Last movies you saw

[Angrist]

Oh well, whatever we call it, the movie was full of it.

And why are these villains so retarded?
- Some woman wants to blow up the whole city.... but she gives her enemies enough time to stop her.
- They trap all the city's police men underground for 3 months... but they keep them so well fed, shaved and trained that they're ready to fight when they get out.
- They carry guns, but don't know how to use them. But where's the fun in a gun if you can just get knocked out in hand2hand combat? Again: gotta give those good guys a chance!

I know that's the case in basically every action (hero) movie, but I've never seen it so frustating as in this movie.
Anyway, I better stop now, because I know there are a lot of TDK fans here and I don't want to annoy anyone.

[Seth]

No Angrist, you are not alone in your sentiments.

It was probably the most squeamish/irritated/embarrassed moment I have ever experienced when the trapped cops got out to fight the baddies. It was so intolerably awful that I could only laugh.

Inexcusable is the right word to use.

The production value and use of scene development was top notch however. Nolan is an amazing director in terms of giving a shit about the blockbuster genre. He actually puts the effort in and I appreciate that much.

I do regret supporting it at the box office though.

The whole social commentary thing that carried over from TDK and the terrorist element has become a hoary excuse to shape the perceptions of kids a whole lot younger than us who don't have the full capacity to segment this type of fiction appropriately.

I'm interested in seeing Killing Them Softly because it sounds like 'extreme violence' being used as a metaphor-device, commenting on the post-bailout America in terms of repercussions. Capitalist 'look out for yourself' resulting in the further shredding of social fabric. Or, it's just a violence gappa that drew Pitt in with a paycheck?

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Angrist

The original term deus ex machina comes from Greek theatre. Whenever the plot was at a dead point or the writers couldn't come up with anything interesting, they'd introduce a God (deus) that suddenly changed something. They lowered him onto the stage with a crane (machina).

So the term deus ex machina can apply to persons, story elements, plot twists, etc.
Think of somebody returning to the screen, even though you watched him die in one episode. Or a bit of extra info that changes the whole story. Random stuff like that.
Or a love interest suddenly turning out to be the daughter of your arch enemy.

The auto pilot of the Bat (hey, I remembered the name!) turning out to have worked all along, even though you saw Batman sitting in the Bat when he flew out to sea is another good example.

Anyway, that's what I was taught what deus ex machina means.

The Bat is another element that they build up throughout the course of the film.
And even give the audience a hint, hint, wink wink at Bruce being able to fix it.

I believe Lucious says something like a smarter mind.. or a less busy mind would be able to fix it
During the closing montage, you learn that Bruce pretty much fixed the autopilot as soon as he got The Bat

The bigger complaint would be WHEN did he exit the Bat exactly.

- Some woman wants to blow up the whole city.... but she gives her enemies enough time to stop her.

I assume you mean the climax?
During the entire film, Bane beats it over the audience's head that he isn't blowing up the bomb right away because he wants to give people "hope" So it's a city-wide torture of sorts.

- They trap all the city's police men underground for 3 months... but they keep them so well fed, shaved and trained that they're ready to fight when they get out.

This I agree with you.. Odd that they were in good fighting shape and spirits after spending 3 months underground..
Would imagine their vision has to be a bit screwy as well.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

I assume you mean the climax?
During the entire film, Bane beats it over the audience's head that he isn't blowing up the bomb right away because he wants to give people "hope" So it's a city-wide torture of sorts.

It's not about blowing things up...it's about sending a message.

This I agree with you.. Odd that they were in good fighting shape and spirits after spending 3 months underground..
Would imagine their vision has to be a bit screwy as well.

These are the kinds of things I never think of while watching a movie, or ever seem to care about.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

It's not about blowing things up...it's about sending a message.




These are the kinds of things I never think of while watching a movie, or ever seem to care about.

I don't either.
It's only a problem if it actively pulls me out of the experience.
In this case, it pulled Angrist out of the experience, which I guess is fair.

[Seth]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

I don't either.
It's only a problem if it actively pulls me out of the experience.
In this case, it pulled Angrist out of the experience, which I guess is fair.

Quite fair. Watching the cops charge automatic rifles like they're 4th century Spartans should elicit some cringe from even the most audacious-escapiers in the audience.


[Argo semi-spoiler in this following paragraph]
It's like watching a movie such as, say, Argo, and then near the climatic attempt to flee the country, Affleck's character starts to Rambo-dance with all the gunmen and then grabs the two ambassador women, flings them across his shoulders respectively and continues to gun down Iranian gruntmen and then proceeds to 'get this thing off the ground' by kicking out the pilots and fullthrottling the jet without take-off clearance: all to the music of MJ's "Thriller".

Pretty much what Nolan did in TDKR with the culmination-debacle that capped off a 'realistic' conception of HIS Gotham. The pussification of Bane into a love-bound hound who's sole motivation wasn't entwined in Ras-Philosophy but instead a quest to seek revenge on the killer of his love's dadda.
pffffffff what was he smoking with this ending?

Did I miss something? Why the collective scape-goat of a city? Because it would hurt the Bat? Make him feel like a failure as protectorate?

Seems like such a social-bent hollywood-trope statement that destroyed the possibilities that a fairly well done TDK established (at least in terms of hero-adaption genre fair).

bad taste in mouth

[Teuthida]

The number one thing that took me out of the movie was the fire bat on the bridge. When did he even have the time to do that?

Heh. Didn't realize acting out Marion's death was a thing.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

The number one thing that took me out of the movie was the fire bat on the bridge. When did he even have the time to do that?

Heh. Didn't realize acting out Marion's death was a thing.

Oh I knew about the death and really hard to ignore once you see

As for the fire bat thing. It's one of those scenes when it's value/visual outweighed the nonsensical happenstance for it.

Batman arrives back in Gotham and one of the first thing he does is create a gasoline powered Bat signal on a bridge

Which can only be triggered by police officers who have been exiled to death on the ice
He puts the flare out in such a way that there was no guarantee they wouldn't sink/drown before they made it there.

But it's a cool visual.. and serves a thematic purpose.
So I allow it.

[Angrist]

Batman is trying too hard to be a serious movie. If you want to make a realistic movie about super heroes, you are bound to run into trouble.

Now The Avengers went the other route and it works so much better. And when there's something unrealistic or unlogical, you just accept it because it's a movie about comic book characters.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Angrist

Batman is trying too hard to be a serious movie. If you want to make a realistic movie about super heroes, you are bound to run into trouble.

Now The Avengers went the other route and it works so much better. And when there's something unrealistic or unlogical, you just accept it because it's a movie about comic book characters.

I agree with your overall point, but I think there's a difference between grounded and realistic.

This franchise is grounded. Not necessarily realistic. You are still dealing with a clan of trained ninjas, a guy in clown make-up, a hero who dresses up as a bat, a dude who created fear gas and all that other stuff. Just set in a much more conventional world.

[Teuthida]

I have no problem with all those things you mentioned. They're pretty toned down anyway to make them "realistic." Except it doesn't do the movies any favors by toning down the comic book elements while having unrealistic acting and grand nonsensical villainous plots. It's a weird halfway mess.

[Seth]

[KillerGremlin]

I thought TDKR was as much of a Nolan film as it was a Batman film.

The fact is...we've had campy and fun Batman. Batman and Batman Returns are good films...Batman Forever and Batman & Robin are not good films.

So you take the good with the bad....these new films are incredibly well done, in my opinion. And some of it is a bit over-the-top, and some of it is a bit pandering...and it's not all canon. But it works for the most part.

I thought the "fire batman symbol on the bridge" was very comic-book-esque, and that worked for me.

The cops being underground for 3 months didn't bother me. Also very comic-y, imo.

Bane's speech at the stadium was a bit over-the-top, for me. His voice was fucking perfect though. I thought Bane's personality was great.

The ending wasn't as good as the rest of the film...and fell way short of The Dark Knight...but A LOT OF MOVIES fall apart in the end. I think you could argue that Bane was sort of screwed over. I thought it was a Nolan ending, and not a "Batman" ending.

I can overlook the hokey social commentary on terrorism and conservatism and all that stuff, because who gives a shit. I go into these movies with a comic geek boner, and tend to ignore most of the social commentary unless it's relevant to beliefs I already have. These ARE violent movies, and I probably wouldn't take young kids to them.

I think there are clear tradeoffs with the Nolan franchise. On one hand, the movie isn't quite the comic experience as say: The Amazing Spider-Man, The Avengers, Hellboy, Sin City, or even Iron Man.

On the other hand...the Nolan franchise does some stuff that blows those other movies away.

This summer was good for comics. The Amazing Spider-Man had the best of both worlds....The Avengers was all comic book, and Batman was more of a Nolan movie than a comic. Between these 3 films, I think anyone can find something to like. Unless you are a dick.

[Angrist]

The funny thing is, I never read comics (and tbh I think most of them are more silly than cool), but I loved The Avengers best.

[Teuthida]