i agree that you have to apply some suspension of disbelief to accept a lot of the things that happen but not a lot of what you described would i say are out-and-out plot holes. like someone said i don't know if you're really allowing for the time passage that is actually happening in the movie; the major factor that you have to realize is that in Chris Nolan's film grammar (and it's been this way ever since Following and it's something he addresses explicitly in that film's commentary), he doesn't use a lot of fades and especially cross-dissolves for scene transitions or to communicate passage of time but instead tries to do that through details. just because a shot cuts directly to another shot doesn't mean there couldn't have been a great deal of time that passed in the film's story between those two shots--and i know you probably know that but it's not necessarily the language of filmmaking that we're more acclimated to (but i myself prefer it as i'm a big cross-dissolve hater). i think it may be more jarring in TDKR on first viewing than some of Nolan's other films because there is SO MUCH going on with so many different narrative threads and because the time span of the film's story is much greater than any of Nolan's other films except for maybe The Prestige (but then The Prestige had a much simpler plot and was only focused on a couple characters). but when i think about it i think i found that movies like BB, TDK, Inception, Memento...they were all a little jarring and awkward in their flows (Memento not just for the obvious reasons) on first viewing but once your brain was familiarized with the complex stories those movies told they were much less jarring on repeat viewings, and i'm hoping the same holds true for TDKR.
[SPOILERS] Plot Holes
Posts: 86
Joined:
July 2012
I know that. I said I understood why that happened. But I feel that people (trolls) will tear that apart.CaliKid329 wrote:JONATHAN3D wrote:I understand the explanation given in the film, but this particular scene will definitely be picked apart by established opponents of Christopher Nolan:
Posts: 710
Joined:
February 2011
The film features a LOT of cinematic shorthand, and Nolan expects the viewer to fill in a lot of the things not explicitly shown or explained onscreen. Whether it works for you or not is going to vary from viewer to viewer.
Two interesting examples:
My take on them:
Two interesting examples:
Posts: 86
Joined:
July 2012
i was thinking:
Posts: 88
Joined:
July 2012
There's only one thing I would say:
Other than that, I think there are a couple of little niggles, but nothing big.
Posts: 245
Joined:
July 2012
It is clear from the film itself that
I only wish Nolan had more time to add to the final scenes. (Maybe on DVD!)
What I REALLY would like to know is
What I REALLY would like to know is
JMan wrote:It is clear from the film itself thatI only wish Nolan had more time to add to the final scenes. (Maybe on DVD!)
What I REALLY would like to know is
I was joking to my friends afterwards that
He could have done it. And you know why?SilverHeart wrote:I was joking to my friends afterwards that
Un lladre es un artista. Fa servir la imaginació per lluirse cuan roba el seu trofeu. Els detectius només analitzen el delicte i ens denuncien. Els detectius son uns simples critics.
Same plot holes at TDK in the sense that you have to suspend your disbelief to movie the film along.
Like Jaws.
Jaws is just one giant plot hole. But that's what makes it so fun.
Like Jaws.
Jaws is just one giant plot hole. But that's what makes it so fun.
Posts: 245
Joined:
July 2012
My sentiments exactly.didich wrote:He could have done it. And you know why?SilverHeart wrote:I was joking to my friends afterwards that