quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Compared to TDK there has been hardly any backlash. Barely any. Most people love the film.

If the evidence you have to support this "backlash" is some trolling articles and some tolling comments on IMDb then I don't know what to say.

It has been very well recieved by most.

Comics Alliance, hardly a marginal site, has had some DKR bashing articles, whereas the Bleeding Cool (again, far from a minor webiste) has had loads of negative comments on the flick. That wasn't true of Dark Knight.

Never heard of CA. And again - comments on a website? Is that what this is?

I can assure you the backlash on TDK was pretty huge on this site. No where to be seen so far.

Ah, fair enough.

You should check out comics alliance. I'm currently involved in a 549 message strong thread (basically just me and one other guy) debate over Jim Gordon's dry cleaning habits

More enticingly, they did a "Cinematic Batmanology" series, reviewing in-depth (the DK one was five parts!) all the Batman movies (Burton, '66, etc).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Please show me the flaming bit, and show me how relevant that is to the point of calling people who did love it for reasons they never mentioned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Compared to TDK there has been hardly any backlash. Barely any. Most people love the film.

If the evidence you have to support this "backlash" is some trolling articles and some tolling comments on IMDb then I don't know what to say.

It has been very well recieved by most.

Comics Alliance, hardly a marginal site, has had some DKR bashing articles, whereas the Bleeding Cool (again, far from a minor webiste) has had loads of negative comments on the flick. That wasn't true of Dark Knight.

Never heard of CA. And again - comments on a website? Is that what this is?

I can assure you the backlash on TDK was pretty huge on this site. No where to be seen so far.

Ah, fair enough.

You should check out comics alliance. I'm currently involved in a 549 message strong thread (basically just me and one other guy) debate over Jim Gordon's dry cleaning habits

More enticingly, they did a "Cinematic Batmanology" series, reviewing in-depth (the DK one was five parts!) all the Batman movies (Burton, '66, etc).

But again, that is just a handful of people - look at how many pages you and Chris have created on this thread together? I can only go by my experiences, and having been around for TDK on here I can tell you that "backlash" has been muted compared to TDK.

I can find you some threads if you would like?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Please show me the flaming bit, and show me how relevant that is to the point of calling people who did love it for reasons they never mentioned.

It was a question, not a statement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Please show me the flaming bit, and show me how relevant that is to the point of calling people who did love it for reasons they never mentioned.

It was a question, not a statement.

Why did you even question it? And made it look like a rhetorical one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

That did not sound like a question but more like a statement presented like a question. You should be able to answer your own question by going back.

Oh, and your wasting posts now, aren't you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

The comics James Gordon Jr is a crazy serial killer anyway!

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

Why would people pay money to see a film only to criticise it? And if people are picking holes then that rather suggests the holes are there to begin with.

Not really. Many of the posited holes are somewhat subjective, and there's no Big Book of Accurate Opinions one can use to settle movie debates. The Dark Knight has "plot holes" that go unremarked on while DKR's warrant much fanboy moathfoaming (let me stress again that i am not referring to intelligent criticisms like those of Rgirvan). I think you're naive if you don't think Nolan has been subject to much fanboy, tall-poppy-syndrome backlash (and let me of course stress that obviously not ALL negative opinions on the flick warrant such a characterisation)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


There you go again - putting words into my mouth. None of my complaints about the film are about those points.

My point is - because you are told that these are intellgent films you believe that there are intellegent explanations for things (such as the whole vanishing city population) because Nolan couldn't have just screwed up, could he? How would that be possible? No there has to be an answer.

And thus we get all these ideas being thrown out, not really supported by what we see in the film, because it can't just be that the film has some flaws.

Who says this film hasn't got any flaws?

I've (light-heartedly) pointed out enough of them myself. It's the sheer, mind-numbingly anal nature of so much of the pettifogging hyper-criticism for the sheer hell of it which annoys me. As I keep saying, no work of fiction in the history of human civilisation, from The Bible onwards (ooh, controversial), could possibly hope to withstand that level of scrutiny. Further testament, I think, to the unrealistically sky-high levels of fanboy expectation which awaited this movie like an angry lynch mob.

And it IS only a movie.

So it is just a film, which has flaws, but you don't like it when people talk about these flaws because it is just a film and they shouldn't expect the second coming of god?

What would you rather have done these past 60 pages? Just talked about how awesome the film was and left it at that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

Why would people pay money to see a film only to criticise it? And if people are picking holes then that rather suggests the holes are there to begin with.

Just because one person doesn't see something, doesn't mean it isn't there.

And before I get accused of anything, I almost fainted from rolling my eyes so much at that ridiculous 99 Problems list.

quote:

No. You referred parodically to the poor persecuted Nolan fans. A flamewar is indeed relevant in such a context, if only to show that this thread, at times, has perhaps had more heat than light, applying to DKR fans and critics alike (and even that terminology is inane; Christ, this isn't Israel/Palestine).

quote:

People who like the movie have to deal with much "how can you be so dumb as to not recognise the plot hole of Jim Gordon still having that speech two days later!"

quote:

Please show me the flaming bit

quote:

Wasting posts? If you'd just, you know, answered my orginal question we wouldn't have this "I know something that you could know but you'd have to check old posts which I assume you wont' do" bollocks. Did you have a falling out and a flamewar? Just a falling out? Can you answer THAT query without your own 20 Questions, or is this entertaining to you? And so on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation



Why on Earth even question it? I will keep questioning this because you mentoned this first and don't act innocent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


There you go again - putting words into my mouth. None of my complaints about the film are about those points.

My point is - because you are told that these are intellgent films you believe that there are intellegent explanations for things (such as the whole vanishing city population) because Nolan couldn't have just screwed up, could he? How would that be possible? No there has to be an answer.

And thus we get all these ideas being thrown out, not really supported by what we see in the film, because it can't just be that the film has some flaws.

Who says this film hasn't got any flaws?

I've (light-heartedly) pointed out enough of them myself. It's the sheer, mind-numbingly anal nature of so much of the pettifogging hyper-criticism for the sheer hell of it which annoys me. As I keep saying, no work of fiction in the history of human civilisation, from The Bible onwards (ooh, controversial), could possibly hope to withstand that level of scrutiny. Further testament, I think, to the unrealistically sky-high levels of fanboy expectation which awaited this movie like an angry lynch mob.

And it IS only a movie.

So it is just a film, which has flaws, but you don't like it when people talk about these flaws because it is just a film and they shouldn't expect the second coming of god?

What would you rather have done these past 60 pages? Just talked about how awesome the film was and left it at that?

Oh FFS! Yeah. You've got me. That's exactly what and how I think. I only enjoying discussing things with people who agree with me all the time about absolutely everything. In the most po-faced and humourless manner possible, I might add.

You know, for someone who bristles so much at people daring to put words in your mouth, you're not bad at ventriloquism yourself. But not half as good as you are at hyperbole - "The second coming of God"? When did anyone ever say that? It's just a movie, remember? And I'm pretty sure Christopher Nolan goes to the toilet like the rest of us.

You also seem to be the one with the problem with people daring to disagree with you. It's a forum - the clue's in the name. It's kinda hard to challenge a conflicting opinion without disagreeing with people. If you have a problem with that fundamental (or are so thin-skinned that you absolutely insist on treating every disagreement as a personal slur) then I humbly suggest you're in the wrong place.

Yes, it is just a film. A film I enjoyed. I really couldn't care less if you or anyone else didn't - your loss. I'm not an Efangelist. I'm not looking for converts or out to change anyone's mind one way or t'other - fat chance! But that does not preclude still wanting to talk about it and - heavens forfend! - share my honest enthusiasm with the online world.

Parenthetically, I would like to add, though, that I wouldn't be banging on so much about a film I didn't like. What would be the point of that. Like Jeremy Renner, life's too short.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

I'm sorry but that question was a statement, otherwise I doubt you would have mentioned it.

As for the haters bit, it's aimed at most of the tone here, sorry for including you in it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


There you go again - putting words into my mouth. None of my complaints about the film are about those points.

My point is - because you are told that these are intellgent films you believe that there are intellegent explanations for things (such as the whole vanishing city population) because Nolan couldn't have just screwed up, could he? How would that be possible? No there has to be an answer.

And thus we get all these ideas being thrown out, not really supported by what we see in the film, because it can't just be that the film has some flaws.

Who says this film hasn't got any flaws?

I've (light-heartedly) pointed out enough of them myself. It's the sheer, mind-numbingly anal nature of so much of the pettifogging hyper-criticism for the sheer hell of it which annoys me. As I keep saying, no work of fiction in the history of human civilisation, from The Bible onwards (ooh, controversial), could possibly hope to withstand that level of scrutiny. Further testament, I think, to the unrealistically sky-high levels of fanboy expectation which awaited this movie like an angry lynch mob.

And it IS only a movie.

So it is just a film, which has flaws, but you don't like it when people talk about these flaws because it is just a film and they shouldn't expect the second coming of god?

What would you rather have done these past 60 pages? Just talked about how awesome the film was and left it at that?

Oh FFS! Yeah. You've got me. That's exactly what and how I think. I only enjoying discussing things with people who agree with me all the time about absolutely everything. In the most po-faced and humourless manner possible, I might add.

You know, for someone who bristles so much at people daring to put words in your mouth, you're not bad at ventriloquism yourself. But not half as good as you are at hyperbole - "The second coming of God"? When did anyone ever say that? It's just a movie, remember? And I'm pretty sure Christopher Nolan goes to the toilet like the rest of us.

You also seem to be the one with the problem with people daring to disagree with you. It's a forum - the clue's in the name. It's kinda hard to challenge a conflicting opinion without disagreeing with people. If you have a problem with that fundamental (or are so thin-skinned that you absolutely insist on treating every disagreement as a personal slur) then I humbly suggest you're in the wrong place.

Yes, it is just a film. A film I enjoyed. I really couldn't care less if you or anyone else didn't - your loss. I'm not an Efangelist. I'm not looking for converts or out to change anyone's mind one way or t'other - fat chance! But that does not preclude still wanting to talk about it and - heavens forfend! - share my honest enthusiasm with the online world.

Parenthetically, I would like to add, though, that I wouldn't be banging on so much about a film I didn't like. What would be the point of that. Like Jeremy Renner, life's too short.

Wow.

Lets break down what you said shall we?

Who says this film hasn't got any flaws? (it's just a film which has flaws)

It's the sheer, mind-numbingly anal nature of so much of the pettifogging hyper-criticism for the sheer hell of it which annoys me. (you don't like it when these flaws are being discussed)

as I keep saying, no work of fiction in the history of human civilisation, from The Bible onwards (ooh, controversial), could possibly hope to withstand that level of scrutiny. (because it is just a film)

Further testament, I think, to the unrealistically sky-high levels of fanboy expectation which awaited this movie like an angry lynch mob. (and not the second coming of god)

As you can see the Second Coming of God was about those who had too high expectations for the film (which is in of itself about hyperbole is it not?) and also a fun little play on your comment on the Bible not being all that. It wasn't a comment on you or any other fan of the film.

I also have no problem with people disagreeing with me. Please point me to this instead of throwing around accusations which have no merit. As you rightly point out, it is a forum, and if there is something I disagree with I will argue the case. I don't insult people, and I will debate them on the merits of what they are saying.

Your post above was about how much you didn't like "hyper-criticism" of the film which seemed unfair to me. I was wanting to know what you wanted to discuss then? For at the moment I am seeing some fun debate, some silly debate but no outright hate for the film. Heck I still like the thing.

Discussion is good, even though no minds will be changed, and that is what a forum should be about. So at least we are on the same page there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: waltham1979

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

So if you felt the film was a disappointment it was because

a) you are picking holes that don't exist

OR

b) having too high expectations.


Oh well.

No not at all. If you think the film is shit then you think its shit - I'm not going to argue you with you. But I think the expectations of this film were through the roof and when that happens people tend to be disappointed and look for reasons to pick holes (for example Prometheus......or Indiana Jones 4 )

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: jonson

As I'm never first in the queue to see new releases, it used to be quite enjoyable popping into this thread and reading a dozen or so pages of other users reviews, hence the fact it's called "The Review Thread" but I seriously can't be arsed trying to get any coherent sense out this thread at all. Can the mods delete the last 30 pages and start a new thread up somewhere else?

I'm pretty sure that the "Five most common posited plot holes in Dark Knight Rises" and "Five points often noted in favour of Dark Knight Rises" have all been covered on these pages. Most of the discussion is on topic. Myself and Fluke Skywalker have had a long, factual and interesting conversation on Gordon sending the policemen down the sewers, for example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

Unfortunately, a lot of the reaction to people trying to help people get a better understanding of the movie is met with the equivalent of people throwing down a videogame controller and yelling loudly that "it's a stupid game anyway!" before storming off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

quote:



I referred to escalating the matter which would have been a logical series of events, National Guard or Army would have been considered if there's actually an underground army operating in a city.

You said specifically that Gordon should get the army in. Either you think he can make that call himself or he can communicate, based on the evidence he has, the decision in such a way that those who do make such decisions would necessarily send in the Army or National Guard. You are wrong.

The scene would have made sense regardless of the outcome because then at least you can see Gordon's motivation. That said it's like your saying the chain of command is so rigid and strict that Gordon has access to absolutely no one else higher up than the Mayor? If Gordon is rebuffed and is genuinely concerned there's bound to be more than one avenue for him. You're focusing purely on the Mayor's character while forgetting the Mayor is not exactly the POTUS.


The Mayor is indeed not the POTUS and a Commssioner isn't a Mayor, which makes it ludicrous that you referred to Gordon contacting The White House . Again, a chain of command is exactly that. And you're forgetting the urgency of the situation that Gordon believes he's facing. It would be dramatically discordant, and not in keeping with Gordon's character, to have him being rebuffed by Mayor Eyeliner, phoning up Senators etc etc


That's of course perfectly possible knowing us internet bods - but it's way less of a plot hole than him not informing anyone at all.


No, it's really not. It's well established that Gordon, although necessarily pragmatic, is not someone who take the easty,careerist route when he knows or suspects the city's fate is at stake.YOU might not know (or might not have known) that Mayor Eyeliner wouldn't send in the National Guard without proof, but the audience would know that Gordon would know this, so they'd be left wondering why the hero cop would make such a self-negating play


An American city would actually have access to more than we do considering a) 9/11 and b) the fact that you are allowed to own weapons in this country. The cops are armed, SWAT, FBI, National Guard, biggest army in the world. Nolan knew that Bane would get destroyed in a real world situation so had to contrive the cops getting trapped scenario.


Dude, you seem to think that "post 9/11" means "so lots of soldiers available for police commisioners!". Again, it clarified things like States of Emergency, states thereof, whereas the most significant legislation, the PATRIOT act, largely functions as an (appalling, but I digress) de facto Challenging of the Bill of Rights. It does not mean that, 11 years later, Gordon can get soldiers called in by invoking the spectre of 9/11. The reference to gun ownership hardly helps your case incidently. To use your (bad) London analogy, someone being in possession of a gun on the tube would indeed sound find themselves surrounded by SWAT style units. That wouldn't be true of America. 'People with guns' therefore becomes even less of an "automatically send in the Army!" style event



But it's serious enough to send every single police officer in the city underground leaving it completely unpoliced? If he informed the higher ups about this hairbrained scheme they would have drafted in some help or at least attempted to

Dude, do you not remember the scene with the special forces. They would have wanted to gather evidence. They have considerable demands on their resources. GORDON KNOWS THIS. HE NEEDS TO ACT QUICKLY WITH THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO HIM

He might suspect Mayor Eyeliner would rebuff him but without asking he cannot know for certain. In a court of law Gordon would look like a fool under questioning.


And you're prepossessing that hero cop Jim Gordon wouldn't sacrifice his career to save Gotham? What do you think the consequences of him revealing the truth about Harvey Dent and the (criminal conspiracy? perverting the court of justice?) coverup thereof, as we know Gordon was serious about doing so? Let's hope that your hypothetical prosecutor knows, unlike you, about States of Emergency powers etc or else Jim Gordon could be forgiven for a bit of "this whole courtroom is out of order!" dramatics

(in reply to Fluke Skywalker)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

Unfortunately, a lot of the reaction to people trying to help people get a better understanding of the movie is met with the equivalent of people throwing down a videogame controller and yelling loudly that "it's a stupid game anyway!" before storming off.

Where has this happened in the thread?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

quote:



I referred to escalating the matter which would have been a logical series of events, National Guard or Army would have been considered if there's actually an underground army operating in a city.

You said specifically that Gordon should get the army in. Either you think he can make that call himself or he can communicate, based on the evidence he has, the decision in such a way that those who do make such decisions would necessarily send in the Army or National Guard. You are wrong.

The scene would have made sense regardless of the outcome because then at least you can see Gordon's motivation. That said it's like your saying the chain of command is so rigid and strict that Gordon has access to absolutely no one else higher up than the Mayor? If Gordon is rebuffed and is genuinely concerned there's bound to be more than one avenue for him. You're focusing purely on the Mayor's character while forgetting the Mayor is not exactly the POTUS.


The Mayor is indeed not the POTUS and a Commssioner isn't a Mayor, which makes it ludicrous that you referred to Gordon contacting The White House . Again, a chain of command is exactly that. And you're forgetting the urgency of the situation that Gordon believes he's facing. It would be dramatically discordant, and not in keeping with Gordon's character, to have him being rebuffed by Mayor Eyeliner, phoning up Senators etc etc


That's of course perfectly possible knowing us internet bods - but it's way less of a plot hole than him not informing anyone at all.


No, it's really not. It's well established that Gordon, although necessarily pragmatic, is not someone who take the easty,careerist route when he knows or suspects the city's fate is at stake.YOU might not know (or might not have known) that Mayor Eyeliner wouldn't send in the National Guard without proof, but the audience would know that Gordon would know this, so they'd be left wondering why the hero cop would make such a self-negating play


An American city would actually have access to more than we do considering a) 9/11 and b) the fact that you are allowed to own weapons in this country. The cops are armed, SWAT, FBI, National Guard, biggest army in the world. Nolan knew that Bane would get destroyed in a real world situation so had to contrive the cops getting trapped scenario.


Dude, you seem to think that "post 9/11" means "so lots of soldiers available for police commisioners!". Again, it clarified things like States of Emergency, states thereof, whereas the most significant legislation, the PATRIOT act, largely functions as an (appalling, but I digress) de facto Challenging of the Bill of Rights. It does not mean that, 11 years later, Gordon can get soldiers called in by invoking the spectre of 9/11. The reference to gun ownership hardly helps your case incidently. To use your (bad) London analogy, someone being in possession of a gun on the tube would indeed sound find themselves surrounded by SWAT style units. That wouldn't be true of America. 'People with guns' therefore becomes even less of an "automatically send in the Army!" style event



But it's serious enough to send every single police officer in the city underground leaving it completely unpoliced? If he informed the higher ups about this hairbrained scheme they would have drafted in some help or at least attempted to

Dude, do you not remember the scene with the special forces. They would have wanted to gather evidence. They have considerable demands on their resources. GORDON KNOWS THIS. HE NEEDS TO ACT QUICKLY WITH THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO HIM

He might suspect Mayor Eyeliner would rebuff him but without asking he cannot know for certain. In a court of law Gordon would look like a fool under questioning.


And you're prepossessing that hero cop Jim Gordon wouldn't sacrifice his career to save Gotham? What do you think the consequences of him revealing the truth about Harvey Dent and the (criminal conspiracy? perverting the court of justice?) coverup thereof, as we know Gordon was serious about doing so? Let's hope that your hypothetical prosecutor knows, unlike you, about States of Emergency powers etc or else Jim Gordon could be forgiven for a bit of "this whole courtroom is out of order!" dramatics

I'm the guy in PINK in the above. Sorry for not getting the latest installment of the police-in-the-sewers debate in earlier, I know chris has been eagerly awaiting its arrival...

(in reply to cerebusboy)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: waltham1979

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

So if you felt the film was a disappointment it was because

a) you are picking holes that don't exist

OR

b) having too high expectations.


Oh well.

No not at all. If you think the film is shit then you think its shit - I'm not going to argue you with you. But I think the expectations of this film were through the roof and when that happens people tend to be disappointed and look for reasons to pick holes (for example Prometheus......or Indiana Jones 4 )

Isn't terminology part of the problem in here? The regular reference to fanboys, nitpicking (not in the post above, I've quoted that for another point below) etc - and ignoring things that don't fit in eg

- I had no expectations
- for me the problems were part of the reason I had problems with the film Waltham, not some ex post facto creation.

I think there has been a creation of a single homogenic anti-fan. All said anti-fans had exactly the same expecations going on,  are anti-fans for exactly the same reasons etc. And responses are aimed solely at that straw creation no matter what anyone else has actually said. Sadly quite common in this type of thread and why, increasingly, people avoid them - they get fed up being told why they didn't like something and, therefore, why they are wrong in that dislike.

And that, to answer a question Cerebus asked above, is why Reviews is not the most popular forum on the Board. Because many, if not most, Board posters don't bother trying to discuss films in here. To the extent we've had ongoing requests for adjustments to Favourite Films and Musings to allow broader discussions. In fairness I should add this is also because this thread is linked into the main site. That is seen as part of the problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: jonson

As I'm never first in the queue to see new releases, it used to be quite enjoyable popping into this thread and reading a dozen or so pages of other users reviews, hence the fact it's called "The Review Thread" but I seriously can't be arsed trying to get any coherent sense out this thread at all. Can the mods delete the last 30 pages and start a new thread up somewhere else?

I'm pretty sure that the "Five most common posited plot holes in Dark Knight Rises" and "Five points often noted in favour of Dark Knight Rises" have all been covered on these pages. Most of the discussion is on topic. Myself and Fluke Skywalker have had a long, factual and interesting conversation on Gordon sending the policemen down the sewers, for example.

Hmmm... Define "interesting..."