathon ******ing, from kinda real to an 11 in just one movie.
I found that the edge Nolan had on 2 was lost. He should of just gone off the reservation and did a musical number with Bane. A 20 minute Bernstein hommage. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Quazar
The "how did he lay all of the explosives without anybody knowing" thing
|
Wasn't this explained through Daggett's contracts for numerous city planning and infrastructure projects around the city? He was working for/with Bane. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Actually yeah, I should do that. :(
Let me briefly say this: The Batman movies play in a certain universe, they are superhero movies and as such accept the "super" in their heroes and villains. It means that the answer to "how can the Joker plant bombs in a hospital" / "how can Bane plant bombs all over the city" / "how can Batman get back into Gotham and install the bat logo fireworks" is always "because he's The Joker / Bane / Batman". It also means that their character is often so iconic that in any new manifestation (like a movie) they are more a name than an actual person.
So when I say I have a problem with Batman being Batman I mean that I reject this whole premise. It doesn't work for me. I don't want to accept this iconic characters in their comic book world as the basis of an action movie. What I do criticize as inconsequential and irrelevant to the movie's actual problems is when this premise is generally accepted and then individual parts of it are picked out and dissected.
Even more briefly now, I think the movies actual problems are not the plot holes but being overloaded and overambitious.
Edit: Go and wash your laundry, Hal. This is a thread for non-castrated men. |
Two points here:
1. As I said in my main post, the idea of Nolan's films is that they aim to be gritty and realistic, rather than cartoonish and excessive. This isn't like Tim Burton's films, which were highly stylised fantasies. Nolan's films are revisionist in terms of cinematic depiction of superheroes - they aim to present believable manifestations of these characters, and they radically reinvent them. I have no idea how you can suggest that Bane is just an incarnation of an iconic figure - he looks very different to the comics, he acts different and he has a different background story. If you think TDKR is "iconic characters in their comic book world", you have completely missed the point.
2. I appreciate after the Prometheus aftermath I may have this reputation for being "the plot hole guy" but did you just skim read my post? My second point was more about how Nolan's attempts at profundity and symbolism are clumsy as , and my third point was about how he has violated his own universe and thus built the film's allegory on foundations of sand. Even my beef with the plotholes is as much about style - the film wants to have its cake and eat it with a tonally awkward attempt to mix grittiness with (essentially) high fantasy.
And finally, I'm not sure who the you are to declare my post "irrelevant", when Lews requested that I expand on my thoughts about my problems with the film. I did exactly that, and a lot of people enjoyed reading it. Write out your own opinion: I'm sure everyone is just dying to read it. |
|
|
| Quazar |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Wasn't this explained through Daggett's contracts for numerous city planning and infrastructure projects around the city? He was working for/with Bane. |
Yes, I guess I was more (poorly) referring to J's point about the timing of all of it, rather than the laying of the explosives themselves (although that's still a bit hard to believe, moreso than the dumping of the fear gas into the water in Begins, because that was all coming from one basement).
The fire bat-signal thing without anyone (military, Bane, etc.) noticing is much more over-the-top, but I just brushed it off as " yeah, Batman!". |
|
|
|
|
