The Dark Knight Rises *Spoilers* Thread

[mdchiefsfan]

For anyone who has seen the movie and wants to discuss it.

[ThaVirus]

I thought they did a great job of making Bane look huge and intimidating. I was talking with a friend and said he had to be like 6'4" 240 lbs. So I went to Google and found out Hardy is only 5'10" and 198 lbs (put on 30 for the role). Excellent job of using camera angles.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Either. Some thugs break in with guns and start making trades and they have no process in place that doesnt allow the trades to go through the whole system? come on, that wasnt a suspend belief comic book/fantasy moment in the film.

You were watching a movie about a billionaire ninja who wears a bat costume to fight heavily armed bad guys with his bare hands.

[Micjones]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

The only time he could have done it was when the building explodes, when JGL sees the Bat fly out.

And he managed to board the other Batwing, take off AND not be seen by Blake and the others on the bridge?

[JD10367]

For those whining about how "unbelievable" things were, here's a little refresher about the last film.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by JD10367

For those whining about how "unbelievable" things were, here's a little refresher about the last film.

Hilarious


Ill just say this.......making a good "genre" movie is mostly about creating a believable world and then sticking to the rules you have created within that. Nolan has done a tremendous job of that.


Of course there are outlandish things that could never happen in real life. Its fiction based off a comic book.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

God damn, watch better movies please.

I'd watch Rises over There Will Be Blood 100 times out of 100.

Self-Indulgent art-house flicks that serve to give 'film-buffs' something to jerk off to while assuaging the ego of guys like Daniel Day-Lewis without actually being, I dunno, entertaining just don't do much for me.

Movie snobs can lick my taint.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I'd watch Rises over There Will Be Blood 100 times out of 100.

Self-Indulgent art-house flicks that serve to give 'film-buffs' something to jerk off to while assuaging the ego of guys like Daniel Day-Lewis without actually being, I dunno, entertaining just don't do much for me.

Movie snobs can lick my taint.

"Self-indulgent" is one of those terms, like "pretentious" that doesn't mean anything anymore. They're terms used nowadays in place of saying "this person or thing doesn't align with my tastes."

TWBB is tremendously entertaining, if one is entertained by tension, deep character examination, camerawork that has an understanding of the artform, incredible acting (from Day-Lewis and Dano), and themes that are actually explored as themes (as opposed to the, say, Nolan Batman trilogy, which throws out buzzwords like 'justice' and 'authority' and 'fear' and etc. in a statement by some character and then doesn't bother to explore or complicate those buzzwords very much).

And, as always when defensive accusations of snobbery start getting tossed around, I have to iterate that this isn't an either/or thing. It's OK to be entertained by inconsequential popcorn cinema AND art-house cinema. I watch both and I'm entertained by both. That I expect more from a director like Christopher Nolan doesn't change that.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

"Self-indulgent" is one of those terms, like "pretentious" that doesn't mean anything anymore. They're terms used nowadays in place of saying "this person or thing doesn't align with my tastes."

TWBB is tremendously entertaining, if one is entertained by tension, deep character examination, camerawork that has an understanding of the artform, incredible acting (from Day-Lewis and Dano), and themes that are actually explored as themes (as opposed to the, say, Nolan Batman trilogy, which throws out buzzwords like 'justice' and 'authority' and 'fear' and etc. in a statement by some character and then doesn't bother to explore or complicate those buzzwords very much).

[lcarus]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

"Self-indulgent" is one of those terms, like "pretentious" that doesn't mean anything anymore. They're terms used nowadays in place of saying "this person or thing doesn't align with my tastes."

TWBB is tremendously entertaining, if one is entertained by tension, deep character examination, camerawork that has an understanding of the artform, incredible acting (from Day-Lewis and Dano), and themes that are actually explored as themes (as opposed to the, say, Nolan Batman trilogy, which throws out buzzwords like 'justice' and 'authority' and 'fear' and etc. in a statement by some character and then doesn't bother to explore or complicate those buzzwords very much).

And, as always when defensive accusations of snobbery start getting tossed around, I have to iterate that this isn't an either/or thing. It's OK to be entertained by inconsequential popcorn cinema AND art-house cinema. I watch both and I'm entertained by both. That I expect more from a director like Christopher Nolan doesn't change that.

Yeah I love TDKR and There Will Be Blood both. I'd pop either of those ****ers in my PS3 to watch any time.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

"Self-indulgent" is one of those terms, like "pretentious" that doesn't mean anything anymore. They're terms used nowadays in place of saying "this person or thing doesn't align with my tastes."

TWBB is tremendously entertaining, if one is entertained by tension, deep character examination, camerawork that has an understanding of the artform, incredible acting (from Day-Lewis and Dano), and themes that are actually explored as themes (as opposed to the, say, Nolan Batman trilogy, which throws out buzzwords like 'justice' and 'authority' and 'fear' and etc. in a statement by some character and then doesn't bother to explore or complicate those buzzwords very much).

And, as always when defensive accusations of snobbery start getting tossed around, I have to iterate that this isn't an either/or thing. It's OK to be entertained by inconsequential popcorn cinema AND art-house cinema. I watch both and I'm entertained by both. That I expect more from a director like Christopher Nolan doesn't change that.

What?

Just because you don't use the term correctly doesn't mean it doesn't have an operative definition. There Will Be Blood qualifies. Yes, Daniel Day Lewis did a great job; he always does. But the whole movie was just an exercise in him showing he's a great actor. As I watched it, all I could see was John Lovitz and John Lithgow yelling "ACTING! BRILLIANT! Thank You!"

from Gregory Mate on Vimeo.

Yeah, we get it Dan; you can act. Now how 'bout the movie actually go somewhere? You can do both, Y'know? 'No Country' proved it.

On the flip-side, every Wes Anderson movie is fairly self-indulgent these days but I actually like those.

When someone says "Damn, watch better movies" to people that aren't willing to nitpick a movie that has a billionaire ninja, the 'accusations' of snobbery are justified. You clearly weren't willing to just let this be an either/or issue when you start castigating folks for not demanding reality in their cinema.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

"Self-indulgent" is one of those terms, like "pretentious" that doesn't mean anything anymore. They're terms used nowadays in place of saying "this person or thing doesn't align with my tastes."

TWBB is tremendously entertaining, if one is entertained by tension, deep character examination, camerawork that has an understanding of the artform, incredible acting (from Day-Lewis and Dano), and themes that are actually explored as themes (as opposed to the, say, Nolan Batman trilogy, which throws out buzzwords like 'justice' and 'authority' and 'fear' and etc. in a statement by some character and then doesn't bother to explore or complicate those buzzwords very much).

And, as always when defensive accusations of snobbery start getting tossed around, I have to iterate that this isn't an either/or thing. It's OK to be entertained by inconsequential popcorn cinema AND art-house cinema. I watch both and I'm entertained by both. That I expect more from a director like Christopher Nolan doesn't change that.

"Self-indulgent" and "pretentious" still mean the same things they always did.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by 58kcfan89

Eh, maybe I'm getting it mixed up with a different scene. I thought there was another line or 2 after "I'm Gotham's reckoning" that I missed. Guess I'll have to see it again.

Nope, you were right, there's another line in between. I couldn't understand it fully but, after he says "I'm Gotham's reckoning", he says something like, "Here to end the (indistinguishable) that you've all been getting on" (or something like that). I'll listen better next show.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by JD10367

Nope, you were right, there's another line in between. I couldn't understand it fully but, after he says "I'm Gotham's reckoning", he says something like, "Here to end the (indistinguishable) that you've all been getting on" (or something like that). I'll listen better next show.

"I'm Gotham's reckoning, here to end the borrowed time that you've all been living on."

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

like the other comments, I felt catwomen blowing Bane away was cheap. Batman running into the middle of a huge melee against a guy who beat him the last time would not be the smart way Bruce wayne would have handled the 2nd confrontation.

And dont even get me started on an exposed spinal cord just being snapped into place and all feeling is restored.

until you learn the difference between a bulging disk and a spinal cord injury,

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

What?

Just because you don't use the term correctly doesn't mean it doesn't have an operative definition. There Will Be Blood qualifies. Yes, Daniel Day Lewis did a great job; he always does. But the whole movie was just an exercise in him showing he's a great actor. As I watched it, all I could see was John Lovitz and John Lithgow yelling "ACTING! BRILLIANT! Thank You!"

from Gregory Mate on Vimeo.

Yeah, we get it Dan; you can act. Now how 'bout the movie actually go somewhere? You can do both, Y'know? 'No Country' proved it.

On the flip-side, every Wes Anderson movie is fairly self-indulgent these days but I actually like those.

When someone says "Damn, watch better movies" to people that aren't willing to nitpick a movie that has a billionaire ninja, the 'accusations' of snobbery are justified. You clearly weren't willing to just let this be an either/or issue when you start castigating folks for not demanding reality in their cinema.

Of course I wasn't willing to let it be an either/or issue. It's not an either/or issue. I was being an asshole, sure, duh. I was being an asshole because it seemed like people's perspective on film was limited, that they were willing to excuse poor screenwriting because they figured that was as good as they are going to get from Hollywood movies. I certainly could have stated as much in the first place, but I chose to be an asshole.

I won't argue the merits of TWBB or even argue that it isn't self-indulgent. I'll just say that Nolan is an incredibly self-indulgent filmmaker with respect to plot machinations, and TDKR is him at his most self-indulgent. Sometimes that works for me (The Prestige) and other times I think it detracts from otherwise decent films (Inception, TDKR).

So it seems pointless to even bring it up that you'd rather watch TDKR over TWBB because of TWBB's self-indulgence. At best, you've set forth an argument between us where both films are. And what I have to say to that is: "Well, okay."

Originally Posted by patteeu

"Self-indulgent" and "pretentious" still mean the same things they always did.

Of course they do. But they are most frequently encountered when someone is using them incorrectly.