prince0gotham wrote:As I sad, I checked the camrip and didn't see anything that he could use to go up from the 1st and lowest platfrom up to the top.

I also got worried by people asking why wouldn't the prisoners kill the rope guy and just pull each other up to the top and decided to make this graph to show any doubters why:

prince0gotham wrote:As I sad, I checked the camrip and didn't see anything that he could use to go up from the 1st and lowest platfrom up to the top.

I also got worried by people asking why wouldn't the prisoners kill the rope guy and just pull each other up to the top and decided to make this graph to show any doubters why:

But prince... it's not about jumping or climbing from that position. They could have easily made holes in the wall or even pin iron bars into it deep enough to pull yourself out from that point. They did it along history in worse conditions... here it would have been easier. With patience they could have escaped in a matter of days.

I do try to stay neutral.

RIFA wrote:

prince0gotham wrote:As I sad, I checked the camrip and didn't see anything that he could use to go up from the 1st and lowest platfrom up to the top.

I also got worried by people asking why wouldn't the prisoners kill the rope guy and just pull each other up to the top and decided to make this graph to show any doubters why:

But prince... it's not about jumping or climbing from that position. They could have easily made holes in the wall or even pin iron bars into it deep enough to pull yourself out from that point. They did it along history in worse conditions... here it would have been easier. With patience they could have escaped in a matter of days.

Sorry, didn't mean to turn this into a long post but your suggestion made me think and I started crafting theories.

My answer to the iron bars thing is this:

There were no guards in the prison because there need be no guards there, since there's only one exit. That said, once the 'trial' thing has been established in the past (by whoever was in charge of that prison back then) all those prisoners needed were to know that there are guards on the top of the pitt. There need be no guards there either though since the leap was concidered humanly impossible. (Whether there have been guards in the beginning till the point where they got convinced how a human can't possibly make that leap is a different story). It's safe to assume that someone drops food every once in a while, whether with a basket or personally - again a different story, but that's just another thing that would contribute to the prisoners' sense of being watched. You end up with a prison which functions almost on its own and needs almost no supervision, which is a very interesting concept actually but probably one too long to explore in a movie like that and an attempt at that would not only break the pace of the third act but would make absolutely no sense either. I mean it doesn't make sense for anyone in that prison to actually KNOW there's no guards up there, because that would mean they'd have gotten out of there long ago. It makes no sense for Bane to tell that to Bruce either, because he'd tell that to the others and everyone would just organise a riot and get out.

Now, you would say how all of this would've been fine if there was a single line somewhere in the movie about how the prisoners think that there's guards on top of the prison. It's obvious though by how the pitt sequence is told that the prisoners have this sense of knowing about their state of opression, not just because it's a prison but because of who's in charge of it (which I doubt is someone other than Bane since he calls it home, the LOS already took it once and since he can walk in and out of it, put a prisoner there and give him cable TV too). So they have an idea how there's something up there that is too terrible and that they can't and shouldn't do anything.

My point is that the idea and history of the pitt is probably bigger and better than it's presented in the movie, but they couldn't have told it. From then on they didn't explain how or why someone couldn't stick iron bars into the wall near the top because Nolan didn't feel he needed to. He liked the primal or even infernal (circle) nature of the pitt and he felt guards would only get in the way. After all, there not being any guards does seem more impressive and for him to explain why there aren't any would again require even more time and further explanation. In the end you could say the movie could've used that line about them thinking there's guards up there and another shot of Bruce actually being surprised there aren't any (but then again that's kind of included into his action of passing the rope down).

Now there's the question - why is there another rope there? Has the idea of the pitt become that if one goes up then he gets to save everyone else? Did Bane forget it there? Is that the rope used to drop the baskets with food?

Does it matter? The story needs its metaphor (that rope being Bruce's answer to Bane's opening of Blackgate) and Nolan shouldn't be supposed to include scenes justifying each and every metaphor, given that the movie's all about those metaphors and given that you're probably better off with not having ideas like the one about the iron bars because they'll only either make you hate the movie or make me knitt theories about why there's explanatory shots, scenes and lines missing in a movie about someone dressing like a Bat.

prince0gotham wrote:

RIFA wrote:
But prince... it's not about jumping or climbing from that position. They could have easily made holes in the wall or even pin iron bars into it deep enough to pull yourself out from that point. They did it along history in worse conditions... here it would have been easier. With patience they could have escaped in a matter of days.

Sorry, didn't mean to turn this into a long post but your suggestion made me think and I started crafting theories.

My answer to the iron bars thing is this:

There were no guards in the prison because there need be no guards there, since there's only one exit. That said, once the 'trial' thing has been established in the past (by whoever was in charge of that prison back then) all those prisoners needed were to know that there are guards on the top of the pitt. There need be no guards there either though since the leap was concidered humanly impossible. (Whether there have been guards in the beginning till the point where they got convinced how a human can't possibly make that leap is a different story). It's safe to assume that someone drops food every once in a while, whether with a basket or personally - again a different story, but that's just another thing that would contribute to the prisoners' sense of being watched. You end up with a prison which functions almost on its own and needs almost no supervision, which is a very interesting concept actually but probably one too long to explore in a movie like that and an attempt at that would not only break the pace of the third act but would make absolutely no sense either. I mean it doesn't make sense for anyone in that prison to actually KNOW there's no guards up there, because that would mean they'd have gotten out of there long ago. It makes no sense for Bane to tell that to Bruce either, because he'd tell that to the others and everyone would just organise a riot and get out.

Now, you would say how all of this would've been fine if there was a single line somewhere in the movie about how the prisoners think that there's guards on top of the prison. It's obvious though by how the pitt sequence is told that the prisoners have this sense of knowing about their state of opression, not just because it's a prison but because of who's in charge of it (which I doubt is someone other than Bane since he calls it home, the LOS already took it once and since he can walk in and out of it, put a prisoner there and give him cable TV too). So they have an idea how there's something up there that is too terrible and that they can't and shouldn't do anything.

My point is that the idea and history of the pitt is probably bigger and better than it's presented in the movie, but they couldn't have told it. From then on they didn't explain how or why someone couldn't stick iron bars into the wall near the top because Nolan didn't feel he needed to. He liked the primal or even infernal (circle) nature of the pitt and he felt guards would only get in the way. After all, there not being any guards does seem more impressive and for him to explain why there aren't any would again require even more time and further explanation. In the end you could say the movie could've used that line about them thinking there's guards up there and another shot of Bruce actually being surprised there aren't any (but then again that's kind of included into his action of passing the rope down).

Now there's the question - why is there another rope there? Has the idea of the pitt become that if one goes up then he gets to save everyone else? Did Bane forget it there? Is that the rope used to drop the baskets with food?

Does it matter? The story needs its metaphor (that rope being Bruce's answer to Bane's opening of Blackgate) and Nolan shouldn't be supposed to include scenes justifying each and every metaphor, given that the movie's all about those metaphors and given that you're probably better off with not having ideas like the one about the iron bars because they'll only either make you hate the movie or make me knitt theories about why there's explanatory shots, scenes and lines missing in a movie about someone dressing like a Bat.

Long talk but nothing relevant in particular. Like I said... leaving things to interpretation and so on is lazy. This is not Prometheus were you could argue about symbolism. Here you have facts presented in the film and you judge everything that happens based on what is shown. It's an action/adventure film not a fantasy that ask existential questions. All I'm saying is the pit climbing could have been handled with more attention to the details to not make his climbing seem useless. You're talking about metaphors but the metaphors need to be believable. Someone who'd want to trash the scene could trash it easily by debunking that metaphor to the core of it. And he'd have the right to do it as well as the fans would have the right to defend it by saying that it's left to our interpretation. The thing is you can't just leave anything to interpretation and when you have SEVERAL situations like this in your film then you have a problem.

What you also have to realize that this is not the first time Nolan is doing this. Which, like I said before, could be one of two things. Either he's lacking an ability to fill the gaps when he's doing big-budget films, either he's doing it out of laziness thinking that the scale and scope would make people get over the deficiency in the storytelling. I think it's the first given the fact that Nolan still has to learn a thing or two about storytelling and directing. It's funny and interesting because like I told you before, he shows many signs of brilliance, blinding people with his spectacle, "forcing" them to miss the silly, lazy or cliched things he does. That's also the answer for the mixed reactions sometimes. You have the fans who out of excitement, and under the influence of the spectacle will miss the imperfections, and you have the doubters who'll obviously look at things differently and they'll see more of these imperfections. Nolan needs to learn more about creating balance outside of the film-noir genre where he succeeds in doing that.

Now for all the folks who don't know why me and prince are talking about this, don't get crazy over our (or my) criticism. I still rate the movie at a strong 9.6 for it's genre which is pretty huge. I still think that the movie is a huge thrilling spectacle, and so far it's my favorite Batman film. However, after constantly praising it, we (or I) decided to pay more attention to the problems this film has. Look at the film from a different perspective and analyze it as an overall film, no matter the genre. So don't fall under the illusion that I criticize Nolan because I disliked the film or for whatever other reason. Thanks.

RIFA wrote:

prince0gotham wrote:As I sad, I checked the camrip and didn't see anything that he could use to go up from the 1st and lowest platfrom up to the top.

I also got worried by people asking why wouldn't the prisoners kill the rope guy and just pull each other up to the top and decided to make this graph to show any doubters why:

prince0gotham wrote:As I sad, I checked the camrip and didn't see anything that he could use to go up from the 1st and lowest platfrom up to the top.

I also got worried by people asking why wouldn't the prisoners kill the rope guy and just pull each other up to the top and decided to make this graph to show any doubters why:

But prince... it's not about jumping or climbing from that position. They could have easily made holes in the wall or even pin iron bars into it deep enough to pull yourself out from that point. They did it along history in worse conditions... here it would have been easier. With patience they could have escaped in a matter of days.

RIFA wrote:

prince0gotham wrote:
Sorry, didn't mean to turn this into a long post but your suggestion made me think and I started crafting theories.

My answer to the iron bars thing is this:

There were no guards in the prison because there need be no guards there, since there's only one exit. That said, once the 'trial' thing has been established in the past (by whoever was in charge of that prison back then) all those prisoners needed were to know that there are guards on the top of the pitt. There need be no guards there either though since the leap was concidered humanly impossible. (Whether there have been guards in the beginning till the point where they got convinced how a human can't possibly make that leap is a different story). It's safe to assume that someone drops food every once in a while, whether with a basket or personally - again a different story, but that's just another thing that would contribute to the prisoners' sense of being watched. You end up with a prison which functions almost on its own and needs almost no supervision, which is a very interesting concept actually but probably one too long to explore in a movie like that and an attempt at that would not only break the pace of the third act but would make absolutely no sense either. I mean it doesn't make sense for anyone in that prison to actually KNOW there's no guards up there, because that would mean they'd have gotten out of there long ago. It makes no sense for Bane to tell that to Bruce either, because he'd tell that to the others and everyone would just organise a riot and get out.

Now, you would say how all of this would've been fine if there was a single line somewhere in the movie about how the prisoners think that there's guards on top of the prison. It's obvious though by how the pitt sequence is told that the prisoners have this sense of knowing about their state of opression, not just because it's a prison but because of who's in charge of it (which I doubt is someone other than Bane since he calls it home, the LOS already took it once and since he can walk in and out of it, put a prisoner there and give him cable TV too). So they have an idea how there's something up there that is too terrible and that they can't and shouldn't do anything.

My point is that the idea and history of the pitt is probably bigger and better than it's presented in the movie, but they couldn't have told it. From then on they didn't explain how or why someone couldn't stick iron bars into the wall near the top because Nolan didn't feel he needed to. He liked the primal or even infernal (circle) nature of the pitt and he felt guards would only get in the way. After all, there not being any guards does seem more impressive and for him to explain why there aren't any would again require even more time and further explanation. In the end you could say the movie could've used that line about them thinking there's guards up there and another shot of Bruce actually being surprised there aren't any (but then again that's kind of included into his action of passing the rope down).

Now there's the question - why is there another rope there? Has the idea of the pitt become that if one goes up then he gets to save everyone else? Did Bane forget it there? Is that the rope used to drop the baskets with food?

Does it matter? The story needs its metaphor (that rope being Bruce's answer to Bane's opening of Blackgate) and Nolan shouldn't be supposed to include scenes justifying each and every metaphor, given that the movie's all about those metaphors and given that you're probably better off with not having ideas like the one about the iron bars because they'll only either make you hate the movie or make me knitt theories about why there's explanatory shots, scenes and lines missing in a movie about someone dressing like a Bat.

Long talk but nothing relevant in particular. Like I said... leaving things to interpretation and so on is lazy. This is not Prometheus were you could argue about symbolism. Here you have facts presented in the film and you judge everything that happens based on what is shown. It's an action/adventure film not a fantasy that ask existential questions. All I'm saying is the pit climbing could have been handled with more attention to the details to not make his climbing seem useless. You're talking about metaphors but the metaphors need to be believable. Someone who'd want to trash the scene could trash it easily by debunking that metaphor to the core of it. And he'd have the right to do it as well as the fans would have the right to defend it by saying that it's left to our interpretation. The thing is you can't just leave anything to interpretation and when you have SEVERAL situations like this in your film then you have a problem.

What you also have to realize that this is not the first time Nolan is doing this. Which, like I said before, could be one of two things. Either he's lacking an ability to fill the gaps when he's doing big-budget films, either he's doing it out of laziness thinking that the scale and scope would make people get over the deficiency in the storytelling. I think it's the first given the fact that Nolan still has to learn a thing or two about storytelling and directing action scenes or even film editing. It's funny and interesting because like I told you before, he shows many signs of brilliance, blinding people with his spectacle, "forcing" them to miss the silly, lazy or forced things he does. That's also the answer for the mixed reactions sometimes. You have the fans who out of excitement, and under the influence of the spectacle will miss the imperfections, and you have to doubters or the distant folks who'll obviously look at things differently and they'll see more of these imperfections. Nolan needs to learn more about creating balance outside of the film-noir genre where he succeeds in doing that.

Now for all the folks who don't know why me and prince are talking about this don't get crazy over our (or my) criticism. I still rate the movie at a strong 9.6 for it's genre which is pretty huge. I still think that the movie is a huge thrilling spectacle and my favorite Batman film. However, after constantly praising it, we (or I) decided to pay more attention to the problems this film has. Look at the film from a different perspective and analyze it as an overall film, no matter the genre. So don't fall under the illusion that I criticize Nolan because I disliked the film or for whatever other reason. Thanks.

That over there wasn't an interpretation, it was reverse application of logic beginning with "there's a prison underground with only one exit on top". Everything out of that is simple application of logic about how a certain thing like that would work. The conclusion in short is one - he's had a great concept (even with what we got in there the concept of a prison like that is immensely interesting) that he couldn't explore in full. My point was that it was almost as close to whatever's happening in the movie as would be your suggestion about the iron bars. What you're saying about his deficiency is true but you're also starting to take for granted the grandness of the production. You're only saying how he could've added more and neither you nor anyone says how something somewhere in the movie is unnecessary and needs to be removed. That's why his deficiency seems to be a direct concequence of his greatest strength, not some lazyness that I got no idea how you decided you could fit into the context of him and his work. It's much more probable for him to have not had any other option, since he's too grand for his own good while also not delicate enough in terms of fluency, instead of the lazyness you're suggesting.

The pattern for the amount of inconcistencies is another thing that confirms the origin of that issue. He's being a victim of his inability to proportionally match his scale and ambition with a certain kind of 'gentle handling' of the audience's attention. I'm sure that if it was just bit more fluent (and also not so doomed to some extent due to scale and lack of stylization) it wouldn't have made such impression.

This is why I brought Malick up. He's a poet and a photographer but not a story-teller, yet with him the latter somehow doesn't seem to matter for you when you talk or think about him, while it's also his biggest problem. I told you to recall Days of heaven. That movie's narrative varries between broken and non-existent and is experimental as hell. He's the same victim of his ambition and touch.

As for the prison thing, it isn't even a part of the things that break your attention while viewing the movie anyway. I wasn't even thinking about that (and you yourself said you thought about the iron bars on 6th viewing or something or even after that) while I was definitely thinking about other things.

That's why I stress how nobody says that there's unnecessary things, everyone says there's things missing. And yet the movie's so long and so grand. You're just saying 'lazy' like there seems to have been a lot of option there but that's not so. There's also the fact that for some reason everyone seems to be a lot more conscious now about how the movie flows and what it skips, unlike before where even if it skipped something it was forgiven but the scale was smaller too.

prince0gotham wrote:

RIFA wrote:
Long talk but nothing relevant in particular. Like I said... leaving things to interpretation and so on is lazy. This is not Prometheus were you could argue about symbolism. Here you have facts presented in the film and you judge everything that happens based on what is shown. It's an action/adventure film not a fantasy that ask existential questions. All I'm saying is the pit climbing could have been handled with more attention to the details to not make his climbing seem useless. You're talking about metaphors but the metaphors need to be believable. Someone who'd want to trash the scene could trash it easily by debunking that metaphor to the core of it. And he'd have the right to do it as well as the fans would have the right to defend it by saying that it's left to our interpretation. The thing is you can't just leave anything to interpretation and when you have SEVERAL situations like this in your film then you have a problem.

What you also have to realize that this is not the first time Nolan is doing this. Which, like I said before, could be one of two things. Either he's lacking an ability to fill the gaps when he's doing big-budget films, either he's doing it out of laziness thinking that the scale and scope would make people get over the deficiency in the storytelling. I think it's the first given the fact that Nolan still has to learn a thing or two about storytelling and directing action scenes or even film editing. It's funny and interesting because like I told you before, he shows many signs of brilliance, blinding people with his spectacle, "forcing" them to miss the silly, lazy or forced things he does. That's also the answer for the mixed reactions sometimes. You have the fans who out of excitement, and under the influence of the spectacle will miss the imperfections, and you have to doubters or the distant folks who'll obviously look at things differently and they'll see more of these imperfections. Nolan needs to learn more about creating balance outside of the film-noir genre where he succeeds in doing that.

Now for all the folks who don't know why me and prince are talking about this don't get crazy over our (or my) criticism. I still rate the movie at a strong 9.6 for it's genre which is pretty huge. I still think that the movie is a huge thrilling spectacle and my favorite Batman film. However, after constantly praising it, we (or I) decided to pay more attention to the problems this film has. Look at the film from a different perspective and analyze it as an overall film, no matter the genre. So don't fall under the illusion that I criticize Nolan because I disliked the film or for whatever other reason. Thanks.

That over there wasn't an interpretation, it was reverse application of logic beginning with "there's a prison underground with only one exit on top". Everything out of that is simple application of logic about how a certain thing like that would work. The conclusion in short is one - he's had a great concept (even with what we got in there the concept of a prison like that is immensely interesting) that he couldn't explore in full. My point was that it was almost as close to whatever's happening in the movie as would be your suggestion about the iron bars. What you're saying about his deficiency is true but you're also starting to take for granted the grandness of the production. You're only saying how he could've added more and neither you nor anyone says how something somewhere in the movie is unnecessary and needs to be removed. That's why his deficiency seems to be a direct concequence of his greatest strength, not some lazyness that I got no idea how you decided you could fit into the context of him and his work. It's much more probable for him to have not had any other option, since he's too grand for his own good while also not delicate enough in terms of fluency, instead of the lazyness you're suggesting.

The pattern for the amount of inconcistencies is another thing that confirms the origin of that issue. He's being a victim of his inability to proportionally match his scale and ambition with a certain kind of 'gentle handling' of the audience's attention. I'm sure that if it was just bit more fluent (and also not so doomed to some extent due to scale and lack of stylization) it wouldn't have made such impression.

This is why I brought Malick up. He's a poet and a photographer but not a story-teller, yet with him the latter somehow doesn't seem to matter for you when you talk or think about him, while it's also his biggest problem. I told you to recall Days of heaven. That movie's narrative varries between broken and non-existent and is experimental as hell. He's the same victim of his ambition and touch.

As for the prison thing, it isn't even a part of the things that break your attention while viewing the movie anyway. I wasn't even thinking about that (and you yourself said you thought about the iron bars on 6th viewing or something or even after that) while I was definitely thinking about other things.

That's why I stress how nobody says that there's unnecessary things, everyone says there's things missing. And yet the movie's so long and so grand. You're just saying 'lazy' like there seems to have been a lot of option there but that's not so. There's also the fact that for some reason everyone seems to be a lot more conscious now about how the movie flows and what it skips, unlike before where even if it skipped something it was forgiven but the scale was smaller too.

You took the "lazy" thing way out of context. I even said I don't think it's about his laziness but about some kind of inability he has. This combination between scale and fluency.

The prison thing isn't a part of the things that break your attention if you're amazed by the spectacle. But other people who were not really impressed by the spectacle saw it at the first viewing. They didn't need repeated viewings like I did. In time... these imperfections reach the surface and talk more about the overall quality of every film not just this one. This shouldn't be an exception just because it's a Nolan film.

As for the Malick thing. We both know we disagree on the fact that Malick's storytelling is based on photography and symbolism and that he balances that perfectly. It's a different kind of film there. There you deal with a surreal poet while here we deal with a modern novelist. There's no parallels you can draw between these two that you can use as argument.

i told you about the jews and how the iron bars thing is a complex tangent topic

especially since once brought up it's supposed for you to expect an answer and i gave you the answer (the guards theory)

prince0gotham wrote:i told you about the jews and how the iron bars thing is a complex tangent topic

especially since once brought up it's supposed for you to expect an answer and i gave you the answer (the guards theory)

lol

-Vader

Vader182 wrote:

prince0gotham wrote:i told you about the jews and how the iron bars thing is a complex tangent topic

especially since once brought up it's supposed for you to expect an answer and i gave you the answer (the guards theory)

lol

-Vader

i'm curious what you gathered from that