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)



- carnotaur3 - 08-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

The semi-truck chase in TDK, I really dig.

Though one of the nitpicks I have with it (don't take me seriously here) is when the Tumbler gets hit with the bazooka and tumbles (ohohoho) through the tunnel.  The thing has clearly lost tons of velocity and is on the verge of coming to a standstill... but then we next see it bursting through a wall with a sudden surge of velocity... surprising those dudes hanging out right next to it.

FORGET IT.  THE SEQUENCE IS GARBAGE!!!!


LOL.




- ambler - 08-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

the 180 degree rule (it doesn't matter in an action scene, especially when you know the space).

lol




- carnotaur3 - 08-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

lol


Uh oh! What I do this time?




- Nooj - 08-28-2012

Of course, one usually gets to know a space through adherence to the 180 degree rule.

But like any rule/principle, someone who knows the rules can break them at the right moment.  Then there is also the fact that most audiences have a grasp of action sequence conventions through decades of conditioning.  Both of these trends (along with the rise of chaos cinema) has resulted in lots of movies getting by on incompetent construction.  Not to say that I think Nolan is incompetent, nor do I think he's always breaking these 'rules' for effect on a conscious level.

I think the criticisms of the truck sequence in that dude's video were interesting (someone of them even on point), but in the actual experience of watching the chase, I was engrossed in it.




- carnotaur3 - 08-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

Of course, one usually gets to know a space through adherence to the 180 degree rule.

But like any rule/principle, someone who knows the rules can break them at the right moment.  Then there is also the fact that most audiences have a grasp of action sequence conventions through decades of conditioning.  Both of these trends (along with the rise of chaos cinema) has resulted in lots of movies getting by on incompetent construction.  Not to say that I think Nolan is incompetent, nor do I think he's always breaking these 'rules' for effect on a conscious level.

I think the criticisms of the truck sequence in that dude's video were interesting (someone of them even on point), but in the actual experience of watching the chase, I was engrossed in it.


Good points, all around. In most cases though, there's no text-book answer on how to shoot and construct an action sequence (it depends on where your shooting, what your shooting, and how you want to shoot it). We've got examples from other films that have done it well and we can use those as our guide. But it's pretty much an editor's eye in the director's head kind of thing, or storyboard.




- Nooj - 08-28-2012

Using a soft definition of 'text-book,' I think there IS a text-book answer to shooting action sequences (or anything really).  That text-book is merely added to through a process not too different from evolution in which some of the 'broken rules' pass muster (with filmmakers and audiences) and become a part of an 'accepted' vocabulary.

So we're really just saying the same thing.

EXCEPT YOU'RE WRONG.




- carnotaur3 - 08-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

Using a soft definition of 'text-book,' I think there IS a text-book answer to shooting action sequences (or anything really).  That text-book is merely added to through a process not too different from evolution in which some of the 'broken rules' pass muster (with filmmakers and audiences) and become a part of an 'accepted' vocabulary.

So we're really just saying the same thing.

EXCEPT YOU'RE WRONG.


Oh nooj. Not again! Wink




- MichaelM - 08-28-2012

*sad trombone*




- carnotaur3 - 08-28-2012





- ambler - 08-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

Uh oh! What I do this time?

Movies work on both a conscious and subconscious level.  It's the reason a production designer uses certain colors in the set, why the costume designer puts certain clothes on an actor (in conjunction with the production designer so their choices don't clash), why the director puts the camera in a certain place, etc.  Sometimes people will react negatively to a film without knowing why...it's because something in the construction isn't working, whether it's an inconsistent accent an actor is using, certain colors on a set clashing with an actor's wardrobe, and breaking the 180 degree rule.  The 180 degree rule is there, just like colors, camera placement, sound and other elements, in order to keep the audience in synch with the film.

Modern action scenes are more able to get away with breaking these rules of color, camera placement, etc, because they move so quickly...but the subconscious can still pick these inconsistencies up.  Since most Hollywood movies are disposable entertainment, the audience's discernment is fairly relaxed, and they don't really care...the immediacy of the thrill of a chase is so exciting, they let these rules slide.  Some people are fine with TDK chase...personally it bothered me after I saw the movie...there was something off about it, and that guy's video merely confirmed my suspicions.  Modern cinema audiences don't seem to care really, which kind of speaks volumes about the quality of modern cinema in general.  The 180 degree rule isn't being broken as an artistic choice here, it's being broken because it's an easy (and artificial) way to create chaos in a chase scene.




- Nooj - 08-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post


Oh nooj. Not again! Wink

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/188717_o.gif



- stelios - 08-28-2012

Some noojes just want to watch the world burn.




- Nooj - 08-28-2012




- gabe t - 08-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Myers View Post

Gabe, just curious. Could you name a bunch of recent releases you deem art?

Yes, but wouldn't that derail?

To back up what I was saying, it's everyone else who has this binary viewpoint of this debate. There's art, and there's everything else. But "everything else" isn't bad, or evil, or stupid or unworthy or something. The term "b-movie" comes to mind, and we all love b-movies. However, today's b-movies pretend to be a-movies, and that dog simply won't hunt most of the time.

Also, "challenging" is a very loose term. Something that can be challenging can be a specific genre inversion, a political stance, a subversive idea. A lot of superficially simplistic ideas can be seen as challenging. It's not so bad to not be challenging, but we should seek challenge anyway. And I think something like "The Dark Knight" trilogy certainly has aspects that challenge younger viewers, given that it's Batman and it's not cut and dried, morally. But it's more of a starter kit to movies for adults, about adults. Which, of course, seem to be shunned in the marketplace these days by hesitant producers and a shallower pool of bankable brilliant filmmakers.




- carnotaur3 - 08-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

Movies work on both a conscious and subconscious level.  It's the reason a production designer uses certain colors in the set, why the costume designer puts certain clothes on an actor (in conjunction with the production designer so their choices don't clash), why the director puts the camera in a certain place, etc.  Sometimes people will react negatively to a film without knowing why...it's because something in the construction isn't working, whether it's an inconsistent accent an actor is using, certain colors on a set clashing with an actor's wardrobe, and breaking the 180 degree rule.  The 180 degree rule is there, just like colors, camera placement, sound and other elements, in order to keep the audience in synch with the film.

Modern action scenes are more able to get away with breaking these rules of color, camera placement, etc, because they move so quickly...but the subconscious can still pick these inconsistencies up.  Since most Hollywood movies are disposable entertainment, the audience's discernment is fairly relaxed, and they don't really care...the immediacy of the thrill of a chase is so exciting, they let these rules slide.  Some people are fine with TDK chase...personally it bothered me after I saw the movie...there was something off about it, and that guy's video merely confirmed my suspicions.  Modern cinema audiences don't seem to care really, which kind of speaks volumes about the quality of modern cinema in general.  The 180 degree rule isn't being broken as an artistic choice here, it's being broken because it's an easy (and artificial) way to create chaos in a chase scene.

There are times you can break the 180 degree rule. You can break it if the jarring effect is called for. You can move the camera to the other side if it's motivated (camera moves to that side). And finally, you can break the rule because of spatial awareness. That one's tricky in some cases. Not so much in an action chase scene. We understand the space, we're not so aware of where exactly everyone is, but we understand that the Joker truck is right beside them. Some of the confusion in the scene that people complain about has nothing do with the 180 degree rule but a lot to do with how Nolan is establishing and cutting. There's some odd confusion in the scene that threw me for a loop when I viewed it the first time as well. Was that Dent's swat car that plunged in the river? Did Batman just ram his tumbler into the Swat car? Oh wait, no he didn't. These are examples of confusion through the cuts and what Nolan wanted to show in the frames, rather than the side the camera is meant to be on.

There's no confusion with the space, though I will grant Emmerson one point: the reversed shot of the Swat van in the river.




- mike's pants - 08-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

That is so weird and genius and odd and brilliant and peculiar and wonderful,




- carnotaur3 - 08-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike's Pants View Post

That is so weird and genius and odd and brilliant and peculiar and wonderful,


That second part put me in stitches.




- ambler - 08-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

We understand the space, we're not so aware of where exactly everyone is, but we understand that the Joker truck is right beside them.

There's no confusion with the space

Consciously you understand it because you've had time to think about it..the disconnect comes when you get the nagging feeling that something isn't right while watching it, which I felt.  Subconsciously you're picking up how badly constructed the scene is.

Quote:
There are times you can break the 180 degree rule. You can break it if the jarring effect is called for. You can move the camera to the other side if it's motivated (camera moves to that side). And finally, you can break the rule because of spatial awareness.

Moving the camera does not break the 180 degree rule.  The 180 degree rule only applies to cutting, because you're breaking the temporal link between shots and need to maintain consistent geography so as not to cause confusion.  It would be like closing your eyes, then opening them, and the person who was in front of you is suddenly gone...if you watched them leave, it wouldn't be a problem (watching them leave is equivalent to the camera moving, while closing them is equivalent to cutting).




- greg clark - 08-28-2012

The 180 degree rule is much more of a guideline than an unimpeachable law. It gets broken all the time, and when a filmmaker who actually knows what the hell he's doing does it it's usually for a greater truth than just "derp derp left side right side derp derp"--either emotional, visceral, or informational. There's plenty of ways to critique and discuss the way Nolan approaches his action scenes, but "OMG THIS SHOT CROSSES THE 180 HE'S TERRIBLE AT ACTION" should be at the absolute bottom of the list. Really, it should be a footnote.

In the words of another auteur who breaks this "rule" all the time, Scorsese: "Fuck the 180."




- freeman - 08-28-2012

If Nolan wanted to continue the success of that Dock sequence, he should have changed Batmans appearance fundamentally and stuck with the idea of Batman as the monster in the shadows.  No clunky rubber suits it's impossible to move in, no scenes of Batman in harsh bright light.  Redesign the suit to be more ninja/urban and have the suited Batman be a mix of extremely talented martial artists and free runners.

There's not one second in Begins where Bale actually looks like he could take me in that absurd suit.




- carnotaur3 - 08-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

Consciously you understand it because you've had time to think about it..the disconnect comes when you get the nagging feeling that something isn't right while watching it, which I felt.  Subconsciously you're picking up how badly constructed the scene is.

Moving the camera does not break the 180 degree rule.  The 180 degree rule only applies to cutting, because you're breaking the temporal link between shots and need to maintain consistent geography so as not to cause confusion.  It would be like closing your eyes, then opening them, and the person who was in front of you is suddenly gone...if you watched them leave, it wouldn't be a problem (watching them leave is equivalent to the camera moving, while closing them is equivalent to cutting).


Ambler. I'm saying that if you move the camera to the other side IN A SHOT, you have given yourself leeway to go to the other side. It's not like I don't have film experience here. This is getting into semantics.




- ambler - 08-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post

The 180 degree rule is much more of a guideline than an unimpeachable law. It gets broken all the time, and when a filmmaker who actually knows what the hell he's doing does it it's usually for a greater truth than just "derp derp left side right side derp derp"--either emotional, visceral, or informational. There's plenty of ways to critique and discuss the way Nolan approaches his action scenes, but "OMG THIS SHOT CROSSES THE 180 HE'S TERRIBLE AT ACTION" should be at the absolute bottom of the list. Really, it should be a footnote.

In the words of another auteur who breaks this "rule" all the time, Scorsese: "Fuck the 180."

Yes, the 180 degree rule is a guideline, and CAN be broken without much harm, if it's done very sparingly, and done for a reason.  But most filmmakers have no reason for breaking it other than laziness,  incompetence, or cheating...there is certainly little to no artistic gain from breaking that rule.  Unless of course you're Scorsese...when he breaks the rule it's usually for a good reason.

And Nolan is terrible at action for more than the truck chase.  He's been terrible at it since Insomnia.




- ambler - 08-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post


Ambler. I'm saying that if you move the camera to the other side IN A SHOT, you have given yourself leeway to go to the other side. It's now motivated. Whatever.

Yes, and I AGREED WITH YOU...doing that does not break the 180 rule.




- carnotaur3 - 08-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

Yes, and I AGREED WITH YOU...doing that does not break the 180 rule.


Where's Nooj when you need him?




- ambler - 08-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post


Where's Nooj when you need him?

You said "you can move the camera if it's motivated".  I agreed with that.  I think maybe you meant moving it is breaking the rule, but is okay?  It must be getting late....




- carnotaur3 - 08-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

You said "you can move the camera if it's motivated".  I agreed with that.  I think maybe you meant moving it is breaking the rule, but is okay?  It must be getting late....


Here, take my pillow. Just don't snore through the night.




- MichaelM - 08-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

There's not one second in Begins where Bale actually looks like he could take me in that absurd suit.

Nolan wanted to redesign the suit for BEGINS, but they didn't have time. They went with a variant of the previous suits because it was a path already blazed. There's a reason the Batsuit was redesigned for TDK; Nolan had more time and freedom to do what he wanted. BEGINS as it is was a huge departure for the character and studio, and Nolan didn't have the clout he does now.

The BEGINS suit looks OK...some of the time. I've always loved the TDK suit, though, and think it works extremely well in both TDK and TDKR, including daytime scenes.




- carnotaur3 - 08-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post

Nolan wanted to redesign the suit for BEGINS, but they didn't have time. They went with a variant of the previous suits because it was a path already blazed. There's a reason the Batsuit was redesigned for TDK; Nolan had more time and freedom to do what he wanted. BEGINS as it is was a huge departure for the character and studio, and Nolan didn't have the clout he does now.

The BEGINS suit looks OK...some of the time. I've always loved the TDK suit, though, and think it works extremely well in both TDK and TDKR, including daytime scenes.


The biggest hurtle Nolan made was getting that cowl redone. Some will complain that Batman is wearing a helmet, but that mask has never looked sleeker than it does in TDK and TDKR.




- freeman - 08-28-2012

Quote:

Nolan wanted to redesign the suit for BEGINS, but they didn't have time. They went with a variant of the previous suits because it was a path already blazed. There's a reason the Batsuit was redesigned for TDK; Nolan had more time and freedom to do what he wanted. BEGINS as it is was a huge departure for the character and studio, and Nolan didn't have the clout he does now.

The BEGINS suit looks OK...some of the time. I've always loved the TDK suit, though, and think it works extremely well in both TDK and TDKR, including daytime scenes.

Ahh this makes sense.  I don't know, occasionally you'll see an angle of the Begins suit that makes Bale look like he's got a huge monstrous neck, and most of the time it just has that Burton "move the whole body to turn" look.  I hope the next Batman does a full redesign on the concept.  The mouth being exposed, with the eyes that have makeup applied to them...  I just think a better less weird look can be achieved.




- cylon baby - 08-29-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

Ahh this makes sense.  I don't know, occasionally you'll see an angle of the Begins suit that makes Bale look like he's got a huge monstrous neck, and most of the time it just has that Burton "move the whole body to turn" look.  I hope the next Batman does a full redesign on the concept.  The mouth being exposed, with the eyes that have makeup applied to them...  I just think a better less weird look can be achieved.

I always thought Keaton made the Suit work, with his sudden movements, like quickly backing away and turning around, that allowed him to get around the limitations of the Suit but still looking fairly cool.




- carnotaur3 - 08-29-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

I always thought Keaton made the Suit work, with his sudden movements, like quickly backing away and turning around, that allowed him to get around the limitations of the Suit but still looking fairly cool.


There are moments when Keaton and even Bale (i'm pretty partial to Batman in Begin getting up and looking around when the people begin to surround him at the end) make the neck turn work. Still though, that history of the batsuit severely limited the many cool movements and shots Batman could have had.




- Nooj - 08-29-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

I always thought Keaton made the Suit work, with his sudden movements, like quickly backing away and turning around, that allowed him to get around the limitations of the Suit but still looking fairly cool.

I have always thought this (though the age at which I saw the movie clearly has an influence on me).  Also, the much more heightened style of Burton's movies really accommodate the big sweeping pantomimey moves that Keaton pulled in that suit.

His full shoulder turns usually resulted in his cape making grand gestures and good silhouettes (in terms of the composition).  I've discussed this with Phil before a long time ago.  He thinks I'm full of shit.  Heheheheh.




- carnotaur3 - 08-29-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
He thinks I'm full of shit.  Heheheheh.




- brandhay - 08-29-2012

You guys are proving the world needs more Michael Keaton, caped or not.




- MichaelM - 08-29-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

I always thought Keaton made the Suit work, with his sudden movements, like quickly backing away and turning around, that allowed him to get around the limitations of the Suit but still looking fairly cool.

Eh. Sometimes. It's not as egregiously obvious in RETURNS as in the '89 film. In the latter, when Batman and Vale are on the run in the alley from the Joker's goons, there are a couple of movements that are outright hysterical because it's obvious Keaton can just simply look around or tilt his neck up.

We've all done this dance before, but with regards to Batsuits and poses, I like the RETURNS suit best for the films spanning BATMAN (1989) through BEGINS. But I love the TDK/R suit more, and think it works better on film than any of the others.