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
Vader182 wrote:Oh yeah, bring out those facepalms bro, let's fight.
Let's not.
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.
Right, but just like that, TDKR made a point to show that the entire city was sealed off save for one bridge. Yet Bruce, who was last shown in the desert with no resources IN ANOTHER CONTINENT, just casually strolls up to Selina, clean-shaven in jeans and work boots. I'm not saying that this is a plothole, but I think it's just as ridiculous or whatever as what you are saying about people forgetting about the Joker.
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.
http://www.joblo.com/scripts/The_Dark_Knight.pdf

^Scroll down to the middle of the page to the party scene. My facts are plenty straight. See for yourself.

Posts: 18806
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
I really applaud your determination to be right here, but give up before your responses become even more reductive.

So, I... I just said it was in the script? Deleted scene refers to a scene that was shot but edited out of the film. Jesus. It also doesn't matter since it wasn't in the movie.

Anyway, let me explain this again- he's amongst the most the most credible and resourceful characters we've seen in cinema in the last few years, and, again, he traveled around the world for what, 6 months in Batman Begins without any trouble whatsoever. He's an expertly trained martial artist with weeks and resources to back him up. You're supposed to wonder how he got back in- that's the point. He's a mystic character, but given everything we've been shown over these three movies, finding a way back to the United States and back into a city he's devoted his entire life to memorizing, it's amongst the lesser things we've seen him do. Again, we see a step 1 to step 2 here- we see him leave, we know, as I've just written, he's completely capable of getting back into Gotham, and we're meant to fill in the in between. The Joker scene, again dude, does not work that way. It literally goes against the logic of itself in every way.

-Vader

Posts: 459
Joined: November 2012
Vader182 wrote:I really applaud your determination to be right here, but give up before your responses become even more reductive.
Lol. This isn't a competition. I shall post if I feel like it.

Anyway, here it is, the screenshot of the deleted scene of the Joker and his men leaving the party where the henchman asks "what about Dent" and the Joker replies "Oh, I'm a man of my word."

Image

So yes, it was shot but edited out of the film. A deleted scene.
The Joker scene, again dude, does not work that way. It literally goes against the logic of itself in every way.
WHY? We SAW the Joker arrive in the elevator with a bunch of armed henchman. What's so hard to believe about him going right back down the elevator (since Joker's men had guns no guest was gonna stop them), exiting from the opposite side of the building to where Batman and Rachel fell, and then just getting in the getaway car and speeding off? Nothing is hard to believe about this. Just like we know that Bruce is resourceful, we know that the Joker is cunning and a great escape artist.

Posts: 18806
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
I understand the logistics of elevators. That isn't the issue. I have described the issue many times. The film doesn't seem to think, within its world, its important to let us know how and why a highly dangerous character in a room of Gotham's wealthiest people wasn't important enough to let us know the manner in which he left, and why nobody tried to stop him.

Anyway, I always thought that image was from some other sequence considering it runs contrary to comments made by the production team.

-Vader

Posts: 459
Joined: November 2012
Vader182 wrote:I understand the logistics of elevators. That isn't the issue. I have described the issue many times. The film doesn't seem to think, within its world, its important to let us know how and why a highly dangerous character in a room of Gotham's wealthiest people wasn't important enough to let us know the manner in which he left, and why nobody tried to stop him.

Anyway, I always thought that image was from some other sequence considering it runs contrary to comments made by the production team.
Fair enough. Though I did explain why no one tried stopping them. Guests weren't gonna stop a group of thugs with guns.

By the way, what comments? A "making of" interview or something? Just curious...

Posts: 18806
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Aside of how Batman was right next to them and one of his staple gadgets is a device that allows him to ascend great distances quickly and easily, it's kind of a big problem. Also, the police? That's kinda the point, it's impossible for me to believe everyone just let him escape, which, because we aren't shown anything to the contrary, is what the film suggests.

Nolan repeatedly has stated the only deleted scene in the film is Heath's bus ride away from the hospital, though I always somewhat doubted this. There's also the footage from the trailer of Batman running on top of cop cars.

The issue is that Dark Knight has some serious logic problems that go against themselves and Rises provides actual logic behind what it does. FIngerprints are a universal method of security, so trusting a widespread method of security that is specifically supposed to be 'fool proof', even in the even of an attack, makes sense. Obviously it would be a sizeable coincidence, but it is probably less believable that these guys figured out an innovation method in perfectly copying finger prints. If they look at who made what trades and so on, it's all in Bruce's name, and if he denies it, they'll say they have physical evidence he was there, which they would. No matter what way you cut it, this is a smaller deal than The Joker and Maroni/Gordon scenario, just like Bruce getting back to Gotham is smaller too.

To reiterate, the fact these Dark Knight related plot holes are defended with such devotion from you while you work towards disproving everything I say about Rises reveals your bias and prejudice. I have nothing else to say about these topics, but the ridiculous reaction some people have had to Rises bothers the shit out of me. It doesn't just ignore the logic in the movie while ignoring the lack of it in some moments of its much acclaimed predecessor, it reduces and belittles the major accomplishments of the film in unprecedented areas in modern cinema.

-Vader

Posts: 26115
Joined: February 2010
Location: Texas
At the expense of IMAX, definitely not.

The editing flaws and annoyances are still worth the beauty of the IMAX scenes.

Posts: 18806
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Cilogy wrote:At the expense of IMAX, definitely not.

The editing flaws and annoyances are still worth the beauty of the IMAX scenes.
I more or less agree, it depends how purist I'm feeling about these things. The second act is embarrassingly underdeveloped compared to the deliberate and introspective first act, without much sense of how anyone is actually living in Gotham, and to more clearly state some of Bane's intentions and the way his army gathered, worked, and functioned across the city. The final battle, as I noted a few pages back, kind of vanishes after the relatively minor group of 1.5k extras duke it out on a narrow street, and there's clearly meant to be more 'battling' going on with weapons and stuff. We don't get almost any sense of geography in these scenes, it's just cuts back and forth with some people standing some places and firing guns back and forth. It's either sloppy on Nolan's part not to get a lot more coverage, he didn't because he knew the time constraints, or he did and they didn't have time to fit it into the film.

Still though, if I had my way I'd have added another half hour. I genuinely think it would've been a more cohesive film that better explored the themes and plot in a package to make them more digestible to the masses and critics alike. Many people, and critics, actually complained the movie squeezed too much into its running time, as opposed to it being bloated like some say.

-Vader

Posts: 91
Joined: July 2012
Vader182 wrote:-Vader
Why do you keep on going on about TDK? You act like any shortcomings or plot holes in TDKR are justifiable because there were also some in the proceeding film...I don't get how that makes sense.

And I don't get how your "oh I don't see you ranting about any of TDK flaws" to goat makes any sense at all. Why would he bring them up in a forum for The Dark Knight Rises? You do realize how much the film was scrutinized and picked apart for every little flaw between 2008-2012, right? No different than TDKR.

Posts: 459
Joined: November 2012
Vader,

I said "fair enough" in my previous post and asked about the production team comments you mentioned, and you went on to write an angry essay. I'm not so sure that it's me who's having the ridiculous reaction.

I have criticized many aspects of TDKR, yes. That does not mean that I do not or cannot still like it. It's my second favorite of the trilogy.
To reiterate, the fact these Dark Knight related plot holes are defended with such devotion from you while you work towards disproving everything I say about Rises reveals your bias and prejudice.
Lol all I said regarding TDK was that Joker probably just took the elevator down and left. Just like how Bruce did whatever he did while traveling the world in Begins to get back to Gotham in Rises.

Anyway I have nothing further to add to that. I agree with everything you just said when you quoted Cilogy. I too felt that there was clearly a chunk of the final battle that was missing or cut out and that a greater focus on the people of Gotham during the revolution was necessary. Which goes back to the whole "longer movie vs keep IMAX" thing. You'd still be sacrificing something big either way - a more fully fleshed out plot, or beautiful world class cinematography to go with a large high-res image. It's a tough call for sure.

Post Reply