Would you have wanted a longer film, at the expense of IMAX?

The 2012 superhero epic about Batman's struggle to overcome the terrorist leader Bane, as well as his own inner demons.
Posts: 459
Joined: November 2012
Crazy Eight wrote:Since when has how the majority deems a film's success in a specific aspect made said aspect un-criticizable? Inception's largest and most frequent criticism is it's clunky exposition and insanely slow first hour (roughly, minus the opening). It's so awful that everyone I know who was an enormous fan of it when it came out in theaters literally can't sit through it anymore, and I'm close to that point myself.
The exposition was necessary, especially for the general audience. The movie involved complicated concepts which naturally require exposition. Obviously you will not need to hear the exposition when watching the film for the 10th time, but in order to truly feel and enjoy the magic when seeing it for the first time on the big screen in cinemas, you needed to be able to follow the movie. Hence the exposition.
I never specified who I put the blame on, and it's obviously not Lee. He doesn't get to decide which scenes make it into the film, or how much dialoge from them makes it. The exposition lasted far too long scene-to-scene and there were far too many scenes dedicated to it. This quite literally slowed the film down and let the scenario's and characters breathe, and it happened insanely frequently up until the last half hour.
OK, but there was plenty of action despite this. Plus there were emotional conflicts present throughout the movie, namely between Cobb and Mal. Things needed to be explained.
TDKR is the exact opposite. It's always in motion, which is the whole reason we have this "pedal faster" quote going around. It throws an insane amount of information at you, and it does it quickly but effectively, which is the reason so many people missed so many obvious points in the film. It forces the viewer to actually pay attention for nearly 3 hours. For a film analysis guy, you should love this, since it's literally the perfect film to dissect. Establishing shots, heli shots, length of stuff like that, whatever, that's up to you, I won't argue otherwise since it's wholly subjective. I'm not saying I wouldn't have loved another 15 minutes, but I don't think it would have necessarily made the film -better-.
Actually TDKR had a bunch of slow parts, especially in the beginning after the plane hijack. There was tons of awkward exposition and some lines of dialogue that were just plain stupid as well that were anything but effective:

1. Alfred's extensive knowledge of Bane's life and knowledge of the issues within the LOS (like seriously how did any agency or government body learn that the LOS had excommunicated one of its own members? A centuries-old secret society with a code of honor would not allow such information to become public).

2. Alfred: "No one knows why, or how escaped, but they do know that once he did, he was trained by Ra's Al Ghul."
Me: "I know you worked for the British military when you were younger but how do people know this? And who the heck are 'they'? And you know about the Pit, so I'm guessing that the CIA or that British Intelligence must also, yet obviously no one has ever done anything about it. And in today's age of the United Nations, Google Images and satellite imaging technology, how has no one ever discovered this pit, which lies right next to a small city/village?

3. The unnecessary extra explanatory dialogue regarding the bomb.
Fox: "As the device's fuel cells detoriate, it becomes increasingly unstable, to the point of detonation."
Me: "Thanks for letting me know. It's not like Dr. Pavel said pretty much the exact same thing about an hour ago."
Blake: "This bomb is a time bomb."
Me: "Well it's a damn good thing that you told me. It's not like I saw a digital LCD timer on the bomb three times already."

4. The hilarious dialogue by everyone in the Pentagon war room.
Analyst: "Whatever it is, it's nuclear."
Me: "LOL I would never have guessed."
General: "Get the President on the line."
Me: "LOL I've heard this line in a thousand different disaster movies by now."
Batman flies the bomb over the water, where it explodes.
CIA Analyst: "That's detonation!"
Me: "Oh really? Wow, nice catch! I would never have guessed just by seeing and hearing the bomb go off."

5. The hilariously clunky Clean Slate exposition by Dagget. 'Nuff said.

6. Fox shows Bruce the morning newspaper, titled 'Bruce Wayne Doubles Down and Loses'.
Fox: "Long-term, we may be able to prove fraud, but for now you're completely broke."
Me: "WHAT!!! They MIGHT be able to prove fraud?! Despite the tons of evidence that Bruce Wayne was never at the stock exchange and that the trades were executed by the terrorists? And Bruce is completely broke? What about all of his offshore accounts and off-the-books stockpiles of assets? And does a multi-billionaire like Bruce lease all his cars, which is what was implied when his vehicles were towed away? Why did they shut off Bruce's power like that? And WTF! Those trades were made by fingerprint, and yet there was video evidence that Wayne was not there and that those trades were made, by the, um, TERRORISTS who shot up the place and started executing mysterious trades at the same time that Bruce supposedly made these crazy gambles!"

See my point? I thought TDKR suffered way more due to its exposition and clunky dialogue than Inception did, if Inception did at all. Inception revolved around difficult concepts that were being brought to the big screen in a novel way which thus required lots of explanatory dialogue. TDKR however, forced tons of unnecessary exposition and awkward dialogue on us that ultimately hindered the film and did something much worse by causing the very logic and legitimacy of its plot points to be questioned. Plus, due to the IMAX time limit, quick cuts to and from scenes and some of the shortened scenes in general really caused the movie to suffer. I'm surprised you found TDKR to be more well put together than Inception.
And TDK had the same time limit as TDKR...
TDK's story did not require an extremely long movie, unlike the story of TDKR.

Posts: 18817
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Thanks for reminding me why coming near TDKR's discussions only lead to frustration and a weakened expectation of humanity.


Like, what the hell? Are you a troll on purpose, or accident?

Keegan wasn't talking about pacing. Slow/fast has zero relevance in this discussion, and neither does the logistics of the narrative- which I'll get to momentarily. No. Rises is always in motion, it's always developing the characters, the story, it's the actual narrative, there's relatively 'little' scenes of pure exposition. In contrast, huge sections of Inception are close to pure exposition with relatively little in the way of developing those things- the entire time spent in Paris for instance. You even get a handful fo scenes with characters just talking about their plan and all this stuff, as if Nolan stopped even bothering to stick it into a narrative context. I adore Inception, it's in my top five favorites ever and I like it give or take as much as the Batman movies, but these points are self-evident since it's just how they actually function.

The thing is, Rises has relatively little exposition at all, it instantly involves interpreting and meditating ont he Batman mythos as a whole, the Batman character, and the ways different characters begin pushing him to face those questions and, ultimately, to begin the path that leads to his coming back- which Alfred still warns him about doing. Self. Evident. How I wonder your relationship is with other films if 40 minutes of pure character development and beginning the overall stor, something utterly ballsy on the part of Christopher Nolan, was classified as exposition to you. Come on.

Anyway, it's a major trope/convention of the whole god damn batman mythos that Batman and Alfred obtain catalogues of info using their super batman computer. Either you're a troll, or you randomly decided this wasn't an issue in any other iteration of Batman ever, including The Dark Knight where Bruce manages to be everywhere he needs to be instantly, probably thanks to direction from Alfred.

Now, that brings me to the stock exchange bit, since this is a particularly asinine criticism of the movie. Like, Bruce's fingerprints were used to validate the transactions, giving them access to his accounts. This is -very- straightforward since- oh wait. You decided the first 40 minutes were clunky and awkward. lol. You probably missed it. Remember... Selina got them from the second scene of the movie... again, the story is always going like a line of dominos. Because having your own fingerprint is pretty damn secure, it would probably be really difficult to prove you weren't the one there. What will you do, call up your guys and be like "nawnaw somebody totally STOLE my fingerprint!" Lol, okay. You stil probably could prove it though, which is, you know, what the characters tell us.

Anyway, it appears you've devoted your time on the internet and this board to say nonsensical things about The Dark Knight Rises. I wonder why I bother, I really do.

-Vader

Posts: 4395
Joined: July 2012
Location: Here, there, what's the difference?
Vader182 wrote:I wonder why I bother, I really do.

-Vader
Everyone knows you're NolanFans' white knight.

Posts: 459
Joined: November 2012
Vader,

I can see that my post was perhaps too harsh on the movie. So by accident to answer your question. And a life lesson - don't make judgements of humanity based on posts on an internet forum. That's a bad plan. I loved the last 120 mintues of the movie which I thought were much better paced than the first part. Anyway...

I mentioned in my admittedly overly sarcastic mini-rant that I realize Alfred has connections. Obviously I know the Batcomputer exists. My point was to question how there would be databases of info on an organization that resided largely in the mountains with no connection to modern technology. And since it's centuries old and has been ransacking entire civilizations for centuries, it's a wonder that the league had never been snuffed out.
What will you do, call up your guys and be like "nawnaw somebody totally STOLE my fingerprint!" Lol, okay.

YES! Why would anyone steal your fingerprint - either to frame you or to make a verification. The very first thing anyone should do when their fingerprints get stolen is to call their lawyer, accountant, and bank and tell them not to allow their fingerprint to be a valid method of verification. And it was totally ridiculous that all his cars were taken and his power was shut off the very next day due to trades made during a hijack/robbery - there would be too many questions.
Because having your own fingerprint is pretty damn secure, it would probably be really difficult to prove you weren't the one there.
Absolutely false. As I mentioned - despite Bruce's fingerprint being used, there was video evidence that he wasn't there (did you miss the part where video footage of Bane attacking the security guards was actually shown to us on the batcomputer) and that "Bruce" made these crazy gambles at the same exact time that the time the Stock Exchange was hijacked.

Look: I never asked you to bother with what I say so if you find what I say to be nonsense then, well, don't bother. I don't understand why you start questioning the stability of the human race whenever I say something outlandish.

Posts: 18817
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
They obviously have an intimate knowledge of the league considering Bruce's role in it, and they also obviously keep a very sharp eye on global affairs. Bane's apparently internationally known, 'the masked man', given the opening scene's dialogue.

Video evidence and the attack or not, Bruce's transactions were the only ones that occurred. A finger print is something kind of impossible to replicate by most standards, so whenever one is used, it will take time to validate it wasn't you who used it. This is pretty easy to understand.

You're just kinda proving my point, man. Even if these were plot problems, which, these definitely aren't, it's a cosmetic or surface level problem. It has nothing to do with anything going on with the characters, the story, the themes, anything important to the actual film. The Joker being forgotten about at the dinner party is a far greater plot hole than anything you're discussing here. Why don't you throw a big fit about that? Or what about Maroni telling Gordon where The Joker would be and that plot point just completely dropped? Because of harsher and far more critical expectations. People begin looking for things to hate on when their expectations aren't- it's not if they're too high, it's that people romanticize what was and wasn't successful in the other titles to make those seem perfect since you focused on what was important, but that same idealized vision of perfection can't possibly carry over to the subsequent films. Meaning, if it was as flawed or not flawed as The Dark Knight, it would've been completely attacked for anything as sizable to the Joker dinner party scene, and unfairly so. It also means if there are indeed -more- flaws than its predecessor, people will go absolutely bonkers, which, they did. Also unfairly.


-Vader

Posts: 459
Joined: November 2012
Video evidence and the attack or not, Bruce's transactions were the only ones that occurred.
And who were the ones there at the time that everyone saw executing some kinda trade? Bane and his men. You just made my point.
Even if these were plot problems, which, these definitely aren't
Um, they kinda are. You don't get your property taken away and your power shut off due to suspicious trades made during a terrorist attack by terrorists. That's just not how it works. Anything that went down at the stock exchange would be halted and brought into question by the authorities/feds/financial higher-ups.
The Joker being forgotten about at the dinner party is a far greater plot hole than anything you're discussing here.
I never said "plot hole" and IMO no it's not. His purpose of going to that party was to get Dent, whom he was unsuccessful in finding. He LEFT, probably the same way he got there - the elevator. He hightailed it as soon as Batman jumped out the window since the cops would be arriving soon. Not a plot hole and irrelevant to this discussion. I don't get why people bring up TDK whenever someone criticizes something in Rises.

I think with all this disagreement over the plot and stuff, the original point of the thread has been forgotten. Yes, I would have preferred a longer film at the expense of IMAX. And all I meant to say originally was that I personally was not bothered by the exposition in Inception while Crazy Eight was, and I was bothered by some of the dialogue and plot points in TDKR while you were not. It's my opinion and I have the right to state it.

Posts: 18817
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
As my rhetoric professor constantly reminds his students, you have the right to state your opinion in a discussion, but not all opinions are reasoned equally.

And, again, it doesn't matter who was or wasn't there, it was his fingerprints, which are almost impossible to replicate. ...

It is a plot hole because it literally doesn't account for how he escaped, and more importantly, why Batman just kind of forgot about him. given Batman's swiftness and all those things, he probably should have at least tried to go after him. And the Maroni and Gordon thing.

And I literally just explained why bringing The Dark Knight into this discussion is necessary. You're making a big deal about a plot point that, if nothing else, has some logic behind it even if you disagree. Dark Knight has two plot gaps/holes that are quite a lot bigger, one of which has been one of the mainly discussed plot holes in the film. Don't try to play games like it totally isn't a big deal, I was there. You're solidifying my point more and more- being much to critical of Rises and much too lenient on The Dark Knight.

-Vader

Posts: 459
Joined: November 2012
Vader182 wrote:And, again, it doesn't matter who was or wasn't there, it was his fingerprints, which are almost impossible to replicate. ...
:facepalm:
It is a plot hole because it literally doesn't account for how he escaped, and more importantly, why Batman just kind of forgot about him.
With this logic, how Bruce got back to Gotham in Rises is a plothole.
given Batman's swiftness and all those things, he probably should have at least tried to go after him.
Fair enough, but he didn't. There was also a deleted scene showing Joker and his men drive away in a getaway van.
And the Maroni and Gordon thing.

The police called off their raid on the ship due to the threat on Coleman Reese's life and the hospitals. This was flat-out shown to us. Stupid decision by the police, sure, but still - it was shown why the maroni/gordon thing was dropped.
Dark Knight has two plot gaps/holes that are quite a lot bigger, one of which has been one of the mainly discussed plot holes in the film.
What's the other one?

I don't think TDK is perfect. Just that TDKR has way more issues. Issues can be found regardless of expectations.

Posts: 18817
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Oh yeah, bring out those facepalms bro, let's fight.

The Joker escaping is a plot hole because it shows us a scenario in which many characters are in peril, it's a huge thing to leave out how The Joker actually escaped, especially how and why Batman didn't chase after him. Deciding this randomly isn't a big deal, again, proves your bias. "Oh, well, he didn't! So what!" lol, totally. Because we aren't told or shown The Joker leaving the middle of an important scene, it becomes a plot hole- something against its own logic, reinforced by nobody remembering or talking about this in the film itself. Bruce coming back to Gotham is not that. If we cut from the prison to him randomly back into Gotham, that would be a plot hole. But that wasn't what happened. It was deliberately left out of the film. However, Bruce had around three weeks to return after leaving, and because Wayne Manor isn’t in the actual city of Gotham, he probably returned there, aka to the batcave. Thus, he’d have had access to seemingly endless gadgets to relatively easily sneak into the city. Given the resourcefulness he’s proven to have had over three films, finding a way back into the States is probably relatively straightforward. I mean, plus, Bruce spent many months traveling abroad without food, money, anything. Plot holes are about things inconsistent with their own logic. The Joker randomly dissapearing and nobody talking or caring about it is inconsistent, Bruce coming back is not.

Also, it wasn't a deleted scene, there's a brief scene in the script with The Joker taking hostages away. Get your facts straight, man.

Lol, I know the raid was called off in the film. It's also mentioned haphazardly amidst a hectic and dangerous situation, and it's more or less a plot point dropped given how fleetingly it's focused on after that scene. If the film was tighter, the Maroni scene would've been cut out- all it does is show us something we already know, that Maroni regrets hiring The Joker. It's a useless scene that leads to a scenario that could've -ended the movie- and saved a lot of lives and trouble. So yeah, it's pretty much randomly discarded given the potential of its significance.


-Vader

Posts: 13943
Joined: June 2009
Location: La La Land
Vader you're getting me so fucking hard right now that my dick is about to explode.

Post Reply