If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Uproxx)   Your sarcastic guide to alleged plot holes in 'The Dark Knight Rises'   (uproxx.com) divider line 252
    More: Amusing, pet peeves  
•       •       •

12057 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Jul 2012 at 11:42 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



252 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-31 02:01:09 AM  
It's about appointing oneself the supreme arbiter of taste above all those disgusting little plebs.



Welcome to Fark, dear reporter.
/oh, and comic stores all over the World
//'cause I work in one and this NAILS it
 
2012-07-31 02:02:08 AM  

Jim_Callahan: mgshamster: Fair enough. Also, if you take into account how quickly the poison was identified and an antidote was made in part 1, a ms that fast would make sense.

/like bruce would know how to use or read one.

Like I said, I'm just pointing out that Nolan's Batman is an idiot, I don't actually have a problem with this as I kind of regard them as pure action movies rather than detective movies. I might be more upset about the intelligence part of the comic book version of the character not showing up, but there are two recent actual Sherlock Holmes movies out that actually get the mix of physical and intellectual badassery and sheer crazy pretty much spot-on perfect, so I'm not that worried about a derivative character keeping consistent with the source. If the movies are going to have Batman be less Holmes and more McClane, that's cool, I can dig it.


Oh, don't mind me. I loved the three movies. I own the blurays for the first two, and I'll buy the third as well. Might even go see it again in the theater.

/Also loved the two sherlock movies.
//I recommend you watch the recent BBC show Sherlock
 
2012-07-31 02:03:57 AM  

GreenAdder: [i.imgur.com image 230x280]
Rob says: "I think the movie would have been better with more pouches on everyone. Like in the comics. We just get Bruce Wayne out of the way, have someone else play Batman, and..."
[i.imgur.com image 462x700]
"See how much cooler that would have made the movie? We just need to make it a little more realistic so it works in a movie setting."
[i.imgur.com image 367x520]
"Yeah! Now that's a Batman worth my $8.50. Imagine that guy beating up Bane instead of Christian Bale. That would have made the movie at least one hundred times more awesome. If I'm lying, I'm drawing feet."


I don't get why everyone thinks the Batman series should be slavishly faithful to what one version of the comic or the other did.

Most comic series have had so many revisions, re-writes, and one-offs that you're obviously going to piss of some comics fans, so why worry about it?

All a Batman flick needs is Batman, a cool car, the utility belt gadgets, Alfred, a formidable opponent, and none of that campy Schumacher crap, and I can usually enjoy it.
 
2012-07-31 02:07:34 AM  
Why is it that they bother giving Batman a really effective dart gun to drug goons, but when the final battle with Bane rolls around, he goes right back to the "punch him a bunch" strategy that failed the first time he tried it? Then Nolan cops out by just having Catwoman blast him from offscreen so Batman can keep his hands clean?

I was also considerably bothered by just how much they bang that nuke around. I mean, no one else flinched when the truck carrying the nuke did a nose-dive? How about when he hooks it up to his plane and starts DRAGGING IT around?

It would have been poetic justice to have it go off when he banged it against a streetlight or something.
 
2012-07-31 02:09:34 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: doglover: Fusion doesn't explode. Hydrogen bombs only explode because a fission bomb is used first to make the hydrogen detonate in a very big and uncontrolled fusion reaction that ends fairly quickly but is epic in scale.

A fusion reactor would have so little material inside that even if we all farked off and just let that shiat blow up, it probably wouldn't even damage the reactor itself. Especially considering that it's really hard to make things keep fusing. Atoms don't spontaneously do that without stellar amounts of gravity.

So the whole premise of "We've got a nuke." is silly. Even if you could make it thus, it wouldn't work like that. At best, it would be anchored to the reactor at all times.

I like you doglover, but you're wrong. A fusion reactor would almost certainly be able to explode just like a fission reactor can. Whether or not it would be such a large explosion is impossible to know.

In a modern day fusion bomb, the fission trigger is used to start the reaction, yes. However, almost all of the released energy comes from the fusion reaction.

Therefore, if there were some way to actually create a fusion reaction, which there must be given that it is a fusion reactor we're talking about, it would probably explode with just as much if not more energy than a conventional fission reactor could.

As for the amount of material, that is impossible to know given that the entire method of fusion is fictional. However, consider this: In the Hiroshima explosion (admittedly much smaller than the fictional one) only about 1 kilogram of uranium (equivalent to a cube approximately 4 centimeters per side) actually underwent fission, and only about one GRAM of matter was converted to energy. Combine that with the fact that theoretically, fusion tends to be a more total reaction due to the extreme temperatures or pressures needed to sustain it.


You're comparing apples to oranges. An H bomb is still mostly fission. That's the kaboom.

Fusion releases energy, more energy than fission. That's why you can't make a fusion reactor into a bomb. It's so efficient, you only need tiny amounts of fuel in the chamber to make a big amount of energy. If you disrupt the reaction, it stop faster than you can say "It stopped."

At best, you could get exploding yttrium pellets or something. Even then, not exactly a 4kt nuke with a radioactive signature.
 
2012-07-31 02:18:14 AM  

stoli n coke: I don't get why everyone thinks the Batman series should be slavishly faithful to what one version of the comic or the other did.


Rob Liefeld just wants to see more pouches. And less feet.
 
2012-07-31 02:19:50 AM  
The Nolan "Batman" movies were the worst trilogy since Episodes 1-3 of Star Wars. Maybe the next reboot will get Batman right. Nolan's movies were a pseudo-intellectual, boring mess. Nolan must either hate superheroes or he must just not understand them at all. Making a "realistic" superhero movie is a nonsensical goal. The essence of superheroes is that they represent escapism, not reality. It's very hard to take something that is essentially fantastic and put it in a "realistic" setting. Remember the live-action Flintstones movies and the reception they received? It's a similar concept. Maybe it's possible to do that with Batman. Obviously Nolan is not the director to do it.

Now he's off to ruin Superman for another generation. There won't be a Justice League movie for decades to come. And people wonder why Marvel is miles ahead in getting their characters translated into movies successfully.
 
2012-07-31 02:20:12 AM  

Strolpol:
I was also considerably bothered by just how much they bang that nuke around. I mean, no one else flinched when the truck carrying the nuke did a nose-dive? How about when he hooks it up to his plane and starts DRAGGING IT around?

It would have been poetic justice to have it go off when he banged it against a streetlight or something.



Wasn't so much bothered by it, but found it hysterical as he kept banging the "highly unstable" device through half of Gotham before reaching altitude. It almost felt like an homage to Adam West sprinting around with that giant bomb. Link

Most of the other "plot holes" didn't bother me. It's a comic book movie, there's always going to be some contrivance, even with the veneer of realism Nolan's putting on it.

/did also enjoy "Doctor, turn this reactor into a nuclear bomb" *cut away* "Ok, here you go this is totally a bomb now".
 
2012-07-31 02:21:13 AM  

doglover: The All-Powerful Atheismo: doglover: Fusion doesn't explode. Hydrogen bombs only explode because a fission bomb is used first to make the hydrogen detonate in a very big and uncontrolled fusion reaction that ends fairly quickly but is epic in scale.

A fusion reactor would have so little material inside that even if we all farked off and just let that shiat blow up, it probably wouldn't even damage the reactor itself. Especially considering that it's really hard to make things keep fusing. Atoms don't spontaneously do that without stellar amounts of gravity.

So the whole premise of "We've got a nuke." is silly. Even if you could make it thus, it wouldn't work like that. At best, it would be anchored to the reactor at all times.

I like you doglover, but you're wrong. A fusion reactor would almost certainly be able to explode just like a fission reactor can. Whether or not it would be such a large explosion is impossible to know.

In a modern day fusion bomb, the fission trigger is used to start the reaction, yes. However, almost all of the released energy comes from the fusion reaction.

Therefore, if there were some way to actually create a fusion reaction, which there must be given that it is a fusion reactor we're talking about, it would probably explode with just as much if not more energy than a conventional fission reactor could.

As for the amount of material, that is impossible to know given that the entire method of fusion is fictional. However, consider this: In the Hiroshima explosion (admittedly much smaller than the fictional one) only about 1 kilogram of uranium (equivalent to a cube approximately 4 centimeters per side) actually underwent fission, and only about one GRAM of matter was converted to energy. Combine that with the fact that theoretically, fusion tends to be a more total reaction due to the extreme temperatures or pressures needed to sustain it.

You're comparing apples to oranges. An H bomb is still mostly fission. That's the kaboom.

Fusion releases energy, more energy than fission. That's why you can't make a fusion reactor into a bomb. It's so efficient, you only need tiny amounts of fuel in the chamber to make a big amount of energy. If you disrupt the reaction, it stop faster than you can say "It stopped."

At best, you could get exploding yttrium pellets or something. Even then, not exactly a 4kt nuke with a radioactive signature.


But Dr. Pavel spent like three seconds doing some science stuff to it and made it a bomb. Are you saying you know more than a fictional nuclear physicist?
 
2012-07-31 02:22:01 AM  

doglover:
You're comparing apples to oranges. An H bomb is still mostly fission. That's the kabo ...


No, it really depends on the design, which given the fictional nature of this reactor, makes it impossible to analyze.

To illustrate... the Tsar Bomba, a tertiary stage device, also the largest device ever exploded, got about 97% of its energy from the fusion reaction, because they eliminated the fast fission tamper.

In reality, no nuclear plant in existence would create a megaton range explosion. Probably not even a fusion plant if one existed. However, once again, this is fictional, and simply the fact that it was a fusion device is not a sufficient reason to conclude it wouldn't have created a nuclear explosion.

/engineer+physicist
 
2012-07-31 02:22:56 AM  

cetacei: The Nolan "Batman" movies were the worst trilogy since Episodes 1-3 of Star Wars.


Apparently you haven't seen the "Gingerdead man" series.
 
2012-07-31 02:23:04 AM  

cetacei: The Nolan "Batman" movies were the worst trilogy since Episodes 1-3 of Star Wars. Maybe the next reboot will get Batman right. Nolan's movies were a pseudo-intellectual, boring mess. Nolan must either hate superheroes or he must just not understand them at all. Making a "realistic" superhero movie is a nonsensical goal. The essence of superheroes is that they represent escapism, not reality. It's very hard to take something that is essentially fantastic and put it in a "realistic" setting. Remember the live-action Flintstones movies and the reception they received? It's a similar concept. Maybe it's possible to do that with Batman. Obviously Nolan is not the director to do it.

Now he's off to ruin Superman for another generation. There won't be a Justice League movie for decades to come. And people wonder why Marvel is miles ahead in getting their characters translated into movies successfully.


I agree with all of this. I would argue with the Episodes 1-3 point, but you said "since" then, and I can't think of any trilogy worse than that since Revenge of the Sith came out, so the point stands.
 
2012-07-31 02:24:57 AM  

cetacei: The Nolan "Batman" movies were the worst trilogy since Episodes 1-3 of Star Wars. Maybe the next reboot will get Batman right. Nolan's movies were a pseudo-intellectual, boring mess. Nolan must either hate superheroes or he must just not understand them at all. Making a "realistic" superhero movie is a nonsensical goal. The essence of superheroes is that they represent escapism, not reality. It's very hard to take something that is essentially fantastic and put it in a "realistic" setting. Remember the live-action Flintstones movies and the reception they received? It's a similar concept. Maybe it's possible to do that with Batman. Obviously Nolan is not the director to do it.

Now he's off to ruin Superman for another generation. There won't be a Justice League movie for decades to come. And people wonder why Marvel is miles ahead in getting their characters translated into movies successfully.


You're right, these movies bombed just like that flintstones movie. How would you prefer your Batman? With nipples and a bat credit card? In the words of the freezinator, "chill out"


//Ice to meet you
 
2012-07-31 02:26:43 AM  

Strolpol: I was also considerably bothered by just how much they bang that nuke around. I mean, no one else flinched when the truck carrying the nuke did a nose-dive? How about when he hooks it up to his plane and starts DRAGGING IT around?


To be fair, only a fairly specific subcategory of explosives goes off when subjected to kinetic shock (i.e. being banged around). Since the stated mechanism for detonation involves a radio (well, EM anyhow) detonator or radioactive decay, physical shock wouldn't particularly do anything. You cannot bump an isotope into decaying faster, at least not by just chucking it into a hard surface, generally speaking.

Maybe you've seen a few too many westerns? The cheapest and overall most convenient explosives in the 1800s/very early 1900s were nitrated organics, most notably nitroglycerin, which is subject to shock detonation and heat detonation at a fairly low temperature, and nitrotoluene, which you can light with a bit of burning cloth or paper. This meant that the bulk of industrial explosives could go off if you dropped them too hoard, be set off by fire, be set off by other things exploding, and so on.

While TNT and nitro are still in use today (the latter mostly in the form of dynamite, which is nitro soaked into cotton or a similar substance to keep it stable against shock), especially in poorer countries (because they're cheap as all hell, I could make nitro with shiat off the shelf at Wal-Mart pretty easily, albeit not safely), the predominant industrial explosives used in the first world are not shock-sensitive and intentionally have extremely high ignition temperatures so that heat ignition requires something uncommon like magnesium powder, and electrical arc, or another low explosive. I could juggle C4, use a block of it as a football, and put out cigars on it all day and all I'd get is possibly food poisoning from cross-contamination. I think popular awareness is kind of catching up to the science because this has been the case since the 1950s at the latest, so movie-makers don't feel they can get away with the "oh, no, he dropped the nuke" *kaboom* stuff anymore.

//This is why one of the proposed counters for nuclear missiles was "just shoot the missiles right back". Nuclear detonation is dependent on accelerating some particles or a slug of matter pretty damned fast, if you blow up the missile with another missile the result will be a broken accelerator and a fairly useless lump of poisonous metal, not a nuclear explosion.

//Admittedly I'd still be worried about banging against a lightpost and the line holding the bomb breaking, 'cause then you're back to your "shiat, a bomb in the city" problem.
 
2012-07-31 02:30:42 AM  

one small post for man: But Dr. Pavel spent like three seconds doing some science stuff to it and made it a bomb. Are you saying you know more than a fictional nuclear physicist?


Well, I wouldn't argue with one:

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-07-31 02:31:41 AM  

SilentBobCDN: My girlfriends biggest issue with TDKR was a two parter:

First, about the likelyhood of the helicopter travelling at least 3 miles out into the ocean carrying the aforementioned "bomb" in the short period of time (I didnt have time to get my stopwatch out to time it) before it exploded, leading me to...

Secondly, no one commented at all about what massive damage that bomb has done to the Atlantic, or the fallout that is likely to rain back on New Yo- I mean Gotham.


Fusion is actually very clean (besides the explosion I mean) and the bomb was the solution to the world's energy problems in the first place, which probably meant clean power. (But that doesn't explain how the military was tracking the radiation.)
 
2012-07-31 02:36:41 AM  
He clearly threw a rope down the hole for the others, I don't know how you could miss that.


....... And they all lived happily ever after.
 
2012-07-31 02:38:13 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: However, once again, this is fictional, and simply the fact that it was a fusion device is not a sufficient reason to conclude it wouldn't have created a nuclear explosion.

/engineer+physicist


Then you should be annoyed too. How can you make a radioactive fusor that can also be weaponized. Admittedly a Russian or American is the most likely to blow something up if it can be blown up, but still.

I mean, you must have seen fusion labs. You can make a tiny fusor in your kitchen. It's online. They can't be blown up.
 
2012-07-31 02:41:23 AM  
It's about appointing oneself the supreme arbiter of taste above all those disgusting little plebs.

Learn how to spell "plebes" you plebe!
 
2012-07-31 02:56:02 AM  
I feel like anytime somebody says anything critical about the movie, all the Batman die hards just stick their fingers in ears and yell NA-NA-NA-NA-BATMAN!!!! until somebody says something good about it again. It had its moments but definitely was not as good as many expected from Nolan.
 
2012-07-31 02:58:12 AM  
I really enjoyed these movies, despite some serious flaws. I don't really care about supposed plot holes. Nine times out of ten, claims of plot holes come from someone that wasn't paying attention or someone that needs everything spelled out for them in detailed exposition. I also don't care about complaints regarding realism. These movies are not realistic. They are vaguely more realistic than most other superhero movies, but that's saying very little.

The flaws that bother me most are in the portrayal of Batman. He's boring, and he's not a detective. Really, these are Batman movies and he's the least interesting character in all of them. And I don't think that's Bale's fault. I think that it's just taken for granted that the audience will root for Batman, and so we're never given any real reason to like him or care about him. It's ridiculous how uninteresting they made the star character.

But like I said, I still really enjoy the movies overall.
 
2012-07-31 04:52:40 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Strolpol: I was also considerably bothered by just how much they bang that nuke around. I mean, no one else flinched when the truck carrying the nuke did a nose-dive? How about when he hooks it up to his plane and starts DRAGGING IT around?

To be fair, only a fairly specific subcategory of explosives goes off when subjected to kinetic shock (i.e. being banged around). Since the stated mechanism for detonation involves a radio (well, EM anyhow) detonator or radioactive decay, physical shock wouldn't particularly do anything. You cannot bump an isotope into decaying faster, at least not by just chucking it into a hard surface, generally speaking.

Maybe you've seen a few too many westerns? The cheapest and overall most convenient explosives in the 1800s/very early 1900s were nitrated organics, most notably nitroglycerin, which is subject to shock detonation and heat detonation at a fairly low temperature, and nitrotoluene, which you can light with a bit of burning cloth or paper. This meant that the bulk of industrial explosives could go off if you dropped them too hoard, be set off by fire, be set off by other things exploding, and so on.

While TNT and nitro are still in use today (the latter mostly in the form of dynamite, which is nitro soaked into cotton or a similar substance to keep it stable against shock), especially in poorer countries (because they're cheap as all hell, I could make nitro with shiat off the shelf at Wal-Mart pretty easily, albeit not safely), the predominant industrial explosives used in the first world are not shock-sensitive and intentionally have extremely high ignition temperatures so that heat ignition requires something uncommon like magnesium powder, and electrical arc, or another low explosive. I could juggle C4, use a block of it as a football, and put out cigars on it all day and all I'd get is possibly food poisoning from cross-contamination. I think popular awareness is kind of catching up to the science because this has ...


Feel better?
 
2012-07-31 04:56:56 AM  

Bonanza Jellybean: My issue: If you were gonna blow up Gotham anyway, why not trigger it as soon as you see the flaming bat emblem? Why wait until Batman is already within arm's-length of farking up your plans? Obviously, it was written this way to build up to the (ooh, ah) Talia reveal (an utter cop-out), but come on.


Maybe because they wanted to see the look on his face when they blew up Gotham? Why else would you stay in the blast radius of the bomb with the exit guarded by the police/army from the outside. bane and Talia were well within blast radius when the bomb had 10 minutes left meaning they were planning to die for there revenge, even if it made no sense.

My main gripe is that the bomb had 90 seconds on the clock and catwoman took the time to kiss batman. Batman had to fly in between various buildings, over some outskirts of the greater metropolitan area and then fly another 6 miles (blast radius of the bomb) in about a minute. (At least) 8 miles in a minute is 480 mph between skyscrapers while dragging the bomb for the first bit. the fastest helicopter went about 250 mph, doubling that in a craft designed for use in urban areas? No way. Just give the bomb 5 minutes instead of going for the last minute save.
 
2012-07-31 04:58:20 AM  

SilentBobCDN: My girlfriends biggest issue with TDKR was a two parter:

First, about the likelyhood of the helicopter travelling at least 3 miles out into the ocean carrying the aforementioned "bomb" in the short period of time (I didnt have time to get my stopwatch out to time it) before it exploded, leading me to...

Back of the envelope calculations: The world's fastest helicopter is the Sikorsky X2 which travels at 299 mph. We know the bomb has a 6 mile detonation radius, so he would have to fly into the lower Manhattan bay. Assuming a starting point near the Holland Tunnel, it would only take about 2.5 minutes to fly far enough into the bay to get all landmass clear of the blast radius. This doesn't seem unreasonable.

Secondly, no one commented at all about what massive damage that bomb has done to the Atlantic, or the fallout that is likely to rain back on New Yo- I mean Gotham.

Dr. Pavel describes the weapon as a neutron bomb. Someone more familiar with nuclear physics can speak to the persistence of radiation from such a weapon, but my recollection is that energetic neutrons are far more short lived than the byproducts of a standard nuclear blast. Given that the weapon was a fusion-only device (no fission trigger) you wouldn't have the fallout associated with a fission weapon. As far as damage done to the ocean, we've set off dozens of weapons in the Pacific without any significant damage to the ocean.

 
2012-07-31 04:59:55 AM  
Freaking italic tags...
 
2012-07-31 05:04:24 AM  

jeanwearinfool: feel better?


We're in a geek tab thread about a movie about a comic book, discussing a technical gripe about a science fiction device.

You seriously have an objection to a long, academic post on practical chemistry in this context? Because that'd be kinda like going to FreeRepublic and complaining that people are being too political.
 
2012-07-31 05:47:49 AM  
Saw it last night was a really good movie. Didn't have a problem with any of it except the distance from the city/nuke bomb thing in LESS than 60 seconds.
 
2012-07-31 05:59:10 AM  

Klippoklondike: God Is My Co-Pirate: Props to the actor playing Bane, though. It can't be easy to convey that much emotion with half your face covered.

While I was very disappointed with the film I have to agree about Tom Hardy's performance. He was very, very good. The rest of the movie...meh.


Tom Hardy's only problem was that he was following up after Heath Ledger, a man who literally redefined the Joker by injecting 13 tons of awesome into every minute of his performance, and then died. Between those two it's a tough act to follow.

I rather enjoyed the film. As I said to my girlfriend, it's just as good as the first film, which is to say the second film was still way better, but it was still a great film.

slayer199: My girlfriend and I discussed this at length (as well as some of the others). The dude lived off the grid for 7 years in his youth. If anything, Bruce Wayne is resourceful. He was broke...but he really wasn't broke. He was also very rich. What do the very rich like to do with their money? Put it in offshore accounts. It's more than likely that he had stashed millions in offshore accounts only known to him (which also explains the ending in more ways than one).


That's kind of where I was with it. That, and the fact that Bruce trained for years with an ostensibly terrorist organization that specializes in secrecy and infiltration. Between the two it's not hard to imagine that he might know how to sneak, steal, and barter his way back to the first world.

It even tracks with the events fairly well. Bane/Talia's stock scam wiped out all of Wayne's LEGITIMATE money; it's not like he could empty one of the offshore accounts and just say "oh yeah, I have ten million I found between the couch cushions" without a few raised eyebrows. Not to mention the various shell companies set up in the first movie that allow him to buy Batman gear without the two being linked. Tons of opportunity for him to squirrel money away that could remain untouched, so the ending makes a lot more sense.

Or, y'know, his master thief girlfriend could've spotted him the cash. Whatever.
 
2012-07-31 06:21:14 AM  
My problem with the movie is that it wasn't very good. The pacing was way off. Bad editing left space for people to start wondering about the feasibility of certain things is the first place. Also the characterization felt totally false in places, and no amount of acting could save it.

Remember in The Dark Knight when the Joker robbed a bank with a school bus, and then the school bus pulled out of the gaping whole of the back and into a line of other school buses without anyone noticing? Think about how little sense that makes. You didn't notice or care so much, because the scene worked. To many things in TDKR simply didn't work right.

I also would have cut out Catwomen completely. I like seeing Ann Hathaway in tight clothes as much as the next guy, but she was an extraneous and unnecessary character for the movie. Also, I know Heath Ledger died, but are really not mentioning the Joker at all? He's just been happily hanging out in a jail cell, with no attempt to escape?
 
2012-07-31 06:41:10 AM  

yukichigai: Tom Hardy's only problem was that he was following up after Heath Ledger, a man who literally redefined the Joker by injecting 13 tons of awesome into every minute of his performance, and then died. Between those two it's a tough act to follow.


To be fair, it's maybe not so much Ledger the actor as the Joker as a character that's a hard act to follow. Basically every time someone new has played the Joker they've been lauded as literally redefining the role and being 13 tons of awesome on a 1.5 ton truck, including Hamill when he did the voice acting for the cartoon.

He's just sort of the Lex Luthor of the Batman franchise, he's a villain, but also kind of the one sane man who realizes he's in a stupid action movie/comic strip on some subconscious level and makes the conscious decision to roll with it and swing for the fences. The sheer quantity of farks not given always makes this sort of character a fan favorite in a medium aimed primarily at 13-25-year-olds that like movies about punching shiat.
 
2012-07-31 06:41:21 AM  
I loved the movie. My only issue is why there wasn't footage of the orphans' eyes crisping in their sockets when they took it upon themselves to stare wide-eyed at a four megaton nuclear blast happening only six miles away.
 
2012-07-31 07:15:46 AM  

SilentBobCDN: My girlfriends biggest issue with TDKR was a two parter:

First, about the likelyhood of the helicopter travelling at least 3 miles out into the ocean carrying the aforementioned "bomb" in the short period of time (I didnt have time to get my stopwatch out to time it) before it exploded, leading me to...

Secondly, no one commented at all about what massive damage that bomb has done to the Atlantic, or the fallout that is likely to rain back on New Yo- I mean Gotham.


We were bothered by this too. If I remember right, in the movie they said the fusion reactor had been converted into a 400 megaton bomb. Which then detonated safely a few miles from the city.

Except that a much smaller 25 megaton bomb would level everything in a 10 mile radius. Plus, if you are downwind, the fallout will kill anything within 90 miles within a few days. Oh, and the 500 mph shock wave would cause a tsunami.

Also, it was really impressive how their unstable, decaying reactor had such a precise timer on it, counting down over months to the exact moment it would lose containment and blow.
 
2012-07-31 07:44:27 AM  
The movie is an utter failure. Having Bane be the big bad guy and then only later discovering that he is just the lapdog of some evil woman completely ruins his character. Nothing he does is actually part of his plan. That means he's not a genius, only hired muscle. He's also apparently 50 years old if he was that much older than talia when they escaped.

Why does talia stay in character right up until the end when Batman shows up as a surprise? Once they were sure Batman was never coming back wouldn't Talia have told the world who she really was? It's almost like she was just going to hide until the bomb exploded.

Manhattan has a population of 8 million and has 35,000 uniformed police officers. Gotham has a population of 12 million and apparently 3000 police officers. Poor civic planning.

Not only does Batman managed to get the bomb over the Bay far too quickly, I am also curious about how he seems to escape the blast radius in under one minute. Does he engage his new we fixed autopilot and then hit the supersonic ejector seat which blasts him away 6 miles in under one minute?

Why the fark is there a countdown timer on the fusion core?

Isn't making Wayne manner into an orphanage a risky proposition? What if a child finds the Batcave? I would hate to see an eight-year-old get a hold of all those bat-weapons.

Why does Bruce Wayne go off and live with a serial criminal who we have seen murder several people and steal many things and betray many many more people? I know it's Anne Hathaway, but seriously?

Why if Alfred is so concerned about Bruce being killed, does he leave making Bruce more vulnerable and likely to be killed?

Why, if Batman ceased being Batman eight years ago is Bruce so badly injured? It seems like he only ever had two major fights in his life. First he dealt with the scarecrow then he dealt with the Joker. Hardly enough to completely ruin a man's body. At least in this comic book world. That kind of damage would be accumulated from a lifetime of doing this sort of thing. Not doing it for two years and then giving it up.

Why did driving over the bridge kill talia immediately but leave 60-year-old already injured recently hospitalized Commissioner Gordon alive?

Why did Batman blowup the top of that skyscraper simply to clear it when he's in a vertical takeoff and landing vehicle? Most citizens of gotham we're still holed up in their homes at the time of him leaving, therefore he may have killed hundreds of people simply because he had to stop and kiss Catwoman before taking off. What a jerk.
 
2012-07-31 07:47:10 AM  

Mugato: He was never much of a detective either.


WTF are you smoking? Batman is one of the greatest detectives of all time. Of all time! If he had super powers they'd be super intelligence, gadgetry, and detective skillz. That's, like, his thing. It's one of the defining characteristics of Batman.
 
2012-07-31 08:03:13 AM  

Stile4aly: As far as damage done to the ocean, we've set off dozens of weapons in the Pacific without any significant damage to the ocean.


cdn.screenrant.com
The ocean, no, but Japan is under constant monster attack.
 
2012-07-31 08:09:20 AM  
Why do people take things so seriously? I mean, a film is ruined because of a timer on a countdown core? Some things are obviously put in for our, the viewers, benefit. That's just a fact of cinema. Deal the fark with it. Jeez.

I thought it was a great film but I still left the cinema with things to raise against it, but I won't let a few minor quibbles get in the way of my enjoyment. The article and this thread serve as a testament to the fact that most of you weren't paying attention to the film and then complained about bits you missed. The whole throwing the rope down into the prison bit is a prime example. It was farking obviously clear in the film he dropped the rope back in, if you missed it you weren't paying attention. A guy I watched the film with asked how Batman got over a broken back in a couple of days... Not paying attention can ruin a film.

A few gripes I had with the film were the fact that I think firstly a little more effort could have been used to distinguish Gotham from New York City, Batman could have done less driving and flying with crappy batmobiles, batbikes and batcopters, and more fighting. Probably unpopular but I think there hasn't been a decent batmobile since the Adam We 60s batman. It was a cool looking vehicle to get him to a fight. That's all it needs to be.

Also the film was very light, when Gotham should be a very dark place. I don't know if this was a deliberate directional choice to illustrate something about the lifting of crime from the city, but I like the dark Gotham.

Perhaps I should disclaim that I never read the comic books, I've seen a few, my brother likes them, but I think they're crap. I also never really like superhero films until Batman Begins. I'm sure I'm looking at these films, and Batman himself, in a completely different way than the die hard fans from comic book era, but ultimately I think some let themselves fall into hating the film for too trivial reasons.

It's not like some guy in a cave and some cable fashioned a suit that superheated the cable with plasma or something from a small nuclear device which allowed him to jump onto an F1 track and cut some cars in half.
 
2012-07-31 08:11:39 AM  
A shrill nerd defending his terrible taste in comic book movies........................ on the internet?

NOW I've seen EVERYTHING.
 
2012-07-31 08:14:01 AM  

Honest Bender: Mugato: He was never much of a detective either.

WTF are you smoking? Batman is one of the greatest detectives of all time. Of all time! If he had super powers they'd be super intelligence, gadgetry, and detective skillz. That's, like, his thing. It's one of the defining characteristics of Batman.


I said in the movies, not the comics.
 
2012-07-31 08:15:37 AM  
Bain's Stock Scam Would Never Work In The Real World

But it did to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars
 
2012-07-31 08:17:05 AM  

Digitalstrange: Britney Spear's Speculum: mgshamster: Wasn't scarecrow in the asylum? He got out.

He wasn't in the asylum, he was running around the streets with guys in hockey pads dressed up as batman in the dark knight.

except Batman left him trussed up at the end of that scene for pickup to go back to Arkham. He was back in custody


I didn't realize they sent him to Arkham. I didn't think he was particularly crazy.
 
2012-07-31 08:18:19 AM  

FabulousFreep: Saw it last night was a really good movie. Didn't have a problem with any of it except the distance from the city/nuke bomb thing in LESS than 60 seconds.


It was a small device capable of leveling 6 square miles. The Bat was capable of more than 6 miles from the city in 60 seconds.
 
2012-07-31 08:26:12 AM  

Slaxl: A guy I watched the film with asked how Batman got over a broken back in a couple of days... Not paying attention can ruin a film.


So, serious question for everyone: did they ever explicitly state his back was broken in the film? I've read Knightfall, I know Bane certainly broke his back there, but in the film, I'm pretty sure all they said was he "slipped a disc" or something, not full on bones breaking. Not a doctor, but I imagine a slipped disc is far less severe than vertebrae snapping in half.
 
2012-07-31 08:30:15 AM  

farkityfarker: They forgot "Why would anyone go see a movie about a man who dresses up in a silly bat costume to fight crime?"


Why would anyone post in a thread about a movie they disdain?

/the answers are similar, I'd wager.
 
2012-07-31 08:31:50 AM  

YodaBlues: Slaxl: A guy I watched the film with asked how Batman got over a broken back in a couple of days... Not paying attention can ruin a film.

So, serious question for everyone: did they ever explicitly state his back was broken in the film? I've read Knightfall, I know Bane certainly broke his back there, but in the film, I'm pretty sure all they said was he "slipped a disc" or something, not full on bones breaking. Not a doctor, but I imagine a slipped disc is far less severe than vertebrae snapping in half.


Bruce had a dislocated vertebrae; no severing of the spinal cord.
 
2012-07-31 08:32:26 AM  
Much of what is said in the article is true. I never saw "plot holes" in the film, just some subjective choices or things which strained my disbelief. Frankly, my slight problem with what seems to be the biggest strain for many, the back injury, is this could have been approached in a manner better fitting into the story of revenge, the atmosphere of the prison, and Bruce's concern for his own inability after the death of Rachel all while never straining disbelief. The injury should have been primarily psychological with loss of function of his legs. He has just been "broken" by Bane, been betrayed by Selina, failed to save Gotham, given the keys to Gotham's destruction to a terrorist organization, and is thousands of miles away in an inescapable prison; the physical healing is short, but he is mentally crippled. Just a thought with the benefit of hindsight.

Bigger issue is Catwoman. Hard to argue Anne Hathaway out of a film, especially one where she wears quite high heels and some black latex outfit, but Catwoman should not have been in the film. She brought Batman to Bane in an uninteresting set of scenes which did nothing to help develop the sense of either Bane or Batman; rather, Batman seemed gullible by having no contingency and blundering straight in through the tunnels. She destroyed some barriers in two seconds which frankly could've been done with supplies from Gordon or Batman or else the several months of time everyone had. Her character requires including another element in the film with the "Clean Slate" (Bruce never needs this as he "died"). With her, we never get an ambiguous ending, because you know a movie where Bruce escapes alone would not include Alfred flying off to find him and him sitting in a cafe somewhere. Last and worst, she kills Bane in terrible fashion; what an anticlimactic end to him.

She had unnecessary scenes throughout (negatively influencing the pacing and making the film feel laborious for some) and detracted from several characters. Plus, she was the campiest part of the whole film.

There, got that off my chest.
 
2012-07-31 08:34:54 AM  
I thought I b*tched about a lot of stupid stuff, but after reading this thread.......
 
2012-07-31 08:37:31 AM  

eldritch2k4: YodaBlues: Slaxl: A guy I watched the film with asked how Batman got over a broken back in a couple of days... Not paying attention can ruin a film.

So, serious question for everyone: did they ever explicitly state his back was broken in the film? I've read Knightfall, I know Bane certainly broke his back there, but in the film, I'm pretty sure all they said was he "slipped a disc" or something, not full on bones breaking. Not a doctor, but I imagine a slipped disc is far less severe than vertebrae snapping in half.

Bruce had a dislocated vertebrae; no severing of the spinal cord.


Exactly, he had a pretty bad back injury but it wasn't broken, the doctor dude said he had a vertebrae sticking out, so punched it back in. Who watched that and thought, "so you can fix a broken back by punching it... interesting!"
 
2012-07-31 08:47:41 AM  
Also keep in mind that we never see that there are any incompetent cops, just cops who aren't privy to the same information the audience is and jerk cops.

Um, they sent the entire police force into the sewers to look for Bane? That's pretty incompetent. Even if he hadn't trapped them down there, who were they counting on to stop all the regularly scheduled crimes happening on the surface?
 
2012-07-31 08:49:49 AM  
It amuses me that I went through pages of rants by professionals and not one asked, at any time, why Bane didn't just kill all those cops trapped underground

He figured the bomb would do that. And by keeping them alive until the bomb, he makes it look like he's a reasonable guy (for a terrorist)
 
2012-07-31 08:52:27 AM  

Vangor: Catwoman should not have been in the film


I thought she was great. And she was the only character who wasn't dead serious and earnest. She was also a welcome female in that sausage-fest (besides the psycho terrorist).

Matthew Modine's character, he was useless.
 
Displayed 50 of 252 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report