The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

[Whirlygig]

It's a new day, so, why not play again?

Originally Posted by rickah88

Why don't you are Mr.Obelisk open up a thread all about Fictional movie improbabilities and why those improbabilities won't work in the real world?

Since you are Mr. Straw Man why don't you open up a thread all about misrepresentations of a person's position and/or incorrect characterizations of their intentions?

What would you say in real life if someone said to you "I love MOVIE, but that part where BLAH was groan-worthy!"
A) Yeah, I can see that.
B) Shut up and get over it, it's just a movie.

If the answer is A, then why are you doing B on forums?
If the answer is B, do you find many people want to have conversations with you?

Please accept my apologies that I did not post "zombie fan loves movie unwaveringly and accepts every contrivance and trope with no nuance of thought" and nod in agreement until my head fell off. What an enthralling 300+ pages that would make.

[Steve Lilley]

Originally Posted by NzYme

Are we really judging the realism in this movie? People....People....IT'S F'IN BATMAN! The whole damn premise is based on a comic book!!

Tell that to Christopher Nolan, who spent three movies trying to create a universe that was as grounded and real as humanly possible. He's the one who described THE DARK KNIGHT as "HEAT with Batman," not any of us.

And also, I completely and totally hate the "It's a comic book, man! Blargh!" defense of anything dumb in one of these movies. It may be based on a comic book, but it's a movie. Different mediums. And also, comic books don't automatically equal "dumb." Comic books are awesome, and screw you (not YOU "you", but the general "you". The editorial "you", if you will). ROAD TO PERDITION is also based on a comic book, and it doesn't use that as an excuse for silly, lazy conceits. And pardon me if I want something to be awesome 100% of the time and won't overlook things that are stupid.

If the same thing was in a Burton BATMAN movie or a Shumacher BATMAN movie, nobody would say one word. Because it would make sense in those worlds. Those are very, very different movies. The reason stuff like this sticks out for people so much is because, in part, they violate the rules of Christopher Nolan's own universe.

But I'm just a snob who doesn't know how to have fun, so what do I know

I also want to make it clear that I'm more interested in the position of the argument than the movie itself. I didn't really care for THE DARK KNIGHT RISES... so much so that I'm not really into arguing it specifically. I was more concerned with pointing out that just because something is based on a comic book doesn't mean it is automatically allowed to be really dumb, especially if it's the third entry in a series that has been largely not dumb up until now. "Come on, man! Coommmee oooooon!" isn't a good enough excuse for me.

We were told we were getting one thing, and we got something way different. In any other situation in life ("You told me you were giving me candy, but instead you punched me in the face! WTF!"), a person would be allowed to be annoyed. But when it's a movie, heaven help you if you're disappointed.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by lone_star_obelisk

But of course the title of the movie would have to be changed to something like The Dark Knight Rises to Scratch His Space Balls

Heil, rickah88! the Bossy Blu-ray Knight Thread Nazi Wannabe....

Not at all, just offering up an opinion...like everyone else!

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Whirlygig

It's a new day, so, why not play again?

Since you are Mr. Straw Man why don't you open up a thread all about misrepresentations of a person's position and/or incorrect characterizations of their intentions?

What would you say in real life if someone said to you "I love MOVIE, but that part where BLAH was groan-worthy!"
A) Yeah, I can see that.
B) Shut up and get over it, it's just a movie.

If the answer is A, then why are you doing B on forums?
If the answer is B, do you find many people want to have conversations with you?

Please accept my apologies that I did not post "zombie fan loves movie unwaveringly and accepts every contrivance and trope with no nuance of thought" and nod in agreement until my head fell off. What an enthralling 300+ pages that would make.

You seem to be missing my point, entirely. I don't care about moive "misrepresentations", like you seem to do!

[Whirlygig]

Originally Posted by rickah88

You seem to be missing my point, entirely. I don't care about moive "misrepresentations", like you seem to do!

I'm getting the feeling from many of your posts that sentences containing more than 3-4 words can be a bit confusing to you.

Let's try again:
You misrepresent me.
You misrepresent others.
Ergo:
You are Mr. Straw Man.

[rickah88]

Queue the broken record. I guess we'll keep at this as long as it takes.

[lolwut]

Originally Posted by Whirlygig

Sorry, I guess I should have made his middle name "MRTOB" (More). Either way you know what I meant. I already said I like the film. But you can't allow me a "come on" moment or two, I have to just shut up and pretend like I thought every single second of the movie was the best 24 frames ever flashed before my eyes?

So your eyes really did not even do a quarter or eighth roll in your head when, like some outdated and cliche action hero or yesteryear, Batman grabs Catwoman and plants one on her while mere seconds remain to prevent Gotham's destruction? Sixteenth roll, even?

IIRC there was a similar moment in Star Trek when Spock lets Uhura impede his urgent need to get to his imploding planet by starting a game of tonsil hockey or similar... Also eye-rolling & unlike the character.

The reason everyone's jumping down your throat over a nitpick is because it's a Nolan Batman film. And the majority of responses are "It's only a movie" which is only used when there's obviously a flaw that doesn't have a good defense. I liked the film too but you should be able to make observations without being attacked.

[blonde_devil]

i do see his point about the kiss scene but to be fair, that is in a lot of movies. yeah, it is stupid to waste time when something big is happening but this isn't a documentary - there is a little room for drama and flair in it. it's fine to think it was dumb, just don't think they whole movie was dumb because of that one scene. as for the observations without being attacked, you are preaching to the choir here man. i agree 100% that if you have a legit issue, feel free to voice it no matter what the movie is. "it's only a movie" is a poor excuse because if it was only a movie, why can't the main character just snap their finger and fix everything? the movie needs to be based in reality, even if it is the reality of that universe. people need to learn to be objective and not just say "whatever" when someone has an opinion that is different that thiers. unfortunately, it is an uphill battle when it is a successful movie.

one of the complaints with this movie is what you don't see - how Bruce Wayne came back to Gotham, etc. fact is, they are not needed. if every justification scene was included in the movie, it would be a lot longer and we would be sitting here complaining about the lack of pacing and saying "who cares that it cost his $10,000 for the plane". you do have to give directors a little room when it comes to stuff like that especially in a movie like this because you don't want to get bogged down in the details. if he was say shot into space and then suddenly appeared back in Gotham, I would be the first to say "what the hell is that?" but the lack of explanation on things is not a big deal for me. after all, he is Batman - that is part of the character.

[Whirlygig]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

it's fine to think it was dumb, just don't think they whole movie was dumb because of that one scene.

Thanks - that's all I'm sayin', and I don't!

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

one of the complaints with this movie is what you don't see - how Bruce Wayne came back to Gotham, etc. fact is, they are not needed.

Agree, that's why that is a completely different sort of issue, and personally I didn't mind that one bit. That which I do not see on-screen is open to interpretation and possibility, but if that which I do see is IMO unnecessarily corny, expect a gag reflex.

[Early Memphis]

Better freedom of expression (what we're here for) than misrepresentation and slavish acceptance of every single mistake (magnified by condemning every dissenter and an unhealthy need to always get the last word in).
+1 : lone_star_obelisk, Steve Lilley, Whirlygig, blonde_devil and everyone who expresses themselve in the face the idiot wind!

[42041]

Originally Posted by lolwut

And the majority of responses are "It's only a movie" which is only used when there's obviously a flaw that doesn't have a good defense.

Or when it isn't a flaw at all for anyone except people with narrative OCD who simply can't get it through their skulls that sometimes things are done for other reasons than believability.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Steve Lilley

Tell that to Christopher Nolan, who spent three movies trying to create a universe that was as grounded and real as humanly possible. He's the one who described THE DARK KNIGHT as "HEAT with Batman," not any of us

What reality are you living in?
TDK is only Heat with Batman in that it's shot in unadorned urban enviornments. Otherwise, it's a complete fantasy and you could write a novella about all the shit that's completely unrealistic or unbelievable in these movies.

[Steve Lilley]

Originally Posted by Early Memphis

Better freedom of expression (what we're here for) than misrepresentation and slavish acceptance of every single mistake (magnified by condemning every dissenter and an unhealthy need to always get the last word in).

Originally Posted by 42041

Or when it isn't a flaw at all for anyone except people with narrative OCD who simply can't get it through their skulls that sometimes things are done for other reasons than believability.

That was awesome.

Originally Posted by 42041

What reality are you living in?
TDK is only Heat with Batman in that it's shot in unadorned urban enviornments. Otherwise, it's a complete fantasy and you could write a novella about all the shit that's completely unrealistic in these movies.

You honestly think that's what he meant? The Batman comics take place in unadorned urban environments. If he were just trying to make that point he would have said "It's like Batman with Batman."

Look, there's a difference between "believable in context to the world in which you and I live" and "believable in context to the rules of the world in the movie." Nobody really cares about the first one. The second one is ungodly important no matter what type of movie you're trying to make. It's like why everyone loves SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE and also *loathes* the "flies around the world and turns back time" ending. It isn't just that it's dumb - it's that it's dumb even in the context of a man that flies around in a bright red costume.

Something can be "unbelievable" and still be "awesome". Something can be "believable" and still be "dumb". When you're both "unbelievable" and "dumb", I'm tapping out and I don't give a care what you say (pardon my French).

[42041]

Originally Posted by Steve Lilley

Something can be "unbelievable" and still be "awesome". Something can be "believable" and still be "dumb". When you're both "unbelievable" and "dumb", I'm tapping out and I don't give a care what you say (pardon my French).

Or option C: something can be dumb and yet it doesn't matter one whit how believable it is, because its believability isn't central or even relevant to the overall dramatic thrust of whatever's happening.

I'm not sure what Nolan meant by that Heat comment. I mean, you can take a gritty urban crime drama and add a bunch of outlandish silliness to it, but then it's no longer grounded in reality. Yeah, people don't have comic book superpowers in these films and the villains are a bit less ludicrous, but they still have action film superpowers and still seem pretty ludicrous to me.

[Steve Lilley]

Something has to be "realistic" in some way (now I'm talking about the broader definition of the word, not in the context of the discussion that we're already having about BATMAN) to be "dramatic."

You can't have the second one without the first one. You have to have something to hold onto, to believe in, before it can be dramatic. If you take that away, you don't have drama. You have... apathy, I suppose.

[006]

Lol at this thread.

[kashif]

Edit: Double post sorrry!

[kashif]

This thread remind me of "Taxi Driver" forum at imdb where a great number of people are challenging that Travis Bickle died at the end and the whole climax later is his dream. The person who wrote the novel "Taxi Driver" said that he didnt die at the end. The person who made that movie said Travis didnt die at the end but yest they dont want to listen to the director and writer even. So maybe Paul Shreder or Scorcesse are fools?

Like I said above I am not a Nolan fan so I am not acting like one of his fanboys who always nod Yes to whatever he do. My point is its just a movie and movies are full of silly logics and specially Action movies are loaded with mistakes which dosent have any answer. This is not some art house movie or some documentary where you have a valid point when you find a mistake.

[Whirlygig]

Originally Posted by 42041

So maybe Paul Shreder or Scorcesse are fools?

Or maybe part of the appeal of literature and film as art forms has always been that regardless of what the artists intended, you still end up with a product that can have different meanings to different minds. Essentially taking on a life of its own.

Knowing the artist's intent can "resolve" "arguments", but if the discussion has to end there it seems like a tragic end to imagination.

[Steve Lilley]

Originally Posted by kashif

This thread remind me of "Taxi Driver" forum at imdb where a great number of people are challenging that Travis Bickle died at the end and the whole climax later is his dream. The person who wrote the novel "Taxi Driver" said that he didnt die at the end. The person who made that movie said Travis didnt die at the end but yest they dont want to listen to the director and writer even. So maybe Paul Shreder or Scorcesse are fools?

That's... not really like this at all.

1. Nolan, to my knowledge, has never definitively commented on his interpretation of the ending, and

2. The gag with TAXI DRIVER isn't that Travis is dying *or* that Travis is all better. It's a third option, that people rarely seem to bring up, that Travis is just a complete disaster waiting to happen and that he's *going* to die in a really, ugly, horrific way, and probably with a lot of other people.

So this would only be like that if Bruce wasn't alive OR dead, and it was some weird secret option "C" that only Christopher Nolan knows about. Which, given the fact that it's Christopher Nolan, could totally be true Kind of like how David Chase recently said that he's only ever seen one article that nailed his intention for the finale of THE SOPRANOS, meaning that both of the popular "he's dead!" and "he has to watch his back forever!" interpretations are false.

Thomas Lennon's joke theory is that, based on the fact that he's essentially playing the same character from MEMENTO, Nolan's entire DARK KNIGHT trilogy is just taking place in Leonard Shelby's head, ha.

Originally Posted by kashif

This is not some art house movie or some documentary where you have a valid point when you find a mistake.

All that translates into is "if you don't like something for whatever reason, you're doing it wrong." Which is stupid. Just because it's an "action movie" or a "comic book movie" is not a valid excuse for it being a "bad movie." I don't care what type of movie it is. Good is good, and bad is bad.

Originally Posted by Whirlygig

Knowing the artist's intent can "resolve" "arguments", but if the discussion has to end there it seems like a tragic end to imagination.

Agreed. An example: despite Ridley Scott's very, very public and very, very clear "final word" on the interpretation of BLADE RUNNER, Frank Darabont still refuses to acknowledge that Rick Deckard is a Replicant.