The Trouble City Forums
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Post-release thread..... - Printable Version

+- The Trouble City Forums (http://citizens.trouble.city)
+-- Forum: Specific Cinema (http://citizens.trouble.city/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Films in Release or On Video (http://citizens.trouble.city/forumdisplay.php?fid=78)
+--- Thread: THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Post-release thread..... (/showthread.php?tid=144220)



- chris spider - 07-28-2012

Hey isn't it possible the city looks different in the other two movies because:

1. We're seeing more of it.

2. Nolan's shooting it in different ways, such as way more daylight, or with snow like in Rises.

Just a thought. And while this may be because I'm not well-traveled, the location mixing largely went unnoticed by me.




- mr pretzel - 07-28-2012

@ Dark Shape/ Chris Spider:

That are all good points.

But somewhere is a kind of line between a fictional presentation that works for you and one that does not because of inconsistencies within itself.

For me and a guy from Switzerland and a girl from England that shot was crossing that line.




- cognizant - 07-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucho View Post

This is the core of why The Schwartz Scenario rules.

Ok, you guys are beginning to sound like Harry at aintitcool, imagining an entirely different story that Nolan should of filmed.

This thread is huge, so I have to ask, has anyone answered why this film is getting nitpicked to death to a truly ridiculous degree, but Avengers for example wasn't?  And don't throw the whole "Well Nolan wanted it to be realistic so we're judging it by real world rules!" excuse.  It's still an adaptation of a comic book about a dude dressed as a bat.  We can let some shit slide, can't we?  I fail to see a plot hole that breaks the entire story.  Granted, I also would have liked some things different too, like another shot of Bane after he was blown away, but I'm not going to get my panties in a twist about it.

The thing that irks me the most is the incessant need to poke holes in the plot, yet nobody cares about such things in the original source material (comics), or other examples of the genre (Avengers), it just blows my mind how people can't just go with the flow and appreciate the characters and their respective journeys.  Ok, so Bruce climbs out of a hole in the desert, and later he arrives in Gotham.  He's fucking Batman that's why.  That kind of argument should be relegated to IMDB boards for crying out loud.

Also, I'd hardly call Bane Talia's lackey.  She gave him an order towards the end, but as soon as she leaves, he's like "you know I have to kill you now".  Nobody orders Bane around, not even her!

Anyway, I liked the film, and the trilogy as a whole.  I'm not a massive fan, but I find them very enjoyable and consider BB the least good as it follows a more traditional seen-it-all-before script, whereas the two sequels are more sprawling and take more risks, which I can appreciate.




- mr pretzel - 07-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by cognizant View Post

This thread is huge, so I have to ask, has anyone answered why this film is getting nitpicked to death to a truly ridiculous degree, but Avengers for example wasn't?

I can only answer for myself: I had no interest in The Avengers and didn't see it. I am not a comic book fan and so the films i like are the ones that feel more grounded: Ang Lee's Hulk, TDK, Blade.




- cognizant - 07-28-2012

I just feel that Batman is getting a lot of flak for it's inconsistencies compared to other adaptations, doesn't seem fair really.  I don't see the point in having my enjoyment stifled by trying to figure out how the Joker could have possibly gotten away with his crazy plans.  The logistics aren't the point.

And I'm still seeing debates about why Batman 'gave up' in this film, despite the fact that it's repeated in the film that the Dent Act worked and there was no need for Batman to be on the streets anymore.  "But how could the Dent act be enforced so quickly after the end of TDK?"  Because = Fuck me, this isn't a documentary people!  The point is, it worked!  The point is Joker was apprehended, Two-Face dead, and as far as we as viewers are concerned, there are no more crazy threats!

I thought the way TDKR handled the aftermath of the previous film's climax by subverting it, was similar to how Reloaded upended the mythology of The Matrix, a masterstroke and perhaps too ambitious for it's own good apparently...




- mr pretzel - 07-28-2012

Quote:
I just feel that Batman is getting a lot of flak for it's inconsistencies compared to other adaptations, doesn't seem fair really.  I don't see the point in having my enjoyment stifled by trying to figure out how the Joker could have possibly gotten away with his crazy plans.  The logistics aren't the point.
And I'm still seeing debates about why Batman 'gave up' in this film, despite the fact that it's repeated in the film that the Dent Act worked and there was no need for Batman to be on the streets anymore.  "But how could the Dent act be enforced so quickly after the end of TDK?"  Because = Fuck me, this isn't a documentary people!  The point is, it worked!  The point is Joker was apprehended, Two-Face dead, and as far as we as viewers are concerned, there are no more crazy threats!

I don't have a problem with stuff like that either. If it isn't against some law of physics you just assume it happened somehow.

Seeing Wayne in a new state at the beginning of the film is fine. Kyle's "visit" makes him curious and he gets back into the game. That's character stuff motivating the story. But much that happens in the film doesn't have that kind of connection you can relate to.

Quote:
I thought the way TDKR handled the aftermath of the previous film's climax by subverting it, was similar to how Reloaded upended the mythology of The Matrix, a masterstroke and perhaps too ambitious for it's own good apparently...

How did Reloaded upend that mythology?

For me Revolutions is the big problem of that franchise.




- bartleby_scriven - 07-28-2012

At the end of Dark Knight, Bruce had been shot and fell off a building. More than likely it took him weeks if not months to heal, at which point The Dent Act would've been passed. As a result, Bruce realizes that the public views him as a criminal, and if he ran around as Batman that would make the police look bad because they can't catch such a criminal. Bruce's goal since Begins, and what's made very clear by Dark Knight, is to build the legitimate forms of justice (Harvey Dent) so Batman won't have to exist anymore. Well, that time came.

I did have a few problems with the movie, but overall enjoyed it very much in the moment. I hope, however, that someone like Paul Dini gets to write the reboot.




- sentinel red - 07-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Pretzel View Post

Sorry guys i didn't read everything.

Has anyone mentioned the completely unaltered shots of the locations?

-Wall Street

-long aerial shot of Manhattan including a half-built Freedom Tower

-Heinz Field, incl. Heinz advertising.

-US Bank Tower in LA

This made the film feel really lazy.

Genuinely could not give one single, solitary, flying fuck.




- mr pretzel - 07-28-2012

Good for you.




- Richard Dickson - 07-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by cognizant View Post

This thread is huge, so I have to ask, has anyone answered why this film is getting nitpicked to death to a truly ridiculous degree, but Avengers for example wasn't?

Because The Avengers never laid any claim to the sense of realism and plausibility Nolan's Batman films have.  When you're film starts with a Norse god teleporting into a super-secret base at the behest of a swarm of conquering aliens, you kind of know the playing field you're on.




- navidson - 07-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 View Post

The jig was up for me early on, though.  The kid's eyes are noticeably blue, while Bane's are noticeably dark.  I thought, "Why the hell couldn't they get a kid who looks like Bane...oh, guess it's not Bane."


Also my buddy pointed out the glaringly obvious fact that the prison doctor fixed Bane's broken back. Did he go back down in the hole?




- cognizant - 07-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

Because The Avengers never laid any claim to the sense of realism and plausibility Nolan's Batman films have.  When you're film starts with a Norse god teleporting into a super-secret base at the behest of a swarm of conquering aliens, you kind of know the playing field you're on.

If you judge the movies by themselves, then you'll find they don't explicitly claim an adherence to realism and plausibility either, it's the critics and fans that make these claims, based on some misconceived notion that Christopher Nolan is somehow Michael Mann.

The trilogy has fantastical, though not quite supernatural, elements which can't be avoided due to the source material, but the characterisation is what keeps the films grounded, not the world or the story, and personally I'm wholly satisfied with how things have panned out throughout all three films.  I just wish Alfred was in the third film more, he just disappears at some point, though I suppose he served his purpose and keeping him around wouldn't have progressed the characters much, and he would have just made an obligatory tragic death.

I find that criticism of Nolan's direction is more valid than criticism of the story, when it comes to this trilogy.  Although I don't dislike the fight scenes, I do realise Nolan still hasn't mastered how to film them in a coherent fashion, relying too much on the close-cut shaky-cam-to-hide-how-ridiculous-it-is trick.  If he ends up filming a Bond film, I'm sure he'll come away with a bigger bag of tricks.




- whiteboy jones - 07-28-2012


Originally Posted by cognizant View Post

This thread is huge, so I have to ask, has anyone answered why this film is getting nitpicked to death to a truly ridiculous degree, but Avengers for example wasn't?

Tangible details.




- naisu baddi - 07-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 View Post



The jig was up for me early on, though.  The kid's eyes are noticeably blue, while Bane's are noticeably dark.  I thought, "Why the hell couldn't they get a kid who looks like Bane...oh, guess it's not Bane."

What? Tom Hardy has blue eyes and brown hair (okay, you don't know about the hair from this movie, but still). Due to the short haircut (clever bit of misdirection) I totally saw the kid as young Hardy at first. Tricked me completely.

Quote:

Sorry guys i didn't read everything.

Has anyone mentioned the completely unaltered shots of the locations?

-Wall Street

-long aerial shot of Manhattan including a half-built Freedom Tower

-Heinz Field, incl. Heinz advertising.

-US Bank Tower in LA

This made the film feel really lazy.

If you're not overly familiar with certain specific American cities (as many people watching the movie aren't), the use of such locations doesn't register. I'm from Canada and have only been in U.S. cities fleetingly on vacations (including L.A. and New York) so nothing from them was recognizable to me.

Even if some things were, what difference does it make? When I see something I recognize in a movie, it's a cool moment (i.e. Toronto landmarks in "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World"), but it could not possibly diminish my appreciation for the movie.

I love the use of Chicago in "The Dark Knight", I thought it just made Chicago look great and made me want to visit it more (I've been interested in it for awhile). I was especially happy about that tunnel in which The Joker launches his bazooka.

I recognized it from "The Fugitive" and a Chuck Norris movie. At this rate, I could see it becoming a landmark because of all the neat action sequences that have been shot in it. I want to go there and get my picture taken like a nerdy tourist. 




- mr pretzel - 07-28-2012

Quote:

If you're not overly familiar with certain specific American cities (as many people watching the movie aren't), the use of such locations doesn't register. I'm from Canada and have only been in U.S. cities fleetingly on vacations (including L.A. and New York) so nothing from them was recognizable to me.

Even if some things were, what difference does it make? When I see something I recognize in a movie, it's a cool moment (i.e. Toronto landmarks in "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World"), but it could not possibly diminish my appreciation for the movie.

We're talking about one of the most familiar areas ever: Ground Zero.

And i've never been to the US, but i'm interested in architecture. Maybe that is the reason i look closer at these things. Still. Ground Zero.

It is fine if it works for you guys. But i personally got pulled out of the film when i saw the half-built WTC. As were the people who saw it with me.

Edit: The more anonymous Chicago in TDK worked for me too.




- Nooj - 07-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by cognizant View Post

If you judge the movies by themselves, then you'll find they don't explicitly claim an adherence to realism and plausibility either, it's the critics and fans that make these claims, based on some misconceived notion that Christopher Nolan is somehow Michael Mann.

The trilogy has fantastical, though not quite supernatural, elements which can't be avoided due to the source material, but the characterisation is what keeps the films grounded, not the world or the story, and personally I'm wholly satisfied with how things have panned out throughout all three films.  I just wish Alfred was in the third film more, he just disappears at some point, though I suppose he served his purpose and keeping him around wouldn't have progressed the characters much, and he would have just made an obligatory tragic death.

I find that criticism of Nolan's direction is more valid than criticism of the story, when it comes to this trilogy.  Although I don't dislike the fight scenes, I do realise Nolan still hasn't mastered how to film them in a coherent fashion, relying too much on the close-cut shaky-cam-to-hide-how-ridiculous-it-is trick.  If he ends up filming a Bond film, I'm sure he'll come away with a bigger bag of tricks.


But the way the story is told IS a part of Nolan's direction.  And Nolan invited comparisons to Michael Mann when he cited Heat as an influence on The Dark Knight.  So he is partially responsible for people glomming onto the realism angle.  That and the more somber approach he took to the Batman character and making the 'real-world' practicalities of the story prominent.

Is it unfair?  Yeah.  But that's people for ya.

As Whiteboy brought up... it's the tangible details that people get caught up on.  TDK had tons of those too, but I was so engaged with the film that I disregard them in the moment.  My primary problem with TDKR is just how un-engaging it was.  And those tangible details just pop out more.  If I had been caught up in the thrill of the story, they wouldn't matter.  And because I'm aware of that (about myself), all of these nitpicks that people are complaining about (and those complaints about the nitpickery) are irrelevant to me in terms of my enjoyment of the film.

Had The Avengers not been so damned engaging (for most people), I'll bet you there'd be more people complaining and nitpicking the plot holes and inconsistencies.  Because lord knows... they're there.  But the movie is really only concerned with entertaining you, so it doesn't bother getting caught up in the 'grounded' details the way Nolan does.

Bruce's return to Gotham should've been a grand moment.  Did we need to see exactly how he had gotten there when it was so firmly established how locked off Gotham had become?  I would've liked to see SOME attention paid to it.  But as people have mentioned... he's the goddamned Batman (despite how incompetent he comes across for most of the movie).  So we can give his resources some leeway.  What bugs me is that it's another instance of cinematic teleportation in a movie that already felt like it had lots of those.  So when Bruce does it, it doesn't really feel that special.

What IS bugging me is that (whether it's true or not) I could intangibly FEEL Nolan's obligation to cap off his take on what eventually became a trilogy.  HULK goes into it in his review (which he admits is based completely on assumptions).  This doesn't feel like a film that Nolan had a pressing urge to make.  TDK had the advantage of that compulsion.  This movie is a direct sequel to BB by way of the style of TDK.  And it ended up coming across like a limp repeat.  Even one of the best parts of TDKR, the ending montage, is a repeat.  Not a callback.  Because of the lens I'm seeing this through, it really just felt like Nolan reusing the TDK ending (along with Zimmer's cue) because hey... it worked the last time.  Except this time, he had a whole bunch of disparate things to tie up before the credits rolled.

Unrelated note:  I'm kinda waiting for someone to take Michael Caine's voiceover from the ending of The Prestige and lay it over the TDKR ending.  I'd like to see that.




- schwartz - 07-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by cognizant View Post

1) Ok, you guys are beginning to sound like Harry at aintitcool, imagining an entirely different story that Nolan should of filmed.

2) This thread is huge, so I have to ask, has anyone answered why this film is getting nitpicked to death to a truly ridiculous degree, but Avengers for example wasn't?

3) And don't throw the whole "Well Nolan wanted it to be realistic so we're judging it by real world rules!" excuse.  It's still an adaptation of a comic book about a dude dressed as a bat.


4) The thing that irks me the most is the incessant need to poke holes in the plot, yet nobody cares about such things in the original source material (comics), or other examples of the genre (Avengers), it just blows my mind how people can't just go with the flow and appreciate the characters and their respective journeys.


1) Low blow.

2)  There's a couple of massive Avengers threads where many people express criticisms of the movie.  Also, while it is a silly concept and story on its face, minus one moment where the helicarrier apparently teleports to Germany, I don't think that movie has major plot inconsistencies.  Feel free to point out any I missed.

3) Why not?  If there is an inherent disconnect between the type of story being told and the manner it is told in, that doesn't stop being a issue just because it was a problem in the last 2 films also.  And saying the tone clashes with the plot is not an "excuse".  "(It shouldn't have to make sense) it's about a dude dressed as a bat!" is an excuse.

4)  There are tons and tons of people who can't get into the source material because of these sort of issues, and the same goes for other superhero movies, none of which are without their detractors.

But it's interesting you use the term "go with the flow," because I think the problem with the push-pull between realism and "comic book logic" is that it disrupts the flow.  And it's not strictly a question of realism but complexity.  The films, to both their credit and consternation, do not paint in the primary colors of comic book characterization; they are packed with characters with complex motivations, enacting simultaneous byzantine plans of action.  We have to really think about it to understand what Bane is trying to accomplish or why Gordon fakes his own death or how Talia is insinuating herself on a board of directors or the threat that Lau poses to the mob.  Which leads to those moments when the script hits a snag and just goes "whatever, comic book logic!" and we're left sputtering "wha-what..but?"

ETA:  I refuse to accept that someone can claim to be interested in architecture in the same breath they call Chicago's "anonymous".  Yeah, I'm biased but that doesn't mean you aren't wrong.




- 3nnui - 07-28-2012

I think Nolan's bat films get a lot of extra scrutiny because of the right wing subtext. This last film in particular portrayed socialist populism as a joke. There are many intelligent people working to forward those ideas in the American consciousness, therefore they will want to discredit the films in general.

This works both ways, think about how many times the right has gotten their panties in a bunch over some perceived socialist or anti christian message in a film. They throw fits in church or on fox news so we get to avoid the backlash.

I am not saying that anyone who hates Nolan's batfilms is coming from this point of view, but I do think that some are.




- parker - 07-28-2012

Poor Dark Knight Rises. It's so misunderstood, guys. We're being so mean to it. Poor, poor, poor movie. Can't we just see it for what it is?

Non-sarcastic answer: plot holes don't sink a film. The Dark Knight was full of them, but I don't care because the movie is so well made and structured that you forget about them. And even if you do think of them, you make excuses for them. Rises isn't on the same level; its flaws force you to look at everything, including the gaping plot holes. But nicpicky plot holes aren't the reason everyone is criticizing the movie. It's a mess, and keep in mind, I didn't hate it, I just have mixed feelings about it.

Also, the worlds smallest violin for huge blockbusters that people get uptight about others justly criticizing. Go stick up for a small movie that nobody bothers seeing or dismisses without giving a chance, not a behemoths like this. I remember this shit for John Carter (PEOPLE NEED TO SEE IT SO THAT BIG BUDGET MOVIES SET ON MARS STILL GET MADE). Fuck off with that noise.




- carnotaur3 - 07-28-2012

I kind of miss when this thread had people talking about the film and not people talking about the people talking about the film.




- Nooj - 07-28-2012

Back off man.

People talking about people talking about movies is ART!




- carnotaur3 - 07-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

Back off man.

People talking about people talking about movies is ART!

I think Kevin Smith would agree with that.




- Nooj - 07-28-2012

OH GOD I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING.

Well played, Carnotaur... well played.




- chris spider - 07-28-2012

People having legitimate issues with the film, I can understand. Guys like Richard, Parker, nooj, etc. have argued their mixed positions intelligently, and I applaud that. That I liked the film more than they did and didn't have problems with what they felt were issues? Doesn't change my opinion of them at all. And hopefully it goes the other way.

What needs to change, I think, is this weird perception that a flawed film can't be a great film. There's a big difference between a film that's just straight-up bad, ambitious or not (Sucker Punch, for example), and great films that largely realize their ambitions but aren't quite perfect (and really, how many PERFECT films exist?). As you've probably surmised, I think Nolan's Bat-films belong to the latter category.




- martin blank - 07-28-2012

The Gotham Times misspells "heist" in a headline. Therefore the entire movie is worthless.




- carnotaur3 - 07-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Spider View Post

People having legitimate issues with the film, I can understand. Guys like Richard, Parker, nooj, etc. have argued their mixed positions intelligently, and I applaud that. That I liked the film more than they did and didn't have problems with what they felt were issues? Doesn't change my opinion of them at all. And hopefully it goes the other way.

What needs to change, I think, is this weird perception that a flawed film can't be a great film. There's a big difference between a film that's just straight-up bad, ambitious or not (Sucker Punch, for example), and great films that largely realize their ambitions but aren't quite perfect (and really, how many PERFECT films exist?). As you've probably surmised, I think Nolan's Bat-films belong to the latter category.

Rises was a great film and I believe the hype was always going to let it down a bit. I have my issues with the movie, mostly pertaining to the first act. But the film just builds and builds, and there's heaps of praise I have for it. Right now, Rises is becoming my favorite of the series so far. It's a fitting conclusion.




- Nooj - 07-28-2012

I did my best to stay away from seeing too much footage from the film before its release.   By the time the movie came out, I had only seen the trailers.  I was suitably looking forward to the movie.  I tried to stay away from the hype.  Once impressions started coming in, I saw that the film was getting mixed notices from people I trusted (Chewers on Facebook).

So when I finally saw the movie, my expectations were at a reasonable place.  I knew TDK had many issues, none of which prevented me from loving it.  I thought TDKR could be something similar.  If nothing else, I would enjoy discussing it with you guys here.

And still... quite a watchable letdown.  It really reminds me of what I thought of BRAVE.  Both films shocked me with how they were blandly watchable.  Both surprised me with filmmakers not doing well what they usually did well.  Both frustrating.




- draco senior - 07-28-2012

Just came back from the theater.  It will take some time to organize my thoughts, but overall I found myself quite disappointed.  I largely agree with Devin in his evaluation of the film's hollow, confused themes, far more problematic than the final act of The Dark Knight by far (which is where that film's most confused politics are explored)...but, aside from that, I just didn't find it very entertaining.  There were, for me, large stretches of the film where it was not just bloated, but it was also a little dull (particularly the first act, but I have my problems with the third one as well).  Hardy is much more of a ham in this than I thought he would be, which relieves some of the dullness surrounding him, but Bane never came together for me quite like the Joker did, and the less said about how Talia was handled (or Cotillard's bland performance, for that matter) the better.  May have to see this again to fully form an opinion, but at the moment I would place Rises at a very comfortable third in the trilogy, with Begins still first and TDK in second.  It's not that there's no ambition here, perhaps the most of all three films; it's just  poorly executed and ultimately unsatisfactory, in my opinion.

Hathaway did very well, though.  Still not my favorite on-screen Catwoman, but she was better than I expected.  Very disappointed that Juno Temple was extremely wasted in a forgettable little role, though.  What was that all about?

Quote:

Even if some things were, what difference does it make? When I see something I recognize in a movie, it's a cool moment (i.e. Toronto landmarks in "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World"), but it could not possibly diminish my appreciation for the movie.

It really depends on what you want to see in Gotham City.  I think Nolan's version is kind of undistinguished and very obviously different locations thrown together to no great effect, which is disappointing.  You don't either have to make Gotham a Burtonesque playground or any other city...what I would have liked was for the city to have consistent geography throughout the films or some effort to give it its own distinctive look (which would not have had to mean making it an obviously designed city), which wasn't the case here.  For some people, Gotham looking so unexceptional fits with Nolan's films just fine; for others, it's kind of boring and lazy to very obviously use several locations and not bother to hide that fact, but those people tend to not be the average moviegoer.




- chris spider - 07-28-2012

I do agree that the first act is a little rough, plane crash opening and Selina aside. They have to establish and re-establish a lot of information, setup, etc., and it's not done quite as artfully as in the previous films. The movie really kicks into high gear once Bale gets back in the Bat-suit (how's THAT for irony?).

nooj: I can understand that position. After reflecting on Brave, I do think it's one of Pixar's overall weaker efforts. Still quite watchable, as you note, but if it doesn't quite reach the mediocre low of Cars 2, neither does it reach the highs of Pixar's best (save perhaps in the animation department). I'm not sure that will be happening with me and Rises.

Also, my brother for some reason thought Bruce and Selina's charity dinner dance was channeling Batman Returns. I can see why he would make the connection, but they're completely different scenes in tone and intent.




- Bucho - 07-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by cognizant View Post

Ok, you guys are beginning to sound like Harry at aintitcool, imagining an entirely different story that Nolan should of filmed.

Why the war on imagination Cog? What did it ever do to hurt you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

Because The Avengers never laid any claim to the sense of realism and plausibility Nolan's Batman films have.  When your film starts with a Norse god teleporting into a super-secret base at the behest of a swarm of conquering aliens, you kind of know the playing field you're on.

Except that while they haven't gone as far as alienism, both TDK and Rises have begun with ludicrous scenarios far removed from any sense of realism or plausibility. If you're flawlessly pulling off a heist like The Joker does at the beginning of TDK, you might as well have come across a magical bridge from the stars.

This "Nolan's Batrealism" thing has always felt way overblown to me and not based in much more than marketing.




- freeman - 07-28-2012

I wouldn`t compare this to Brave.  The problem for Brave is that it felt boring, predictable and small.  The thematic elements were WELL worn and ambition and imagination was almost non existent.  Almost none of that applies to TDKR.




- freeman - 07-28-2012

Quote:
If you're flawlessly pulling off a heist like The Joker does at the beginning of TDK, you might as well have come across a magical bridge from the stars.

Um, no, because there`s a lot more factors going on than just the plausibility of the events.  That`s true of even the grittiest most real world movies.




- carnotaur3 - 07-28-2012

Suspension of disbelief. Applies to all movies.




- freeman - 07-28-2012

Of course it does, but there's a difference between magical norse rainbow bridges and heists.




- carnotaur3 - 07-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

Of course it does, but there's a difference between magical norse rainbow bridges and heists.

I wasn't disagreeing with you there.

I believe everything that happens in these movies lends themselves to the story they're telling. If Batman came across a magical norse rainbow bridge that would most definitely kill the suspension of disbelief, but it wouldn't kill the same scenario in a Thor movie because that comes with its territory.

Crazy heists, villains breaking into places with high security, a crazy clown using explosives and booby traps to showcase his ideology, these things are inherent in the Batman mythology. Now, Nolan grounded it a little more and explored stories that aren't made for genetically altered villains like Killer Crock, Man-Bat, and fucking Clayface, does that automatically make Bane breaking into a stock exchange and stealing money from a company completely implausible?