don't give bigal any ideas

how is that possible if you weren't born that way?

I really liked TDKR. Plot holes galore but for whatever reason they didnt ruin it for me. Bane was an awesome villain IMO.

just saw TDKR

had the following in-depth commentary/reaction:

This argument has robo-AIDS dude. Suspension of disbelief isn't an either/or proposition. In fact, one of the ways that it's maintained best is by not throwing all logic and reason out the window just because you have some more fantastical elements. There's nothing interesting about seeing somebody break the rules of a universe that doesn't have rules.

Many movies have plot holes, and the good ones don't allow them to distract you. TDK is a good example of that. In Rises I found that they were too big, too needless, and too distracting.

That reminds me that probably my favorite part from that excellent imdb review upthread is


haha

I mentioned in OOTV that Usual Suspects is my favorite movie, and I've probably seen it like 30 times. Plot holes don't usually bother me, but all of what I listed just took me out of the movie.

Dids,

Yeah, even the most airtight of action films like The Fugitive and Hunt for Red October have some plot leaks, but not so many they can't be overlooked. This one is the mf'ing Titanic in comparison.

I'll never let go, tuqy.

Karak,

"Standard for a superhero" movie is not a defense, and specifically not a defense for these movies, who to some extent hang their hat on exactly not being a standard plot hole festival super hero movie.

Also the issue isn't so much that these things happen, it's that they happen with no attempt whatsoever to explain why- when all it would take would be 20 seconds of exposition. Instead we got Matthew Modine's arc, which added nothing whatsoever to the movie.

All the Modine thing did was make me feel old cuz I remember when Full Metal Jacket came out.

best thing about titanic is dicaprio slowrolling in the beginning ultimately had a just punishment

I do get the feeling that there were some scenes involving the Modine thing which were cut from the movie. I think what they were going for there, symbolism wise, was pretty clear... they just didn't connect some of the dots and made the viewer do it (more so than would be appropriate, I guess).

Again, I'm not saying the movie is flawless... certainly not. I just think people really berating it hard for having some of those plot holes are being a bit too harsh. I think it was so good overall that it more than compensates for them. Would it be a better movie without them? Perhaps, but the time constraints movie editors are working with are pretty tough sometimes.

In a sense you're right- as this movie is literally the longest imax movie ever, to the point where people aren't sure it physically could have been longer.

However, this was a long as **** movie in every other sense. Nolan was allowed way more time to tell his story than most folks would be. You can't just say "ran out of time" and excuse that. There were a lot of editing choices that could have been made differently and those are things for which Nolan is responsible. You run out of time to make Modine work (and I agree that it seems like elements of that must have been cut) then you cut the whole thing out.

The other thing is that you can't tell people their experiences were wrong. If a plot element distracts the view enough that they're no longer focusing on the movie- that really happened. They're not watching it incorrectly- it's the movie's job to put us into "shut up and enjoy" state, and it didn't do that as well as others. I think there's enough people that have noted the movie's issues that it's fair to say that it's not just a few haters who be hating.

If TDKR was a standalone movie and we didn't have the previous 2 to judge it by, do you think the criticism would land as harshly?

Edit - and I don't mean to strawman... I'm not offering this as a logical defense. I'm just curious.

Yeah, this film was basically the big titted obnoxious broad that some people can put up with because she has big tits, but others get pushed past the breaking point and get a little resentful about the whole thing like hey, just cuz you have huge tits doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.

No, because Dark Knight demonstrated that Nolan is better than this. He's clearly held to a higher standard. But I don't know that that changes B+ grades to A's, it just changes the nature of the conversation. I suspect the other side of this argument is more true- you wouldn't see such passionate defense (I mean nobody's up in arms over how Spider-Man was received) had not the Dark Knight (and BB, and Inception) created a lot of fanboys.

Also I think that's slightly impossible as one of my bigger faults with the movie is that it feels overly concerned with wrapping up the triology and doesn't stand on it own enough. If it wasn't trying to serve multiple masters and stood alone, it would be a better film.

this is actually a pretty fair comparison

also:

I mean...wat

but also yes, this is very apt.

i really need to go see this movie so i can read this thread again

Pudge,