quote:

ORIGINAL: Prawnman

quote:

ORIGINAL: FoximusPrime

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prawnman

As I said I didn't notice it myself, I didn't pick up on it. As for Blake, he came from nowhere and seemed to have sussed everything, one of the first things he says to Gordon is that the Dent thing was fishy, Gordon seems impressed by it rather than wondering who the hell this bloke is who has just turned up on the rooftop. In fact Gordon seems to have lost all common sense, sending every single cop into a tunnel and leaving the whole city exposed is an action of someone who wouldn't be in the job very long and might have lost his mind, like carrying around a written speech that could destroy his career and cripple the city. Convoluted. As is leaving an atomic bomb under the city like Fox did, a man previously who got his nickers in a twist about Batman being able to spy on everyone. These are massive leaps in character logic, then they just come across as if they have all had some kind of breakdown or been beaten with the stupid stick for 8 years.

I don't think its about spelling things out for us, its about making sense, as someone said you can ignore how Bruce got back to Gotham but how the hell did he get in with every bridge down and his only utility a piece of rope. More to the point, how come as soon as he gets there (when we have a ticking atomic bomb, time running out and all that) decide to spend his time (one man) to go up a building and perfectly produce a 100ft batsign in petrol for him to light up. It would have taken him months to do that on his own, even with a 100 man crew at least a few weeks. I'm back! But before I save the city I must make it clear that I'm back with this symbol of justice in fire......oh hang on.....my body is crocked and I've already been beaten, should I really let everyone know that I'm on their case? Yeah, it will look cool.

But isn't the bat logo on the bridge symbolic of Batman becoming the legend that was intended, striking fear into his enemies who thought he was broken, both physically and psychologically? That sort of thing isn't there as a literal device but as a metaphor for the fire (within Bruce) having risen. If you want an explanation of the logistics behind it, maybe he used the Bat to precision spray a load petrol in a short space of time? Personally, the 'why' doesn't bug me but I get that it grinds some people's gears.

I doubt very much that he had only a piece of rope with which to enter Gotham since Wayne Manor lies far outside the city, so it's most likely that he flew in either by gliding or in the Bat and stowed his equipment somewhere while he walked around incognito to get the lay of the land, not wanting to tip anyone off about Batman's return.

Gordon was impressed by Blake - maybe he reminded him of himself as a rookie or maybe he already knew about his detection skills and was considering recruiting him to the MCU, feigning ignorance when he asked his name and testing him.

His decision to send every cop underground was possibly a bit risky, but nobody suspected about the explosives until Blake discovered them too late. Gordon himself had seen Bane's army so maybe he knew the police outnumbered them (the numbers were swelled by the end by the freed Blackgate inmates).

As for the career-ending speech? Gordon's family had left him and the guilt was getting unbearable - the passage read out by Bane said as much since Harvey tried to kill his son yet the Commissioner has spent eight years deifying him for the "greater good". He wrote that he was resigning with immediate effect, so it was only a last second change of heart that led him to pocket the speech instead of read it out. Of course, he may have written it down only as a means of catharsis with no intention of reading it out.

I agree with the earlier poster who pointed out that the reason for Fox's ethical stance over TDK's sonar machine was the infringement of people's privacy (which served that film's war on terror allegory), whereas the reactor under the city was a) not switched on because of b) the research that was published a couple of months / years earlier, but after it was already built, that there was the potential for weaponisation (which was why Bruce lost half of his fortune during those eight years). Had that potential not come to light, it's implied that the reactor technology and theory was perfectly safe for its intended use and had sufficient safeties in place. I assume the plan was to flood the chamber in the event of a meltdown so as to cool it down. I don't know what Fox was planning on doing if they were able to get the weaponised core to the unflooded chamber towards the end of the film of course, but then I'm no expert on nuclear fusion! Ultimately, the reactor / bomb served as a means to create a nihilistic Gotham before Batman brought hope back to the City.

Back to The Bat, every time there was a tricky situation to get out of, out they roll the The Bat. I guess he parked the The Bat outside Gotham so he could just fly in, he probably just whistled and The Bat came and picked him up from India or where ever. The Bat was the great get out of jail card. As for Gordon and the career ending speech, it would have been. The man would basically put an end to "peace time" in a really selfish act. He would have been happy to put an end to peaceful city (and make the whole of the TDK pretty much redundant) for his own motorvations. I mean what purpose would it have served? Revenge? Batman was at the time hobbling around in his room so what was the point. The only reason the letter was in the film was to serve it up to Bane at a later point.

I'm sorry but even in its test stage, you wouldn't leave a nuclear bomb under a majorly populated city, thats just really dumb.

I'm really not hating on the film for the sake of it, I watched BB, TDK and TDKR one after each other (the first two are both great films) but this was a mess that defied logic (or its own boundaries and rules), went against the characters it had set up, crippled the main character and forced its way from plot point A to plot point B in any which way it could. That was the main problem with the script, it was stuck between trying to be a character piece where the Superhero is more or less a cripple, ram as many characters in as possible with meaning, have a underlying social commentary, and try and fit some action in there too. It was bloated and didn't do any of the above very well in the slightest IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tombaker

Just a thing that stuck with me after watching this brilliant movie...
Near the end someone says to Wayne if he thinks his powerful friend is coming, was this a reference to Superman or did i miss something?
I instantly thought of Superman so it wouldn't be impossible if he saved Batman from the explosion right? Thoughts anyone?

quote:

  Someone else has already pointed out that Bruce Wayne wouldn't need the Bat to get back from the pit in the indeterminate country - he was a billionaire who was ordering cowl components in their thousands through dummy companies - it's more than likely that he had access to funds or fake IDs, or even used his League of Shadows training to stow away on a boat or plane. It took him three weeks after all. And I mentioned in an earlier post that he wouldn't have needed to park any of his vehicles or equipment outside the city just in case - he lives outside the city so the Bat, costumes, tools, etc. were all in the cave beneath Wayne Manor. If his new toy was the best tool for the job, why not use it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

And you'd think after the accountant finding him out in TDK, the one thing they'd have done is hide the off-book money a whole lot better too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KeithM


Some of my problems in more detail (SPOILERS):

Bane? "Gotham must be destroyed mwuah ha ha haaah" (little finger inserted into mouth)? So how did the master strategist who it turns out is only a flunky meet his end? He got shot. Batman's entire philosophy shown to be empty and worthless. Guns ARE the answer after all... Batman also shot and killed at least one guy with his cannons (the driver of the truck Marion was in). So, a murdering hypocrite too.

Oh any why exactly must Gotham be destroyed? Surely Batman and Gordon had fulfilled the League's remit and cleaned up the uncleanable? So what if it was predicated upon a lie? The League permit any means to fulfil their goal, including mass murder, so a little lie wouldn't clash with their philosophy at all. Yeah I get it that it was actually revenge motivated, and it was all about consequences, but if the League is being used as the stick to make the point, why wasn't more made of the fact that, however attained, Gotham WAS cleaned up. [frick] Dent. Their priorities should have been elsewhere - to wherever the next Gotham/Gomorrah is. Say, Rapid City... Now - and this is a fanboy thing I'll admit - if you're going to use a fictional, made-up city* why not use a DC one? Would it have hurt to have played Metropolis, or Central City, or Star City? Apart from Metropolis it would have largely passed unnoticed by most, but it would have been a nice nod to the fans (ok that was nerd-nitpicky, but it could so easily have been nerd-pleasing without detracting anything).

*there is a real Rapid City, Dakota, but my mostly irrelevant point stands.

Anyway, add 'confused motivations for the villains' to the list (like was Ras Al Ghul's death broadcast on National TV? How would she know all this? That Batman foiled Ras' plot and his subsequent death is known, but how and the specifics of Ras' death and Batman's degree of direct involvement could not be...) Nor could they have known that Dent's death story was a lie until they discovered Gordon's 'confession'. None of that was satisfactorily explained. Suspicions are one thing, but there was too much assumed knowledge for my liking (like Blake's explanation of how he knew Wayne was Batman - because his smile was fake when he visited the orphanage? Hmm. Yet to Gordon it comes as a total surprise? No.)

How did he get from the Pit back to Gotham? With no money? (Not to mention how he got back onto a locked down Gotham island, without his contacts, toys or money). Why did he trust Marion in the first place? I know he was under pressure, but for someone who's shown to be extremely paranoid, he doesn't do the simplest background check? Some World's Greatest Detective he turns out to be. Turns out that outsmarting Bruce Wayne isn't that hard.

Why did none of the cops have beards and how come they were full of fight and energy after emerging from the sewers after more than 3 months? How long does it take to recover from a broken back btw? Coupla days? Weeks? Bit longer...?

Oh look, here's Alfred. Wonder if he's going to blub. Yep, sure does. Every time he's on screen the film grinds to a halt - gone is the hardened ex-soldier with pearls of grim wisdom, to be replaced by soppy old geezer who bursts into tears at every opportunity.

What was the top speed of that copter? At what point did he switch the auto-pilot on* and jump out and how did he get clear once he did? The blast radius of the bomb was 6 miles... you do the math.



Reboot!

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I've found it a bit baffling - one of the few things I've not been bothered about is how he got back., given in Batman Begins he'd been wondering the world off the grid for years.

And you'd think after the accountant finding him out in TDK, the one thing they'd have done is hide the off-book money a whole lot better too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild about Wilder

As also anyone who knows the comics knows that there was 2 storys used here Knightfall & Cataclysm,

quote:

ORIGINAL: pete_traynor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild about Wilder

As also anyone who knows the comics knows that there was 2 storys used here Knightfall & Cataclysm,

3. Ever read Cult?

A subterranean society, Batman being captured, city takeover by a fanatic and policemen being strung up in public are in that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Cult

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I've found it a bit baffling - one of the few things I've not been bothered about is how he got back., given in Batman Begins he'd been wondering the world off the grid for years.

And you'd think after the accountant finding him out in TDK, the one thing they'd have done is hide the off-book money a whole lot better too.

Yeah same here. Him getting back didn't bother me at all, I'm really not sure why anyone would think this is a plot hole as it was demonstrated clearly in the first film that he's a resourceful guy. I mean he's Batman for fuck sake.

My main issues with the film are the bomb disposal and susequent escape (not enough time and to a lesser extent little details like how did he get back to shore considering his injury, where was he treated considering he was legally dead?? etc) and the recovery from the back injury seeming to negate his dodgy knee. These are pretty minor things but they really pulled me out of the film. There's nothing that undermines tension and breaks disbelief quite like a voice calling bullshit in the back of your head.

quote:

ORIGINAL: talpacino

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I've found it a bit baffling - one of the few things I've not been bothered about is how he got back., given in Batman Begins he'd been wondering the world off the grid for years.

And you'd think after the accountant finding him out in TDK, the one thing they'd have done is hide the off-book money a whole lot better too.

Yeah same here. Him getting back didn't bother me at all, I'm really not sure why anyone would think this is a plot hole as it was demonstrated clearly in the first film that he's a resourceful guy. I mean he's Batman for fuck sake.

My main issues with the film are the bomb disposal and susequent escape (not enough time and to a lesser extent little details like how did he get back to shore considering his injury, where was he treated considering he was legally dead?? etc) and the recovery from the back injury seeming to negate his dodgy knee. These are pretty minor things but they really pulled me out of the film. There's nothing that undermines tension and breaks disbelief quite like a voice calling bullshit in the back of your head.

Yeah, him getting back to Gotham seems to be a big problem for a lot of people but I'm good with it. In one scene, Lucius mentions that the core will explode in 23 days, the very next scene we see Wayne's second attempt to escape which he fails and then he goes for a kip and tries again and succeeds. When we see him next in Gotham with Selina, it's mentioned that the core will explode the next day so that's a good 3 weeks he has taken getting back. Let's just assume he has contacts out in the world and money in other accounts, it's no big deal really. Selina also says something along the lines of she wants to get off the island and Wayne says if she gets him to Fox, he'll show her a way. Safe to say he has a decent knowledge of the city and has a sneaky way in.

People also seem to have a problem with him going looking for Bane knowing he's a big bastard. People are saying that Wayne isn't that stupid and should know better. It's just pure arrogance on Wayne's part. He says to Alfred, "I beat Ra's, he was the league of shadows. Bane is just a mercenary."

Similarly, people have a problem with all the cops going after Batman just after the stock exchange escape and letting the lads on the bikes go. This is just arrogance on Matthew Modine's part. He just wants to be the big man and take down batman. "I'm going to do what Gordon couldn't." JGL even asks should we not even send a few cars after them and he responds with something like, who's more important, a few crooks or the man who killed Harvey Dent?

Regarding the bomb going off at the end. We don't see him for around the last 7 seconds. Let's just assume the Bat has an amazing ejection and he gets clear in that time.
We also only see him up close in a black cockpit before then. Who knows? Maybe the cockpit was the escape pod and he's already floating off at that point while the autopilot does the rest. That explains that, everything's good right? Come at me! I can fill all your plot holes!

Anyway, I loved it. Flawed yes but it's probably closer to perfect for me than the first 2.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild about Wilder

A few things irked me like why Bane never used the Venom toxin (now that would've been something awsome to see!) or that it was never even mentioned, also anyone who knows the comics knows that there was 2 storys used here Knightfall & Cataclysm, also the bit at the end with Levitt was a little bit sugary & would've liked to see a bit more of Alfred who seemed to go A.W.O.L.
9/10

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barry Bethal


The other fundamental issue with the film, which is causing debate regarding plot holes is that there is a requirement on the audience to 'assume' a lot of things, even in rose-tinted responses to some of the huge plot holes, people are saying "I just assumed x or just assumed y". I'm not one for needing every little detail spoon fed to me but there are some scenes required as a minimum to show some inherent logic - whether it be real-life logic or movie logic. Prime example - how Bruce got back, it's such a plot hole because they haven't even bothered to explain/show Bruce making a call to e.g. Donald Trump and cadging a lift in on his private jet and sneaking over on one of the supply conveys (another assumption?!) allowed to enter the city.

I don't mean to antagonise anyone here, but If we are supposed to fill in lots of blanks and assume it's not a plot hole "because he's Batman", then why bother showing him in the pit then, just show him get dropped off there by Bane and then rocking up afterwards lighting his Banksy artwork up on the bridge!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barry Bethal

I think one of the fundamental issues the film has is that it was made prior to/the same time as the London riots and released afterwards, therefore as an audience (UK anyway) we have a reference point for what was supposedly going to be conveyed in the film - which frankly, isn't shown ... at all.

By that, I mean that when I read the synopsis for the film I had images in my head of plot threads of ordinary folk looting and rioting etc. Some people turning to crime and some people maintaining their will power (for lack of a better word) and crowding around supply trucks for food etc. All we actually saw was some released prisoner's rioting, looting, holding kangaroo courts and, I assume, all the ordinary folk hiding behind their chairs at home.

We had the rich persons perspective, we had the police perspective (3x including Gordon, Blake and Modine's character?!!), we had the hardened criminals and borderline criminals perspective and absolutely no ordinary folks perspective.

The other fundamental issue with the film, which is causing debate regarding plot holes is that there is a requirement on the audience to 'assume' a lot of things, even in rose-tinted responses to some of the huge plot holes, people are saying "I just assumed x or just assumed y". I'm not one for needing every little detail spoon fed to me but there are some scenes required as a minimum to show some inherent logic - whether it be real-life logic or movie logic. Prime example - how Bruce got back, it's such a plot hole because they haven't even bothered to explain/show Bruce making a call to e.g. Donald Trump and cadging a lift in on his private jet and sneaking over on one of the supply conveys (another assumption?!) allowed to enter the city.

I don't mean to antagonise anyone here, but If we are supposed to fill in lots of blanks and assume it's not a plot hole "because he's Batman", then why bother showing him in the pit then, just show him get dropped off there by Bane and then rocking up afterwards lighting his Banksy artwork up on the bridge!

While we're at it I can also assume that Juno Temple's character suddenly went missing because she was brutally killed by Selina as she was sick of her lesbian advances all the time ... I'll assume this is perfectly legit as I don't need 'spoon feeding' the info and it's only a movie!

I said in a previous post, I take it the production team doesn't bother to critique the script/storyboard because those two points are only a fraction of what I would be pointing out to the Nolan Sisters.

quote:



Yeah same here. Him getting back didn't bother me at all, I'm really not sure why anyone would think this is a plot hole as it was demonstrated clearly in the first film that he's a resourceful guy. I mean he's Batman for fuck sake.

My main issues with the film are the bomb disposal and susequent escape (not enough time and to a lesser extent little details like how did he get back to shore considering his injury, where was he treated considering he was legally dead?? etc) and the recovery from the back injury seeming to negate his dodgy knee. These are pretty minor things but they really pulled me out of the film. There's nothing that undermines tension and breaks disbelief quite like a voice calling bullshit in the back of your head.


Yeah, him getting back to Gotham seems to be a big problem for a lot of people but I'm good with it. In one scene, Lucius mentions that the core will explode in 23 days, the very next scene we see Wayne's second attempt to escape which he fails and then he goes for a kip and tries again and succeeds. When we see him next in Gotham with Selina, it's mentioned that the core will explode the next day so that's a good 3 weeks he has taken getting back. Let's just assume he has contacts out in the world and money in other accounts, it's no big deal really. Selina also says something along the lines of she wants to get off the island and Wayne says if she gets him to Fox, he'll show her a way. Safe to say he has a decent knowledge of the city and has a sneaky way in.

People also seem to have a problem with him going looking for Bane knowing he's a big bastard. People are saying that Wayne isn't that stupid and should know better. It's just pure arrogance on Wayne's part. He says to Alfred, "I beat Ra's, he was the league of shadows. Bane is just a mercenary."

Similarly, people have a problem with all the cops going after Batman just after the stock exchange escape and letting the lads on the bikes go. This is just arrogance on Matthew Modine's part. He just wants to be the big man and take down batman. "I'm going to do what Gordon couldn't." JGL even asks should we not even send a few cars after them and he responds with something like, who's more important, a few crooks or the man who killed Harvey Dent?

Regarding the bomb going off at the end. We don't see him for around the last 7 seconds. Let's just assume the Bat has an amazing ejection and he gets clear in that time.
We also only see him up close in a black cockpit before then. Who knows? Maybe the cockpit was the escape pod and he's already floating off at that point while the autopilot does the rest. That explains that, everything's good right? Come at me! I can fill all your plot holes!

Anyway, I loved it. Flawed yes but it's probably closer to perfect for me than the first 2.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mattdavies86

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barry Bethal

I think one of the fundamental issues the film has is that it was made prior to/the same time as the London riots and released afterwards, therefore as an audience (UK anyway) we have a reference point for what was supposedly going to be conveyed in the film - which frankly, isn't shown ... at all.

By that, I mean that when I read the synopsis for the film I had images in my head of plot threads of ordinary folk looting and rioting etc. Some people turning to crime and some people maintaining their will power (for lack of a better word) and crowding around supply trucks for food etc. All we actually saw was some released prisoner's rioting, looting, holding kangaroo courts and, I assume, all the ordinary folk hiding behind their chairs at home.

We had the rich persons perspective, we had the police perspective (3x including Gordon, Blake and Modine's character?!!), we had the hardened criminals and borderline criminals perspective and absolutely no ordinary folks perspective.

The other fundamental issue with the film, which is causing debate regarding plot holes is that there is a requirement on the audience to 'assume' a lot of things, even in rose-tinted responses to some of the huge plot holes, people are saying "I just assumed x or just assumed y". I'm not one for needing every little detail spoon fed to me but there are some scenes required as a minimum to show some inherent logic - whether it be real-life logic or movie logic. Prime example - how Bruce got back, it's such a plot hole because they haven't even bothered to explain/show Bruce making a call to e.g. Donald Trump and cadging a lift in on his private jet and sneaking over on one of the supply conveys (another assumption?!) allowed to enter the city.

I don't mean to antagonise anyone here, but If we are supposed to fill in lots of blanks and assume it's not a plot hole "because he's Batman", then why bother showing him in the pit then, just show him get dropped off there by Bane and then rocking up afterwards lighting his Banksy artwork up on the bridge!

While we're at it I can also assume that Juno Temple's character suddenly went missing because she was brutally killed by Selina as she was sick of her lesbian advances all the time ... I'll assume this is perfectly legit as I don't need 'spoon feeding' the info and it's only a movie!

I said in a previous post, I take it the production team doesn't bother to critique the script/storyboard because those two points are only a fraction of what I would be pointing out to the Nolan Sisters.

You are right in that the audience does have to make some assumptions, but in this case (regarding how Bruce gets back to Gotham) I think it would be somewhat out of place to show him reaching a village and running around to find a phone, followed by him flying business class and stealthily entering Gotham. The music kicking in when he escapes the pit is enough in itself to tell us he's back.

quote:

ORIGINAL: evilpickle4

... as much as I'm loving the debates on TDKR plot holes and "physics" of the film, I'm not so keen on those putting this film down because of it. It's a superhero film. Fantasy. You have to suspend disbelief and accept that Nolan can't explain everything. We'd all be finishing watching a 24 hour movie if he did. I don't remember there being this much debate about TDK despite there being some obvious and similar arguments. 1. Physics - How did the Joker's bus manage to drive into a bank without damaging the bus? 2. Plothole - When the Joker's drove the bus out of the bank, why did the bus driver behind not inform the Police? 3. Physics - When Batman jumps off the roof to catch Rachel, how did they both survive such a speedy drop without injury? 4. Physics - Why did the computers have to explode when Lucius entered his name into the mobile mapper? 5. Physics - When Batman first appears he drives the Tumbler through a wall from the outside onto an upper layer of the car park - how did that happen? The Tumbler can't fly? 6,. Plotholes - When Batman is racing on the Pod after the destruction of the Tumbler, he blows up a number of cars to clear a path for himself. How did he know there was no-one in them? Now, I love TDK. It's one of the greatest films ever made IMHO. And I don't care what the answers are to any of these. Id doesn't matter. The results move the story forward and look amazing. So why pick TDKR apart?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barry Bethal

I think one of the fundamental issues the film has is that it was made prior to/the same time as the London riots and released afterwards, therefore as an audience (UK anyway) we have a reference point for what was supposedly going to be conveyed in the film - which frankly, isn't shown ... at all.

By that, I mean that when I read the synopsis for the film I had images in my head of plot threads of ordinary folk looting and rioting etc. Some people turning to crime and some people maintaining their will power (for lack of a better word) and crowding around supply trucks for food etc. All we actually saw was some released prisoner's rioting, looting, holding kangaroo courts and, I assume, all the ordinary folk hiding behind their chairs at home.

We had the rich persons perspective, we had the police perspective (3x including Gordon, Blake and Modine's character?!!), we had the hardened criminals and borderline criminals perspective and absolutely no ordinary folks perspective.

The other fundamental issue with the film, which is causing debate regarding plot holes is that there is a requirement on the audience to 'assume' a lot of things, even in rose-tinted responses to some of the huge plot holes, people are saying "I just assumed x or just assumed y". I'm not one for needing every little detail spoon fed to me but there are some scenes required as a minimum to show some inherent logic - whether it be real-life logic or movie logic. Prime example - how Bruce got back, it's such a plot hole because they haven't even bothered to explain/show Bruce making a call to e.g. Donald Trump and cadging a lift in on his private jet and sneaking over on one of the supply conveys (another assumption?!) allowed to enter the city.

I don't mean to antagonise anyone here, but If we are supposed to fill in lots of blanks and assume it's not a plot hole "because he's Batman", then why bother showing him in the pit then, just show him get dropped off there by Bane and then rocking up afterwards lighting his Banksy artwork up on the bridge!

While we're at it I can also assume that Juno Temple's character suddenly went missing because she was brutally killed by Selina as she was sick of her lesbian advances all the time ... I'll assume this is perfectly legit as I don't need 'spoon feeding' the info and it's only a movie!

I said in a previous post, I take it the production team doesn't bother to critique the script/storyboard because those two points are only a fraction of what I would be pointing out to the Nolan Sisters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: parkerwest

Saw this last night and enjoyed it on the whole- didn't really pull me in in the way that I expected it would, but I am putting that down to the weight of expectation surrounding the film that was pretty much impossible to live up to. This is obviously a very good film, but I couldn't help but feel slightly disappointed overall, and the more I think about it since the less I like it.

Let's get the obvious out of the way; Tom Hardy's performance is physically awesome, but his voice just does not work here; he sounds like an old, posh person with his head in a bucket. For me, this kind of made Bane seem a bit eccentric, which I would not have thought was what was intended.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KeithM

Oh please - "it's only a comicbook movie" is the last resort of those who have run out of argument. That's not an excuse, I'm a massive comic-nerd, but even I know that's a lame fallback. Comics and comicbook movies are written by adult professional writers. Being a comicbook movie is no excuse for laziness and sloppy writing.

quote:

A lot of the film's 'defenders' are claiming assumed knowledge as a catch-all for anything which didn't make sense within the context of the film itself or the trilogy as a whole. Sure we can 'assume' a lot of stuff, but when I have to stop concentrating on the movie playing in front of me to puzzle out a logical inconsistency that requires me to assume knowledge that may or may not be true, then the film is not doing its job properly - which is to keep me engaged with what's happening, not on what MIGHT or must have happened in order for this to BE happening... !!

quote:

If he has access to 'secret money' btw, why does he claim to be broke when he crashes with Selina Kyle? Woulda thought he could crash at Donald's Gotham town house at the least. Wait, let me dream up an 'assumption' to cover that logic gap... Um... wait...

quote:

Would any police chief send 99% of his entire police force underground into what was clearly a trap (to anyone with a remotely analytical, strategic, logical, suspicious or normally sane mind) without considering the consequences? I know he says "send everyone", but no-one in their right mind would take that literally. Dumbest Police Ever.

quote:

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

The press bit about the exercise - didn't it refer to it being the whole city's force being involved? As Commissioner of the whole city, and deputy of the whole city, they seemed to be talking about all their cops.

I'd thought it was low because they'd made clear that crime had plummetted because organised crime had been wiped out by the Dent Act - hence the joke about all they had left to investigate was missing persons (and did he say cats up trees)? No crime - no need to maintain an overlarge force.

But couldn't that also be interpreted as "every part of the city's force"; i.e. SWAT, MCU, K-9, Robbery/Homicide etc, rather than the enirety of GCPD?  Regardless, I don't think that the intention was ever to show that every available cop in the city (with a very few exceptions) was trapped underground.  And while you are correct that the big reduction in crime would probably have led to a reduction in force numbers, 3000 is still awfully small for a city that, according to Lucius Fox, is supposed to be home for around 30 million people.  That's one cop per 10,000!  Compare to London, which has a ratio of about 1:175, or even NY where it's about one cop for every 500 inhabitants.

quote:

Shall we assume the cops underground for 3 months were sent down shaving kits, clippers and a hearty meal before emerging to battle Bane's forces?

quote:

Bat's being left penniless was an important and emphasised point. Nolan makes it a massive point that Wayne is now broke and without his support network, including ANY access to his money, secret or otherwise. Or Nolan went to all that trouble only to cheat...

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChudMonkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: evilpickle4

... as much as I'm loving the debates on TDKR plot holes and "physics" of the film, I'm not so keen on those putting this film down because of it. It's a superhero film. Fantasy. You have to suspend disbelief and accept that Nolan can't explain everything. We'd all be finishing watching a 24 hour movie if he did. I don't remember there being this much debate about TDK despite there being some obvious and similar arguments. 1. Physics - How did the Joker's bus manage to drive into a bank without damaging the bus? 2. Plothole - When the Joker's drove the bus out of the bank, why did the bus driver behind not inform the Police? 3. Physics - When Batman jumps off the roof to catch Rachel, how did they both survive such a speedy drop without injury? 4. Physics - Why did the computers have to explode when Lucius entered his name into the mobile mapper? 5. Physics - When Batman first appears he drives the Tumbler through a wall from the outside onto an upper layer of the car park - how did that happen? The Tumbler can't fly? 6,. Plotholes - When Batman is racing on the Pod after the destruction of the Tumbler, he blows up a number of cars to clear a path for himself. How did he know there was no-one in them? Now, I love TDK. It's one of the greatest films ever made IMHO. And I don't care what the answers are to any of these. Id doesn't matter. The results move the story forward and look amazing. So why pick TDKR apart?

I just wanted to say that I love this post....Too many people are giving TDK too much credit as they lambast TDKR. I love both films, they both have implausible elements but they are based on a comic book character about a billionaire who dresses as a bat for fuck's sake!

If you're going to pick holes how did Gordon and Selina never guess Batman is Bruce Wayne until it is literally hammered home to them when they spend so much time with him and Bruce Wayne? Christian Bale has a very distinctive mouth I think you'd recognise it again if you saw it.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: evilpickle4

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChudMonkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: evilpickle4

... as much as I'm loving the debates on TDKR plot holes and "physics" of the film, I'm not so keen on those putting this film down because of it. It's a superhero film. Fantasy. You have to suspend disbelief and accept that Nolan can't explain everything. We'd all be finishing watching a 24 hour movie if he did. I don't remember there being this much debate about TDK despite there being some obvious and similar arguments. 1. Physics - How did the Joker's bus manage to drive into a bank without damaging the bus? 2. Plothole - When the Joker's drove the bus out of the bank, why did the bus driver behind not inform the Police? 3. Physics - When Batman jumps off the roof to catch Rachel, how did they both survive such a speedy drop without injury? 4. Physics - Why did the computers have to explode when Lucius entered his name into the mobile mapper? 5. Physics - When Batman first appears he drives the Tumbler through a wall from the outside onto an upper layer of the car park - how did that happen? The Tumbler can't fly? 6,. Plotholes - When Batman is racing on the Pod after the destruction of the Tumbler, he blows up a number of cars to clear a path for himself. How did he know there was no-one in them? Now, I love TDK. It's one of the greatest films ever made IMHO. And I don't care what the answers are to any of these. Id doesn't matter. The results move the story forward and look amazing. So why pick TDKR apart?

I just wanted to say that I love this post....Too many people are giving TDK too much credit as they lambast TDKR. I love both films, they both have implausible elements but they are based on a comic book character about a billionaire who dresses as a bat for fuck's sake!

If you're going to pick holes how did Gordon and Selina never guess Batman is Bruce Wayne until it is literally hammered home to them when they spend so much time with him and Bruce Wayne? Christian Bale has a very distinctive mouth I think you'd recognise it again if you saw it.....

That last point is absolutely bang on. In real-life, if Batman existed and he was Christian Bale, you'd spot him a mile off. Like Stallone as *snigger* Judge Dredd. And did anyone not notice that Brandon Routh was *SPOILERS* both Clark Kent AND Superman? :-)