MiracleOfSound said:
Lionsfan said:
I don't your scale is off. Just look at the Nuclear Tests that were run in the 60's. Some of those areas took forever to become deradiatized, and since they all saw the bomb from the bridge, I assume it was fairly close. I hope everyone enjoys poisoned drinking water for the next few decades
It was 6 miles. It wasn't a normal nuclear bomb, it was a special device designed by scientific pioneers.
People will seriously ***** about anything. Suspension of disbelief.
There is a difference between suspension of disbelief and bad writing. The Element Zero fields of Mass Effect is suspension of disbelief because it's the thing that establishes the difference between the real world and the fantasy world and that it is established as fantastical. The Catalyst from the same game series though is bad writing because it contradicts both basic logic and the canonical information that has been provided or implied throughout the series.
And unfortunately DKR had way too much of the "Catalyst" type of fantastical things. The nuke(and it was a nuke by the actual description from the film) blast radius that I stated in my OP is just the primary blast radius, where every thing is obliterated by the sheer concussive force of the bomb. The secondary blast radius would stretch out several more miles and would still likely kill most people directly hit by the shockwave and destroy anything that's not a reinforced concrete structure, and that doesn't include the fallout radius of the radiation that's been thrown into the atmosphere.
To put this into perspective, the Fat Man nuke that was dropped on Nagasaki had a 21 kiloton yield, leveled most of the city and rendered the general area around it uninhabitable for decades. The DKR nuke is 4 megatons (4,000 kilotons), which is 190 times more powerful. Had it detonated over Gotham directly it would not only have destroyed it and everything it in but put most of the State it's a part of in mortal peril from the fallout. Batman could have put the bomb on an SR-71 blackbird and flown away at three times the speed of sound and he STILL could not have been able to get Gotham safely out of the danger zone in one minute. The yield that the movie stated the bomb had is simply unreasonable given the parameters the film gave us.
Frozen Donkey Wheel2 said:
Wow, why the hell would you choose to focus on all this when the movie had plenty of REAL problems? I guess I'll get to those later though, because I really want to respond to some of your arguments. You can assume that I agree with any points I don't bring up here.
1. You can't complain that Bane is too smart AND not smart enough at the same time. Not how it works. He knows where the Wayne armory is because he has access to Wayne tower. (I'll admit, however, that it's pretty ridiculous how he knew all the cops would be underground at the same time as the football game, especially when you consider that he would've been preparing for the event long before the COPS knew they would be underground)
2. Batman has ALWAYS had teleportation powers. He has ninja training. He's stealthy. He's been doing it for years. He's fucking Batman. Why are you complaining about it NOW?
3. I honestly don't know what you're talking about with the time-lapse and the take-over of Gotham. I was never confused about the timing, and I didn't even notice the "Day 83" thing. Not like I had an exact mental calender running, but I understood when a lot of time had passed.
4. You're honestly telling me that "Guy fighting through painkillers" is more ridiculous to you then "Guy injects drug and doubles in size"?
5. All your complaints about the reactor not behaving like a nuclear reactor are invalid because despite your statement about "technobabble", the thing still isn't a goddamn nuclear reactor, and you have no idea how it works. Because it DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST. Same goes for the maximum speed of the Bat-copter. Maybe it CAN go super-sonic. Anyway, if you're the kind of person who actually has to leave the theater because of average-helicopter speed misrepresentation, maybe you just shouldn't see movies.
1. Just because Bane knew where the tower was did not mean that he knew that the bottom floor of it was an armory that contained all of Batman's high tech weaponry or how much of that was there. And seeing as the series bold-facedly told the viewership that it was top secret to the point where even the majority of the company was even aware of the floor's existence (let alone what was in it), I honestly doubt that a low tech mercenary like Bane could have somehow pinpointed its exact location and the nature of its contents.
2. There's a difference between plausible deniability and literally appearing out of nowhere for no practical reason. First the guy was walking down a pretty narrow tunnel in the direction Batman was in, so Bats couldn't have somehow just popped in front him without being notice long before getting in to position (ninjas aren't THAT good, especially when they're wearin bulletproof body armour), meaning that he had to have been waiting upside down for a pretty substantial amount of time to take out one lone guy. Moreso, why do that when Catwoman very clearly could walk up behind the guy silently? Why do a double fake out when she could have just knocked him out with one punch far more easily and quickly? The scene is narratively pointless, and having it not only doesn't add anything of value to the story but actually raises more questions than it solves. So why honestly put it in?
3. So you're not surprised that entire months passed by without in the span of a few minutes? How Bane could literally go from one continent to the next scene to scene? I didn't even know that the prison was in another country until they showed a (what I assume to be) Middle Eastern city in the distance when Bruce finally got out (over 2 hours in!). Or how about how Bruce managed to have a broken spine fixed and fully operational in less than 4 months, a process which would take a person with the best hospital care in the world half a year just to be able to stand, (and that prison is not what one would call overflowing with medical expertise) within something like an hour of showtime? There was no clear temporal connection between any of this (as locations in a movie seem to be going at different rates of time), and it made Bane's appearances everywhere seem that much more contrived (it was like he borrowed Batman's teleporter when he broke his back).
4. Yes, because painkillers are a quantifiable item. We know that painkillers do. They deaden sensations to reduce pain and as a result slow reaction time because of weaker feedback from the nerves. I've actually seen a person on painkillers in a fight, and it kinda looked like he was trying to fight underwater. He was slow to move, slow to react, and pretty thoroughly got his ass handed to him despite being bigger and heavier than the guy he was fighting. Venom on the other hand if a far more mysterious compound. No one is quite sure how it works, so possible that it could have the effects that Bane is known for (Again, reasonable suspension of disbelief)
5.Actually it is a nuclear bomb the movie itself used the words "neutron reactor" (which baffles me because they say it a clean energy source, which I think Chernobyl might have a few things to say about), and real life has those (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor ). It's a nuclear reactor, so all the rules that apply to one in real life apply to the one in the movie if they want to make it believable (which they should considering the semi-realistic setting of the film series). And I honestly cannot believe that any engineer would be dumb enough to make a power source that can be turned into a bomb capable of LEVELING A CITY with a few buttons presses. The minute that came up in development that project would have been axed faster than you can say "political shitstorm".
Any yes, maybe the Batcopter could go supersonic, but at what point was that ever established? Never in the entire film did any character say "Hey, this things capable of going faster than the speed of sound". Seriously, not even 15 words could have completely cleared that problem up, but none of the chucklehead writers even bothered with it, which is very odd considering how much they talked about the equipment in the first two films (less in the second one to be sure, but then again there wasn't as much new tech in it). That means we have to go based upon what we are shown from previous scenes, and seeing as the world's slowest missiles were still giving it a run for its money, 200 kts is being generous. So from what they story gave the viewers of the film, the Batcopter simply couldn't have pulled it off what we saw it pull off. And it's not like it would have been hard to fix. Heck this and my original post show how easily a lot of the issues with the final scene could have been fixed with effectively no change to the events whatsoever (4eg a 1 megaton nuke, an established supersonic aircraft, and 5 minutes of travel time would have netted s total of 54 miles, which could have arguably worked). It's simply that the writers seemed to care so little about making a good cohesive story over trying to up the stakes that it ruined any credibility it had.
As to why I am talking about these things, it's ultimately not just that DKR has plot holes. All movies have some plot holes. It's impossible not to have one or two kicking about because the squishy mortals who make them aren't perfect, but so long as the film as a whole is generally cohesive then it usually isn't an issue (1 weird moment vs an hour and a half of well made movie usually evens out nicely). But when I literally can't go 2 minutes without finding something blatantly contrived, stupid or just poorly put together, then it overloads one's capability to suspend disbelief. That's why I had to leave the theatre for a few minutes. I had to get a mental breather to ensure I didn't blow a logic valve before I dived back into the insanity of the film. It's simply too much to feasibly work.
Giftfromme said:
It seems someone is sour about their experience, I'd say it sucks to be you, movie was fine for me
OK two things with your post. First, I know that other people enjoyed the film, and that is all right because I know that personal preference plays a lot one's enjoyment, and I stated as much in the
bolded and
underlined disclaimer at the start of my post. So why beat a dead horse?
Second, for the love of flow, snip your dang quote of me! You referenced nothing of my post directly so why make everyone have to scroll past the 12+ paragraphs of a post they've already seen just because you wanted to reply to me?
