I doubt the batwing would even get off the ground, never mind move. If your suspension of disbelief allows you to believe it can fly at all, you may as well let it go supersonic while you're at it.
I hate Dark Knight Rises *SPOILERS*
- Thread starter The Heik
- Start date
He's not being very realistic then, is he? I mean the film is about people jumping around in rubber suits. That's the reason is isn't taken seriously, not because of some conflicting elements in the plot or Bane's face mask obscuring his speech.DioWallachia said:
O RLY? are you saying that dressing like an scary bat to shat the pants of the superstitious cowardly criminals ISNT a viable tactic? is not like it was based on the primal fear that humans have or something...Blood Brain Barrier said:
What is next? using catapults to send dead corpses of humans and animals to make the enemy sick isnt realistic? oh wait...
It is sad when a Monty Python COMEDY sketch actually is more realistic than the plot of The Dark Knight Rises.
Not really. They established it a a fusion reactor, and while not commercially viable, those do actually exist. So when the film decided to call it a fusion reactor then the device took all the connotation of one therein. They could have just as easily called it something else and it would have removed the problem entirely, but they decided to go with something that directly contradicts how it's used in the film. That's just bad storytelling.Sande45 said:
Actually it couldn't. You see with the Batwing/copter it comes down to lift more than it does about horsepower. The Bat aerodynamically is a brick, so the only way it could stay in the air is due to the two heli rotors on it's underside, and it's with those that the issue occurs. You see, there is a reason why 200 kts (approx) is the limit for all helicopters. There's a phenomenon known as retreating blade stall, which occurs is when a rotor aircraft approaches its maximum velocity. Whilst the rotor blades are on the backswing (traveling in the opposite direction the vehicle is going during a full revolution), the forward motion of the aircraft exceeds the rearward motion the rotor blade, resulting in the blade ceasing to be able to provide sufficient lift for the aircraft (as effectively it's going backwards). If the Bat were to exceed whatever its retreating blade stall limit is, it would fall out of the sky because it couldn't keep itself up. It's a fundamental limit of physics.Sande45 said:
The Bat would either be only half the blast radius away from Gotham because it's only going 200 kts, or it would have nosedived into Gotham's river because it lost all of its lift (thereby blowing up even more of the city)
Actually the idea of Batman ditching was the only issue mentioned in the thread that I didn't have a major problem with. At least with the Bat they established something about the autopilot being wonky early on, thereby hinting at its use later (you know the old adage "if you put a rifle on the mantel in the first act, you have to shoot someone with it in the third"). And there was certainly enough time between the lift up and the vehicle sweeping over the bridge for Batman to bail out without being seen. It's still a shaky explanation for the whole thing (How Batman learned to reprogram a helicopter and teach it to fly on it's own mystifies me a bit), but at least it's arguably plausible, and I find that if you can reasonably convince yourself that something could happen, it's usually going to work (outliers notwithstanding).Sande45 said:
Pretty ehhh film.
I liked the ending though, only time it felt like Batman.
(I'm talking about after the bomb goes off)
Seriously Batman is supposed to be a more capable character, in the last film the Joker pushed him to his limit BUT Batman was still able to hold his own.
Most of the film is Batman/Wayne getting his ass beat or following Red Herrings.
Only in the last 15 minutes did Batman all of a sudden become capable again.
I liked the ending though, only time it felt like Batman.
(I'm talking about after the bomb goes off)
Seriously Batman is supposed to be a more capable character, in the last film the Joker pushed him to his limit BUT Batman was still able to hold his own.
Most of the film is Batman/Wayne getting his ass beat or following Red Herrings.
Only in the last 15 minutes did Batman all of a sudden become capable again.
If you can't handle someone having an adverse opinion to something you like, you really need to get off of the forums. This is a completely legitimate topic.FalloutJack said:
As for the OP, I rather agree. Not gonna read that huge
I think the biggest thing that killed it though (and I'm not gonna bother marking spoilers since it's been made abundantly clear that this topic has spoilers) is that they completely cheapened Batman's sacrifice. Okay, so at first I was kind of taken aback by the idea of Batman dying, but it's the last movie, so whatever. He goes down heroically, saving millions of lives, and the people remembered him for it. I can dig that; kinda even justifies all the inconsistencies in the plot leading up to- oh, what's that random tech guy? The auto pilot that Batman himself said didn't work was actually fixed ages ago? So he lied to everyone important to him about his own death? And it's not like people didn't know who he was; everyone knew he was Bruce Wayne, he even dropped an obvious hint so that Gordon could figure it out.
The worst part? No one gave a fuck. If a close friend of mine went speeding down the road and slammed into a wall right in front of my eyes, I'd be devastated. I'd be crushed. If, a few weeks down the road, he suddenly pops into my living room and says "lawl cruise control, I dived out and have been just fine all this time". I'd fucking jump up and punch in him the face. How fucking dare he put me through all that for absolutely no reason; especially if you're gonna make it known that you're still alive. No, fuck that, you're dead to me; I've already gotten over my mourning phase, and fuck you if you expect me to have to deal with it all over again at some point in the future.
But when Batman does it, not only does Selina decide "Yeah sure, you're husband material", but Alfred, who had an entire scene dedicated to showing how crushed he was over this just kinda smiles when he sees that all that grief was for nothing. "Oh that Bruce, what a kidder". No, fuck that, I don't buy it. No one would mourn that hard and then just shrug it off when he sees that the person has been alive this whole time. Especially when the way he found out was from Bruce being in the exact place that he told him about earlier; like he's specifically saying "btw I'm not dead, good thing you were so crushed by what you thought was my sacrifice, right?"
Don't get me wrong, I get the intended symbolism of it. "Batman" is dead, so now he's quit for real and is just gonna live his life with Selina, but it still doesn't change the fact that he bold-facedly lied to everyone important to him - all of whom knew his identity - about him sacrificing himself, and no one was bothered when they found out it was all a lie? He couldn't just be straight with these people who have already been keeping the secret of his identity with the secret of "I'm not really dead, I'm just letting Batman be dead"?
Just... sorry, you had a fantastic "Hero sacrifices himself for the greater good" ending, Nolan; then you just kinda pissed all over it for the sake of trying to give the movie a "happy ending".
Shotgun Guy said:
*sigh* I've said this so many times before through so many threads, and yet it seems I'm going to have to say it again.trty00 said:
There is a difference between suspension of disbelief and self contradiction. Suspension of disbelief is when things that would normally be fantastical are established as real. So long as these fantastical things are used properly in terms of how they are described, then it is reasonable to be able to treat them like they are real. Self contradiction is when a something is established as one thing, but treated like it's another later on, thereby putting into question the validity of it within the story.
Let me show you a compare and contrast example of the two.
the 2007 Iron Man movie had some pretty fantastical things in it. A tiny reactor with energy enough to power a city. Rocket boosters that could propel things at high speeds and be overcharged to blow things away without ever burning the user. A high tech suit that could fly, take tank hits, and had an arsenal of weapons that would scare an entire platoon of soldiers.
But at no point in the film did any of these fantastical things deviate from the parameters that were established earlier on. The suit had an aerodynamic shape and control surfaces that reinforced the notion that it could fly and perform air combat maneuvers, and there literally was a scene that showed all the nooks and crannies of where the weapons were. The repulsors did exactly what was originally shown with them, and never pulled any stunts that went against that. Even the Arc Reactor did exactly what were told it could do and that's it. From beginning to end the fantastical stuff stayed consistent, and that made suspending my disbelief easy.
DKR on the other hand did not do this. They established that the reactor was a fusion reactor, a real life power source that is reknowned for being completely stable and incapable of exploding (quite literally so, as fusion reactors cannot self-sustain a charge. If any part of the system were tampered with, damaged, or in this case removed, the reactor would shut down and become inert effectively the instant that occurred). Then not a minute later the movie says that the reactor is capable of being turned into a weapon that would blow up after 5 months if it ever was disconnected. This directly contradicts what the reactor was established as.
Then they establish that the "bomb" yield would be equivalent to 4 megatons of TNT, which they say would have a 6 mile blast radius. Ignoring the fact that the 6 mile radius is too small by a whole mile and a half, they then make it so that Batman has to fly the "bomb" out of the city in one minute with a rotor lift aircraft, which physics tells us can't travel faster than roughly 200 kts (see post #85 of this thread to for the explanation as to why), meaning that given the parameters, Batman (under the most favourable conditions possible) could only have gotten the bomb a total of 3.33 miles before the bomb went off, meaning Gotham would have been blown to bits, and we're not even touching the fallout radius of the radiation from a nuclear device. So the whole idea of flying the bomb away (which need I remind you is the CLIMAX OF THE FILM) couldn't even remotely work.
This sort of stuff (and so much else) is why proper suspension of disbelief with DKR is nearly impossible. When the movie itself can't make up it's mind on how everything works, how am I be expected to be able to take at it's word?
Just out of curiosity, did you already know this while watching the film?[footnote]Too bad if you did. This isn't the type of thing most people know off the top of their head. I agree that they should have changed it but this isn't too much of a problem if you don't know the science behind it, it just becomes a plot point that is easy to go along with.[/footnote] Or was this just something you found out afterwards when you decided you didn't like the movie and began breaking it apart looking for flaws?The Heik said:
Uh...why? Why would it be fun to watch something people enjoy get destroyed?Soviet Heavy said:
OT: I dunno why, but none of these things bothered me. I just thought that this was a pretty good film, not as good as the Dark Knight, but still pretty good.
It would be a shame for the film if it was a bad movie, but I'd still have a blast listening to the fanboys pull a "you're stupid/entitled/ignorant/etc" on a scale that would make Mass Effect 3 look like child's play.erttheking said:
As someone who loathed the ending to ME3, I have no idea why you would want to go through that mess again.Soviet Heavy said:
I wouldn't participate, but being a spectator would be hilarious. Some people take the internets too seriously. I'm trying to stop caring so much.erttheking said:
The retreating blade stall specifically? At time of viewing, no I didn't. But I did know that Helicopters had a limit to how fast they could go (and I was doing calculations in my head during the movie over how fast something would need to go to get out of a 6 miles blast radius safely in one minute, I was pretty sure no rotor vehicle could break the sound barrier, which was needed in order to accomplish such a feat), and I discovered the RBS literally right after I had seen the movie (I wanted to make sure that I hadn't gotten it wrong and unfairly misjudged a pretty important plot point. I'm pretty finicky when it comes to getting information blatantly wrong). By the time I had started writing this thread and collecting my thoughts on the matter I was fully aware of RBS and the limits of it. There was simply to much being said in my OP that I didn't bother adding it in. Post was already 20 pretty substantial paragraphs long.Shotgun Guy said:
Though I consider your saying that many of the viewers not knowing about it and as such wouldn't notice would not care a fair assessment. But it still doesn't excuse the professional writers from making blatant mistakes like that. If I, a random person with no formal aerodynamics engineer training under my belt could figure out the specifics of what was wrong with the climax of the film within three minutes of getting home, then someone on the movie's staff was not earning their paycheck. And it's not like this is the only clear fuck up with the film. The entire script is filled with rookie mistake after rookie mistake, and considering this is a AAA title, that's a very suspicious thing to see. Almost makes me wonder if they didn't care what the story was because they knew the majority of the fans would watch it and love it anyway......
I agree OP. Here are some of the things that bothered me about the movie:
Long overview of my feelings:
Positives of the movie:
-Catwoman: I was VERY skeptical of Anne Hathaway's casting as catwoman, and I was pleasantly surprised how well she did in the role. Most of the scenes she was involved in were fun to watch(besides the obvious reasons), and her character brought much needed snark to a movie full of grim faced men spouting one-liners.
Batman's Fragility: Sure one could consider this faggy/emo depending on how its done in the movie, but Nolan did a good job conveying Batman's body breaking down. It makes batman easier to relate with compared to other super heroes, who usually jump from one climatic confrontation and movie to the next with no permanent bodily harms to deal with. Seeing Bruce hobble around with a cane and looking haggard was a nice touch. His first fight with Bane was brutal to watch with Batman fruitlessly trying to fight back before being taken down. It also gave the movie a sense of finality. Batman's sustained injuries drive home the point that Bruce couldn't continue his course as masked vigilante or he would break down.
Bane: While not as fun to watch as the joker, he was still a good villain. Tom Hardy's imposing presence permeated most of the scenes he was involved. He was a driving force for the first half of the movie, and when he gets relegated to the background(post-gotham takedown), is when the movie begins to falter. Perhaps the only thing that keeps him being great in my mind is the banality of this character. Joker was just as one dimensional but his exuberance kept him from being boring. Bane is just a serious badass who pounds the shit out of people. His connection to Talia gives him a little depth of character, but its never expanded beyond the fact he has unending devotion to a little girl for some reason. Funnily enough, the way he is dispatched relates to his role in the movie, which shows how little he is beyond his actions. Once Talia assumes the mantle of villain and he stops being the primary mover of events, he dies almost pathetically and the movie never acknowledges his presence again.
Negatives:
Pacing: It was hard for me to feel involved in the movie. Just when things feel like they're escalating, it jumps around to one of the various threads of plot, dragging down the frenetic pacing that drives these types of movies. We have so many characters and events, they don't exert enough presence in their screen time to feel of any real consequence. The movie oddly "hitches" after its middle, when batman and Gotham are taken down. It slows down to reflect on the effects of Bane's actions, and Batman rebuilding himself, even though we spent the entire movie setting up to this huge terrorist attack by bane. So we get a lot of bizarre scenes of Gotham in the attack's aftermath being ravaged and then strangely empty(?), and Batman training to leave the prison. Batman has to build himself up AGAIN despite spending half the movie doing so already. It doesn't help that the climax for all this damn build up is ridiculously contrived and anti-climatic.
Talia: I didn't like this character. Not only does she seem unnecessarily bland throughout most of the movie, her reveal didn't pack any punch for me. I didn't care who she was, and her sheer ambiguity makes her purely altruistic intentions suspicious, especially when destruction usually follows when she gets involved in things. I figured she had villainous intentions the way she dogged bruce wayne, and how she was involved with his "ZOMG ATOM BOMB PROJECT"(Bane following the board meeting giving Talia total control of the project: "Everything is going according to plan.")
Strange inconsistencies: Cops chase down suspects that go into the sewers, get blown away, the COMMISSIONER of police disappears and is recovered with a bullet wound in his leg, and all they can ask of his experience in the sewers is "are there any alligators down there?" What the fuck? I get that they didn't want to go down initially because of the gas leak, but didn't they recover the bodies with bullets riddled through them? Why NOT investigate the sewers regardless of whether or not you believe was gordon said? How the hell did batman get back from the prison in time, or even get in the city on lock down? He just shows up and tracks down catowoman? How did the ENTIRE police force get trapped in the tunnels? They just charge like retards en masse hoping there are no horrible traps awaiting them? Guess that would explain them charging like retards into automatic gunfire at the end of the movie. Fistfights are cooler than gunfights though, eh? How the hell did batman get out of the six mile blast radius of a nuclear weapon with so little time left? Did he write his awesum will while he flying out to the ocean as well?
Climax: The dark knight had plenty of inconsistencies as well, but it didn't get so goofy towards the end. Well, the boat and batman vs. joker scenes were retarded, but at least Harvey's rampage and Batman's final decision left an impression. DKR just has really retarded cops charging gunfire, multitudes of cheesy lines, pointless twists(talia), and a sacrifice that is ultimately meaningless.
Long overview of my feelings:
Positives of the movie:
-Catwoman: I was VERY skeptical of Anne Hathaway's casting as catwoman, and I was pleasantly surprised how well she did in the role. Most of the scenes she was involved in were fun to watch(besides the obvious reasons), and her character brought much needed snark to a movie full of grim faced men spouting one-liners.
Batman's Fragility: Sure one could consider this faggy/emo depending on how its done in the movie, but Nolan did a good job conveying Batman's body breaking down. It makes batman easier to relate with compared to other super heroes, who usually jump from one climatic confrontation and movie to the next with no permanent bodily harms to deal with. Seeing Bruce hobble around with a cane and looking haggard was a nice touch. His first fight with Bane was brutal to watch with Batman fruitlessly trying to fight back before being taken down. It also gave the movie a sense of finality. Batman's sustained injuries drive home the point that Bruce couldn't continue his course as masked vigilante or he would break down.
Bane: While not as fun to watch as the joker, he was still a good villain. Tom Hardy's imposing presence permeated most of the scenes he was involved. He was a driving force for the first half of the movie, and when he gets relegated to the background(post-gotham takedown), is when the movie begins to falter. Perhaps the only thing that keeps him being great in my mind is the banality of this character. Joker was just as one dimensional but his exuberance kept him from being boring. Bane is just a serious badass who pounds the shit out of people. His connection to Talia gives him a little depth of character, but its never expanded beyond the fact he has unending devotion to a little girl for some reason. Funnily enough, the way he is dispatched relates to his role in the movie, which shows how little he is beyond his actions. Once Talia assumes the mantle of villain and he stops being the primary mover of events, he dies almost pathetically and the movie never acknowledges his presence again.
Negatives:
Pacing: It was hard for me to feel involved in the movie. Just when things feel like they're escalating, it jumps around to one of the various threads of plot, dragging down the frenetic pacing that drives these types of movies. We have so many characters and events, they don't exert enough presence in their screen time to feel of any real consequence. The movie oddly "hitches" after its middle, when batman and Gotham are taken down. It slows down to reflect on the effects of Bane's actions, and Batman rebuilding himself, even though we spent the entire movie setting up to this huge terrorist attack by bane. So we get a lot of bizarre scenes of Gotham in the attack's aftermath being ravaged and then strangely empty(?), and Batman training to leave the prison. Batman has to build himself up AGAIN despite spending half the movie doing so already. It doesn't help that the climax for all this damn build up is ridiculously contrived and anti-climatic.
Talia: I didn't like this character. Not only does she seem unnecessarily bland throughout most of the movie, her reveal didn't pack any punch for me. I didn't care who she was, and her sheer ambiguity makes her purely altruistic intentions suspicious, especially when destruction usually follows when she gets involved in things. I figured she had villainous intentions the way she dogged bruce wayne, and how she was involved with his "ZOMG ATOM BOMB PROJECT"(Bane following the board meeting giving Talia total control of the project: "Everything is going according to plan.")
Strange inconsistencies: Cops chase down suspects that go into the sewers, get blown away, the COMMISSIONER of police disappears and is recovered with a bullet wound in his leg, and all they can ask of his experience in the sewers is "are there any alligators down there?" What the fuck? I get that they didn't want to go down initially because of the gas leak, but didn't they recover the bodies with bullets riddled through them? Why NOT investigate the sewers regardless of whether or not you believe was gordon said? How the hell did batman get back from the prison in time, or even get in the city on lock down? He just shows up and tracks down catowoman? How did the ENTIRE police force get trapped in the tunnels? They just charge like retards en masse hoping there are no horrible traps awaiting them? Guess that would explain them charging like retards into automatic gunfire at the end of the movie. Fistfights are cooler than gunfights though, eh? How the hell did batman get out of the six mile blast radius of a nuclear weapon with so little time left? Did he write his awesum will while he flying out to the ocean as well?
Climax: The dark knight had plenty of inconsistencies as well, but it didn't get so goofy towards the end. Well, the boat and batman vs. joker scenes were retarded, but at least Harvey's rampage and Batman's final decision left an impression. DKR just has really retarded cops charging gunfire, multitudes of cheesy lines, pointless twists(talia), and a sacrifice that is ultimately meaningless.
Yep, I think most people aren't too interested in the science behind how the tech works, I can understand being bothered by it in a movie like this that is trying to seem grounded and plausible. I guess it just doesn't bother me that much but I understand why it could. I think you may be right in saying that most fans would love it anyway so there is no need to fix it but it does strike me as odd that they wouldn't have someone fact check the script, then again I really don't know how Hollywood handles that sort of stuff. Maybe Christopher Nolan is the type of guy that you don't ever try to correct.The Heik said:
I'm not going to make excuses for Nolan's crew and everything. But, When you have a set budget and time frame to do certain things. There is not all ways time to sit down and examine the science and feasibility behind such elements. Even if the script was changed during a rewrite they would have to set aside new money just to shoot the scene. Studios only give so much slack for movies and I'm sure they wanted to hit the Summer 2012 schedule. It all factors down to time and money. Sometimes you have to break your own lore and rules just to get things down and it won't always be the right way.The Heik said:
Gooooooood can we please bury this fucking word? I'm so unbelievably fucking tired of "fanboy". Find another way to make your point. I don't even know if I disagree with you, as I'm not even sure what your argument is supposed to be here, because you just keep puking up the word "fanboy" and giggling like a 12 year old about how exciting it would be to read through a flame fest, and it's giving me hives. "Fanboy" has become the laziest, stupidest ad hominem imaginable. It is now completely worthless as a word from being run into the ground, and it says more negative things about the person employing it than the hypothetical "fanboy" he's meant to be assailing.Soviet Heavy said:
Find a new word.
PLEASE.
No, everything he's complaining about was NOT explained in the movie, for heavens sake. Really? REALLY? I enjoyed the film tremendously, but it was hand waving the details like a ************. It didn't "explain" ANYTHING.SpiderJerusalem said:
Okay fine. Different word: Idiot. Obsessed. Moron. Person who thinks everyone else's opinion is wrong and if they do not all conform than the dissenting opinions must be trolls because nobody could possibly be stupid enough to disagree with their OBVIOUSLY CORRECT opinion.BloatedGuppy said:
Does that make it easier? If you still can't understand my point, I'll put it in the simplest terms I can.
If The Dark Knight Rises turned out to be shit, I would sit back and enjoy the biggest internet shitstorm in modern history, one that would put the Mass Effect 3 debacle to shame. I would laugh at all the people who would use increasingly outlandish excuses to defend the film. I would mock the people who shout "entitlement!" and "you're just being negative to attract attention!"
I would be content in knowing that, even if the film sucked, it would provide me with entertainment for months.
Why is everyone suddenly saying that Bruce lived? I thought it was implied that Alfred was just fantasizing about it. There's no way Bruce lived from that explosion. So common sense says that he's dead and that whole thing is a fantasy Alfred imagined due to his sadness of Bruce being dead.