The Dark Knight Rises 6 Minutes of TDKR footage attached to Mission Impossible 4! - - - Part 12

[jnmx2000]

so, was the prologue for one night or will it be played in front of the IMAX MI4 film for it's whole run? I wanted to see it but not sure if I should go out of my way to see MI4 in Imax for the prologue.

 

[Baneis8feettall]

p.s i hope aiden gillen is listed in the credits as cia *****e.

or as CIA's littlefinger t:

 

[Ramsay Snow]

What exactly are you talking about? Most people I see asking questions, are the ones wanting to know what the blood transfusion was for, because quite frankly, it doesn't really make sense, regardless if there's an overabundance of exposition(which there isn't as far as the transfusion goes). It's an overall silly premise to begin with, one in which has to be glossed over, but at the same time, just doesn't make sense.

This is just my opinion (obviously t but I thought that when Pavel's blood was transferred to the body and Bane said to one of his men "They expect one of us in the wreckage, brother" - it was perfectly clear to me that the people in the broken plane wre going to die, and the dead body would be temporarily assumed as Pavel's. Makes sense to me - no need for further explanation.

This is coming from a guy who needs quite a few things explained from the previous movies.

 

[Anita18]

The moment I saw the prologue i got what the transfusion was for.

But this i can understand being confusing if not explained.

However when I see a plethora of people inquiring:

"Did the CIA Guy throw someone out of the plane?"

"Why did that guy stay behind?"

"Why do you think Bane said 'for you'?"

It surprises me because these seem to be fairly obvious things from the prologue. The last few days people have been saying Nolan's films have too much exposition but, when you don't explain bluntly that the CIA guy was bluffing a large section of people seem to miss out on it.

Its strange, to me.

Not to mention there are many people to this day are confused over Joker's claims on his own behavior and don't realize that HE LIES.

 

[Name-That-movie]

To be fair a lot of people I talked to after they saw it on Tuesday and since then have asked about the transfusion. I guess most people don't think on that level, and by no means is that a bash. Just seems to be a simple fact.

 

[Bats]

I got the transfusion right away as well as the CIA *****e's ploy for Bane & his men. Nothing was confusing in any way except for what Bane was saying even though I saw the prologue transcript before seeing it. Weird thing about that was one of the bootlegs I saw, I understand it much better than in the theater.

 

[DaveMoral]

Hey, give them a break... this is the same general audience that couldn't understand why Batman changed his voice when the first film launched.

Well, that was kind of dickish huh?

 

[QueenChaos]

Not to mention there are many people to this day are confused over Joker's claims on his own behavior and don't realize that HE LIES.

Some are still confused over if he said

Spoiler

six

or

Spoiler

ten

 

[Indrid Cold]

"Did the CIA Guy throw someone out of the plane?"

No, he threw out his back, in the back of the plane.

"Why did that guy stay behind?"

He just got all of first class to himself, wouldn't you?

Hahaha, ohhh the funny!

 

[CelticPredator]

Good for you. Some people didn't get it. Not a big deal.

 

[The_Raganork]

To be fair a lot of people I talked to after they saw it on Tuesday and since then have asked about the transfusion. I guess most people don't think on that level, and by no means is that a bash. Just seems to be a simple fact.

Yeah, which is fine if people don't get the transfusion but that's only further proof that exposition is a necessary tool in storytelling and when Nolan skimps people are confused.

However the confusion over the line:

"if I pull this off will you die"

"it will be extremely painful"

"you're a big guy-"

"for you"

Is absolutely mind numbing as well as if the CIA shot someone or not.

 

[Nevincer]

Well, that was kind of dickish huh?

Not particularly. I get sick of people crying "too much exposition, Nolan!" as well whilst simultaneously not being able to figure out things like the blood transfusion.

 

[Travesty]

The moment I saw the prologue i got what the transfusion was for.

But this i can understand being confusing if not explained.

However when I see a plethora of people inquiring:

"Did the CIA Guy throw someone out of the plane?"

"Why did that guy stay behind?"

"Why do you think Bane said 'for you'?"

It surprises me because these seem to be fairly obvious things from the prologue. The last few days people have been saying Nolan's films have too much exposition but, when you don't explain bluntly that the CIA guy was bluffing a large section of people seem to miss out on it.

Its strange, to me.

Yes, but some of these people asking about what was going on in the prologue are still watching the bootleg, which, isn't that clear what's going on, regardless of which version you have. You can't blame people for not seeing the actual released version, when they're watching some blurry cell phone version.

And if they did see it in theaters, just because a few are questioning it, doesn't negate the fact that Nolan's dialogue is very heavy handed with exposition at times.

 

[TinkerTailor]

Where are all the "less exposition" people now?

They need to read through the last few days of post

I'm still here but after reading this thread for the last few days I've been too busy banging my head in incredulous frustration to post.

At this point I will happily see Nolan produce a pamphlet for certain cinema goers with a point by point explanation of every line in the film just so I can stop tearing my hair out.

 

[Travesty]

Not particularly. I get sick of people crying "too much exposition, Nolan!" as well whilst simultaneously not being able to figure out things like the blood transfusion.

And again, you can't blame them with something that doesn't really make sense. Even with a blood transfusion, you'll still be able to identify the body through many different means. And why would Bane, a person who isn't afraid of being in the limelight, scared of getting caught? The guy is publicly killing people at a stadium, and taking over an entire city, so why would he be scared of someone finding out that he killed some people in a plane? It just doesn't add up, and maybe that's why people don't understand what's going on.

You can't just explain everything away like that, and then say Nolan's exposition is fine.

 

[The_Raganork]

Yes, but some of these people asking about what was going on in the prologue are still watching the bootleg, which, isn't that clear what's going on, regardless of which version you have. You can't blame people for not seeing the actual released version, when they're watching some blurry cell phone version.

And if they did see it in theaters, just because a few are questioning it, doesn't negate the fact that Nolan's dialogue is very heavy handed with exposition at times.

I don't agree totally. (but I don't disagree totally either)

When a good portion of people are confused by something like the transfusion then Exposition would have helped. Everyone who feels Nolan needs to cool it down with the exposition needs to pay attention to what's happening here. people are thoroughly confused by the blood transfusion and more obvious things like the notion of bluffing.

Exposition is there to keep that from happening, without it people are confused.

I'd like for someone to take the majority of exposition in Inception out of the film and see what would happen to general audiences. Because the first thing I heard when Inception ended was a guy saying:

"The guy who made that must have been high when he did, cause it didn't make no damn sense'

And unfortunately a lot of people were confused by Inception, so the exposition seemingly wasn't enough. I felt personally it was fine but, I think a lot of us are used to watching these films as films and not just experiencing it, so things like exposition stick out to us.

Its fine to think it's too much exposition to one's taste but we all have biases and the point of these films is to come across a certain way to a general audience.

If people want to see too much exposition go see MI4 where some of the exposition has exposition and they have hypothetical exposition about events that aren't going to happen at all in the film but would be cool to explain.

 

[bullets]

The moment I saw the prologue i got what the transfusion was for.

But this i can understand being confusing if not explained.

However when I see a plethora of people inquiring:

"Did the CIA Guy throw someone out of the plane?"

"Why did that guy stay behind?"

"Why do you think Bane said 'for you'?"

It surprises me because these seem to be fairly obvious things from the prologue. The last few days people have been saying Nolan's films have too much exposition but, when you don't explain bluntly that the CIA guy was bluffing a large section of people seem to miss out on it.

Its strange, to me.

My friend overheard someone ask if Bane was a vampire during the transfusion scene.

It's funny to know the person sitting next to you could be having an entirely different experience.

 

[The_Raganork]

I'm still here but after reading this thread for the last few days I've been too busy banging my head in incredulous frustration to post.

At this point I will happily see Nolan produce a pamphlet for certain cinema goers with a point by point explanation of every line in the film just so I can stop tearing my hair out.

haha.

To be fair I'm not saying I'm better than anyone. I missed out a big moment in TDK because of lack of exposition and my being so sucked into the scene.

I didn't get that Joker lied about the location of Harvey and rachel until the film ended. I was confused for a good moment. So I certainly understand missing something here and there but when it comes down to plot points exposition is not a bad thing and I, personally, feel Nolan has done a fine job of using exposition.

 

[Name-That-movie]

Yes, but some of these people asking about what was going on in the prologue are still watching the bootleg, which, isn't that clear what's going on, regardless of which version you have. You can't blame people for not seeing the actual released version, when they're watching some blurry cell phone version.

And if they did see it in theaters, just because a few are questioning it, doesn't negate the fact that Nolan's dialogue is very heavy handed with exposition at times.

And this is fine and perfectly understandable. However it gets frustrating when the boards are flooded with the same questions over and over and I'm not talking about the transfusion but stuff like "I think he says for you about his size" or "what guy got left behind? I think both did, no your wrong they both did."

People need to start being just a little less lazy and take a look back and see if someone might of already asked that question.

 

[Travesty]

When a good portion of people are confused by something like the transfusion then Exposition would have helped. Everyone who feels Nolan needs to cool it down with the exposition needs to pay attention to what's happening here. people are thoroughly confused by the blood transfusion and more obvious things like the notion of bluffing.

Yes, but you're still not realizing that the vast majority of people who've been questioning it for a few days now, have watched the bootleg, which, isn't exactly clear what's going on in the scene. It's choppy, shaky, and just all around not that clear. You can't blame people for not being able to see what's going on in a low quality bootleg.

And again, even if they did, the plot doesn't even add up to making any kind of sense. If it actually made sense to do a blood transfusion, then sure, but really, it doesn't make a lick of sense, both in a realistic sense, and the way the character is portrayed.

 

[Travesty]

And this is fine and perfectly understandable. However it gets frustrating when the boards are flooded with the same questions over and over and I'm not talking about the transfusion but stuff like "I think he says for you about his size" or "what guy got left behind? I think both did, no your wrong they both did."

People need to start being just a little less lazy and take a look back and see if someone might of already asked that question.

This has nothing to do with Nolan's exposition, which was my point. I'm not trying to debate people's lazy forum tendencies.

 

[TinkerTailor]

haha.

To be fair I'm not saying I'm better than anyone. I missed out a big moment in TDK because of lack of exposition and my being so sucked into the scene.

I didn't get that Joker lied about the location of Harvey and rachel until the film ended. I was confused for a good moment. So I certainly understand missing something here and there but when it comes down to plot points exposition is not a bad thing and I, personally, feel Nolan has done a fine job of using exposition.

I actually think the prologue was fine. It made sense in the context. CIA *****e is obviously going to be asking Bane all these questions because it's his job. He needs to know these things. Bane's men wouldn't discuss the transfusion in that situation because they're clearly a well oiled machine so why would they discuss it there and then.

I thought it was fairly obvious that Bane performs the transfusion and leaves a body and a man in the wreckage because he wants to cause a little confusion at the crash site. For what purpose will be revealed in the other 2 and a bit hours worth of cinema that some people seem to be forgetting about.

 

[The_Raganork]

Yes, but you're still not realizing that the vast majority of people who've been questioning it for a few days now, have watched the bootleg, which, isn't exactly clear what's going on in the scene. It's choppy, shaky, and just all around not that clear. You can't blame people for not being able to see what's going on in a low quality bootleg.

I don't agree.

People saw what Bane was doing they just didn't understand why. So it being a bootleg had nothing to do with them not knowing what it was for.

It was a lack of exposition.

And again, even if they did, the plot doesn't even add up to making any kind of sense. If it actually made sense to do a blood transfusion, then sure, but really, it doesn't make a lick of sense, both in a realistic sense, and the way the character is portrayed.

It may not make sense ultimately but it's also no totally absurd, if it were none of us would understand why it happened. A little stretch of the imagination easily can come up with a reason why Bane would do that. Even if the results of him doing it are in dispute the reason for him doing it is not something that is obscenely strange and unusual.

 

[Baneis8feettall]

My friend overheard someone ask if Bane was a vampire during the transfusion scene.

It's funny to know the person sitting next to you could be having an entirely different experience.

 

[The_Raganork]

I actually think the prologue was fine. It made sense in the context. CIA *****e is obviously going to be asking Bane all these questions because it's his job. He needs to know these things. Bane's men wouldn't discuss the transfusion in that situation because they're clearly a well oiled machine so why would they discuss it there and then.

I thought it was fairly obvious that Bane performs the transfusion and leaves a body and a man in the wreckage because he wants to cause a little confusion at the crash site. For what purpose will be revealed in the other 2 and a bit hours worth of cinema that some people seem to be forgetting about.

Yes but a lot of people did not get it...at all.