View Single Post
Old 11-18-2012, 11:58 AM   #652
The Guard
The Guard's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 32,148
Default Re: Characterization of the Knight - Nolan and Bale's Bruce Wayne/Batman - Part 2

The problem is that many of the times the criticism are put forth in a way that to seeks to definitively state flaws as objective flaws.
That's called having an opinion about art. I've said this before...I'll say it again. I assume that people are intelligent enough to realize that just because something is stated definitively on here...that doesn't mean it's not still just their opinion.

Which can come off as an indirect insult to the tastes of those who liked those very things that the opposing side is calling a defect of
the film. That's how the defense starts. At least for me. I've got a thicker skin for it now, but that's how it started in my case.

Why would anyone reasonably take that as a personal or direct insult if it's not phrased as such?

So Guard, no offense, but when you say "love the film, warts and all" and say that the more critical crowd is assessing the movie "on a different level", that once again seems to imply that people who had less issues with the film just have lower standards and can just ignore certain things.
What I actually was "On a different level or in a different manner". It was a single thought contained in a single sentence, and encompassed both varying opinions and those posters who say things like "Why can't you just enjoy it for what it is". I wasn't just saying "Those who enjoy it on a different level". I made a statement that included both.

And you know what? There are some people who view these films in a more artistic sense, and care more about the structure. But I made no value judgement about viewing a film on a different level. I simply pointed out that it happens.

Basically like we're just watching the movie with blinders on. In a sense, what you just said could be boiled down to, "By all means, enjoy your flawed mess of a movie and let the big boys talk." I don't even think that's what you're trying to imply, it just unfortunately can come off as very condescending. And that can get people riled up.
Yes, it could be boiled down to that...if you completely read into what I said, despite the lack of any inference whatsoever about any of that.
You're being a tad oversensitive here, I think.

What I wrote shouldn't come across as condescending at all, and certainly shouldn't come across as "Enjoy your flawed mess of a movie and let the big boys talk" unless you're really reading things into it that aren't there, and refusing to take what I said at face value.

For instance, I actually loved the LOS's inclusion in the film, and them returning in spite of a cleaner Gotham was in fact brilliant, and paved the way for bringing a lot of themes established in Batman Begins full circle. Yet it's constantly hammered on here as a fundamental weakness of the movie.
That's because, from a writing standpoint, there are people who recognize that it's essentially a repeat of what we saw in BATMAN BEGINS. They consider that a creative weakness, and to be not at all brilliant.

While I think Nolan did enough with the concept the second time around that he didn't present it in the exact same manner and there were some interesting thematic possibilities explored, I certainly don't consider it "brilliant". I consider the League of Shadows inclusion in the film to be relatively clever in the sense that it does bring things full circle and further develop some of the parental/legacy themes, but at the same time, its a fairly obvious story point, and fans have been speculating about the return of the League of Shadows and even Bane returning with the League of Shadows since BATMAN BEGINS.

That's why the arguments go in circles and frustration builds on both sides.
Arguments go in circles and frustration builds, not because people have different opinions, but because very few people around here are anything
resembling open-minded about creative aspects of film, writing, acting, etc.

And certainly, whining about other people's opinions doesn't get you anywhere, so I totally agree with you in that regard.
It's not so much about whining about other people's opinions...its this idea that people who see flaws in the film are somehow trying to destroy someone's personal enjoyment of the movie.

The simple fact we all need to live with is that with this movie, what some people see as bad writing, others see as good writing and vice versa. It's that simple. If I thought TDKR wasn't well-written, I wouldn't like it nearly as much as I do. So there goes the "accept it's not well-written, but go on loving it" proposal.
Except that it's not that simple. While there are gray areas to be sure, there are also objective standards in the movie industry and among writers in general for what constitutes "good" and "bad" writing. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy what's in the movie, but this is what I'm talking about when I say that people who like TDKR seem to have this assumption that this means the writing is good.

On another note, I keep seeing posts about how people have been ripped or blasted or said to have lower standards for not liking certain things. That is just not what I see on here. I see debate. Intense debate from time to time, to be sure, but debate nonetheless. While there's been some namecalling and general immaturity (there almost always is), I am really not seeing this widespread "belittling" that's being talked about. I think some of you are being a little bit oversensitive.

@The Guard: I'll admit, maybe I was looking too far into things with that particular quote of yours. Then again, the use of the phrase "making stuff up" suggests a certain nuance considering that I think a lot of the things defenders have proposed aren't that far-fetched in the context of the trilogy. But we're getting into matters of opinion here as well, so I guess we'll just have to disagree.
I don't know how "making things up" can be taken as anything but "making things up" unless you willfully ignore what I have said. It has a definitive meaning: Imagining things. Coming up with things out of thin air.

When you say things like "suggests a certian nuance", do you know what that suggests to me?

That you are making things up and conjecturing and reading into what I have said, despite the fact that by saying "making things up", I have made a rather concise point that really needs none of that to be understood.

"Perception is the enemy of reason."


Last edited by The Guard; 11-18-2012 at 12:08 PM.
The Guard is offline   Reply With Quote