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.
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:Except that Nolan wanted this versiob to BE taken seriously and acording to this people, it failed.Blood Brain Barrier said:It's a superhero film, stop taking it so seriously.
I thought it was fun, and I'm someone who think Batman sucks.
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: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:Except that Nolan wanted this versiob to BE taken seriously and acording to this people, it failed.Blood Brain Barrier said:It's a superhero film, stop taking it so seriously.
I thought it was fun, and I'm someone who think Batman sucks.
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:About the nuclear bomb...
As already said, the whole thing is hypothetical because it doesn't really exist (yet). Who are we to say how it should work? Maybe the proper execution of fusion power at that time required some system or technology that made things work the way they did. Holding this against the movie is really far-fetched.
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:And the batwing...
It does have some kind of jet engines on the sides (click [http://www.mtv.com/movies/photos/d/dark_knight_rises_set_110801/dark_knight_rises_set_aug_11/b_batwing.jpg]), so who knows, maybe it can get up to several hundred MPH when it can stretch its legs and go full speed.
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:And Batman surviving...
Maybe he ditched Batwing and used his Batachute before he even left dry land. I don't really remember how the scene was cut but anyway he could have bailed almost at any point, so bitching about this is pointless.
A lot of the complaints in this thread are solid, but (especially) these felt like someone was looking for errors for the sake of looking for errors.
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:Well, thank goodness we're all too busy enjoying the film to think about it. Oh wait, I guess that's not the case here. My question: Is this really worth the forum's time?
Shotgun Guy said:Not sure if author thought he was watching a summer blockbuster or an extremely technical documentary...
It's called suspension of disbelief, you should have realized you didn't have any before you bought your ticket, a few of those things crossed my mind but they honestly didn't bother me because I didn't let them. It's a valuable skill to learn.
*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:I... had absolutely NONE of these problems. I loved this movie. I didn't think it was as good as The Dark Knight, but I still thought it was fantastic. I think you need to work on your suspension of disbelief.
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: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.
Uh...why? Why would it be fun to watch something people enjoy get destroyed?Soviet Heavy said:You know, part of me wishes that this movie actually sucked ass, because if the amount of fanboys bitching about suspension of disbelief and how stupid people are for having more critical views of the film is so great now, imagine how many more insecure people there would be if the film actually sucked.
It would be glorious watching the fanboys shit themselves trying to justify their views and discredit anyone with a negative opinion.
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:Uh...why? Why would it be fun to watch something people enjoy get destroyed?Soviet Heavy said:You know, part of me wishes that this movie actually sucked ass, because if the amount of fanboys bitching about suspension of disbelief and how stupid people are for having more critical views of the film is so great now, imagine how many more insecure people there would be if the film actually sucked.
It would be glorious watching the fanboys shit themselves trying to justify their views and discredit anyone with a negative opinion.
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.
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: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:Uh...why? Why would it be fun to watch something people enjoy get destroyed?Soviet Heavy said:You know, part of me wishes that this movie actually sucked ass, because if the amount of fanboys bitching about suspension of disbelief and how stupid people are for having more critical views of the film is so great now, imagine how many more insecure people there would be if the film actually sucked.
It would be glorious watching the fanboys shit themselves trying to justify their views and discredit anyone with a negative opinion.
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.
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: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: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:Uh...why? Why would it be fun to watch something people enjoy get destroyed?Soviet Heavy said:You know, part of me wishes that this movie actually sucked ass, because if the amount of fanboys bitching about suspension of disbelief and how stupid people are for having more critical views of the film is so great now, imagine how many more insecure people there would be if the film actually sucked.
It would be glorious watching the fanboys shit themselves trying to justify their views and discredit anyone with a negative opinion.
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.
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: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: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.
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: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'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: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: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: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.
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......
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: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.
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:The OP seems to have not even been watching the movie properly, or then just being too focused on thinking what he's going to be complaining about. Everything he's complaining about was explained in the movie, was thematically sound and only required you to pay attention instead of spoon feeding you everything.
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: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: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.
Find a new word.
PLEASE.