The Dark Knight Biggest Disappointment

[ABleedingCorpse]

I'm disappointed I didn't go see TDK at least once this week.

 

[M.O.Steel]

why do people have a problem with the sudden apearances. yes, from batman's perspective, he's lurking a lot in the shadows, but i thought nolan was trying to show it from the other people's perspective, where he seems to shows up randomly and disappears randomly. i think that the point.

 

[Crook]

It's the gap in plausibility. Batman disappearing on the rooftops is fine. We can assume he's just quick and silent enough to sneak away. However, appearing in the middle of a penthouse full of people, unnoticed, is just....well, stupid.

 

[JoeCat]

It's the gap in plausibility. Batman disappearing on the rooftops is fine. We can assume he's just quick and silent enough to sneak away. However, appearing in the middle of a penthouse full of people, unnoticed, is just....well, stupid.

Well, that scene didn't say that he got in unnoticed as it was from The Joker & Rachel's point of view. They just didn't notice him until it was too late

 

[Crook]

Lol, c'mon. The entire crowd was encircling Joker and Rachel. Plus the goons were keeping watch. To think that no one saw him is grasping at straws.

 

[the_scream]

Lol, c'mon. The entire crowd was encircling Joker and Rachel. Plus the goons were keeping watch. To think that no one saw him is grasping at straws.

No it ain't. From Batman Begins:

Wayne: You know how to disappear.

Ducard: We can teach you
to become truly invisible.

Wayne: Invisible?

[SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE]

Ducard: The ninja understands that invisibility
is a matter of patience and agility.

If people have a problem with Batman just "appearing" then they disagree with the whole idea of Batman which is that he is so
skilled he can disappear. Just as he can beat up dozens of bad guys with guns, and run around without getting shot. It's BATMAN not the real-world. To not have Batman "appear" like this would be inaccurate. He takes advantage of his surrounding and sneaks up on his opponents. In this case, everyone's attention was on the Joker about to slice Rachel's face. Batman could have easily infiltrated the party without being noticed.

 

[the_scream]

Another point. There is a phenomena known as inattentional blindness that can explain how Batman was not noticed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness

There is a video, for instance, where people are told to watch two groups throw a ball. A gorilla walks out and beats his chest right in front of the camera. Guess what? Most people don't see the gorilla when asked later! The idea is that when we are focussed on something, there are many things (even really obvious stuff) that goes unnoticed. I have seen people not see this gorilla first hand. Show your family/friends and most won't see it (you can't tell them to look for it obviously).

The point is that, yes, Batman could very easily sneak into the party when everyone's attention is on the Joker about to slice up Rachel. It is actually more probable that it would happen.

Magicians use this phenomena all the time when they are able to make things appear and disappear even when the trick is right in front of them. I saw a magician on tv who stole a guy's watch by making him look at his shirt. When they played back the footage, I couldn't believe how obvious it was. But at the time, I too was just looking at the guy's shirt, missing the plain obvious in front of me.

In short, Batman's disappearing trick makes complete sense when you factor stuff like this in.

 

[Spider-Vader]

Since this was the last film with the Joker we will all probably see for a while, this film should have been 4 hours.

It was his movie. That's why they avoided having BM in the title, so people don't get mad like with '89 BM.

So I think we can live without Joker in another movie until the next re-boot series.

 

[Matt Murdock]

In short, Batman's disappearing trick makes complete sense when you factor stuff like this in.

Also, the fact that it's a piece of cinema and not real life helps.

I don't get some people. Were this story told through the medium of a comic book, the reader would see a panel depicting The Joker pressing the knife into Rachel's mouth. A speech bubble would be over his head:

"A little fight in ya. I like that!"

Beneath that would be a bubble, the tail of which flowed out of the panel.

"Then you're gonna love me."

You'd have a panel of The Joker arching an eyebrow, and, after that, a full-page spread of Batman slamming a fist into his jaw. You wouldn't see any panels showing the crowd's reaction to Batman as he, presumably, crept through the crowd or fell from the ceiling.

 

[Crook]

No it ain't. From Batman Begins:

Wayne: You know how to disappear.

Ducard: We can teach you
to become truly invisible.

Wayne: Invisible?

[SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE]

Ducard: The ninja understands that invisibility
is a matter of patience and agility.

I really love it when people counterpoint with actual dialog from the film.

If people have a problem with Batman just "appearing" then they disagree with the whole idea of Batman which is that he is so
skilled he can disappear.

Read my previous post. I have no qualms with his disappear/reappearing acts. It's a known trait associated with him. But I'm not gonna deny there were several scenes in which TDK just used it to a ridiculously unbelievable degree.

Just as he can beat up dozens of bad guys with guns, and run around without getting shot. It's BATMAN not the real-world. To not have Batman "appear" like this would be inaccurate. He takes advantage of his surrounding and sneaks up on his opponents.

Again, all that works as long it walks on the line of plausibility.

Another point. There is a phenomena known as inattentional blindness that can explain how Batman was not noticed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness

There is a video, for instance, where people are told to watch two groups throw a ball. A gorilla walks out and beats his chest right in front of the camera. Guess what? Most people don't see the gorilla when asked later! The idea is that when we are focussed on something, there are many things (even really obvious stuff) that goes unnoticed. I have seen people not see this gorilla first hand. Show your family/friends and most won't see it (you can't tell them to look for it obviously).

The point is that, yes, Batman could very easily sneak into the party when everyone's attention is on the Joker about to slice up Rachel. It is actually more probable that it would happen.

Magicians use this phenomena all the time when they are able to make things appear and disappear even when the trick is right in front of them. I saw a magician on tv who stole a guy's watch by making him look at his shirt. When they played back the footage, I couldn't believe how obvious it was. But at the time, I too was just looking at the guy's shirt, missing the plain obvious in front of me.

In short, Batman's disappearing trick makes complete sense when you factor stuff like this in.

Oy. Dude, there was nothing going in at that penthouse scene that's remotely likened to a diversion or trick of the eye. Not to mention that Batman appearing, and whatever the crowd was focused on (Joker), were completely independent of each other. It's not like those factors were working together to make sure Batman could slip by unnoticed.

If this were a scene in which there was fighting going around, lights out, and generally a mess of people everywhere, then I can understand Batman coming in out of the blue. But this was a brightly-lit, plain open spaced environment where everyone was looking at the same thing. By the time Batman says his line, he was right next to Joker, and the entire crowd and goons were around them. I mean...c'mon. How more blatantly obvious can you get with that?

I'm almost close to insulted that I'm even arguing this point. It's "movie-magic" that doesn't really come off as probable if given some extra thought. It didn't even bother me too much when I watched the movie, but to see people actually defend it as if there was nothing fishy during that shot at all...well, that's just baffling.

 

[Seditionary]

its wayne's penthouse...maybe he knows his way to sneak around it better than yer giving him credit for. and hes a ninja.

 

[bananafish]

And it's entirely possible that the party-goers had seen Batman, but kept quiet. So my thinking is he crept up behind, between and around the party-goers that formed that perimeter, that the Joker was caught up in the moment of being hit in the gut, and that his goons were busy looking elsewhere, trying to monitor and maintain control over the crowd.

 

[the_scream]

Oy. Dude, there was nothing going in at that penthouse scene that's remotely likened to a diversion or trick of the eye. Not to mention that Batman appearing, and whatever the crowd was focused on (Joker), were completely independent of each other. It's not like those factors were working together to make sure Batman could slip by unnoticed.

If this were a scene in which there was fighting going around, lights out, and generally a mess of people everywhere, then I can understand Batman coming in out of the blue. But this was a brightly-lit, plain open spaced environment where everyone was looking at the same thing. By the time Batman says his line, he was right next to Joker, and the entire crowd and goons were around them. I mean...c'mon. How more blatantly obvious can you get with that?

I'm almost close to insulted that I'm even arguing this point. It's "movie-magic" that doesn't really come off as probable if given some extra thought. It didn't even bother me too much when I watched the movie, but to see people actually defend it as if there was nothing fishy during that shot at all...well, that's just baffling.

I'm even close to insulted that you completely missed my point. I wasn't saying it was a trick of the eye. Try reading a post first before replying.

What I am saying is that it is entirely plausible that people wouldn't see a man dressed as a bat if they were attending to something else. Per the study I quoted, a person DRESSED AS A GORILLA walks past the screen and beats its chest and people don't see it, in the plain light of day. This isn't a trick. It is human attention.

I was saying that magicians use this human limitation to help create their illusions. A good magician makes use of his audience's limitations. Once you know the trick, you realise that there is no real "trick" to it at all.

Have a look at the link I posted if you don't believe me. I work in accident research and it common knowledge amongst psychologists that human beings can literally not see something right in front of them if they are attending to something else...say a psychotic clown holding a knife to someone's throat.

This happens time and time again in accident where people literally say they saw something but didn't really perceive it. There was nothing in the film that specifically says this is what Batman was doing. I was simply saying it isn't implausible that someone can dressed as a Bat could appear unnoticed. It would also make sense a guy like Batman has learnt from Ra's how to make use of a diversion to assist with this disappearing act.

 

[Matt Murdock]

I'm even close to insulted that you completely missed my point. I wasn't saying it was a trick of the eye. Try reading a post first before replying.

This is where arguments start.

 

[Crook]

I'm even close to insulted that you completely missed my point. I wasn't saying it was a trick of the eye. Try reading a post first before replying.

Try looking at what you've posted before thinking I've missed anything.

What I am saying is that it is entirely plausible that people wouldn't see a man dressed as a bat if they were attending to something else. Per the study I quoted, a person DRESSED AS A GORILLA walks past the screen and beats its chest and people don't see it, in the plain light of day. This isn't a trick. It is human attention.

And HOW is a gorilla able to slip by unnoticed despite being in front of the audience? Why, because there's an entire diversion taking place that distracts the viewer from noticing such an object moving across the screen. This is implied in my very first sentence.

I was saying that magicians use this human limitation to help create their illusions. A good magician makes use of his audience's limitations. Once you know the trick, you realise that there is no real "trick" to it at all.

And yet, it is a trick for the simple fact that you've been fooled.

Have a look at the link I posted if you don't believe me. I work in accident research and it common knowledge amongst psychologists that human beings can literally not see something right in front of them if they are attending to something else...say a psychotic clown holding a knife to someone's throat.

The scenario is quite different when something just pops out of nowhere, and stays there. You might have had a point if Batman magically took away Joker's knife in the middle of the scene or something and leaped away without people noticing. Not the case. Batman appears for some time, and stays there long enough to answer Joker. It is the equivalent of staring at a big red dot on a blank canvas, and a green dot just appears somewhere else on the paper. You're gonna notice it no matter how focused you are on something else. The likelihood of this happening is exponentially increased when there are hundreds of people engulfing the entire area.

Incidentally, the best explanation I've heard from this scene is the simplest. And that is, the crowd DID see Batman, but kept quiet. Not quite the infallible counterpoint, but it's satisfactory. My point on the matter still stands however.

This happens time and time again in accident where people literally say they saw something but didn't really perceive it. There was nothing in the film that specifically says this is what Batman was doing. I was simply saying it isn't implausible that someone can dressed as a Bat could appear unnoticed. It would also make sense a guy like Batman has learnt from Ra's how to make use of a diversion to assist with this disappearing act.

At the risk of repeating myself for the third time, did you just completely miss when I wrote that I have no problem with Batman's signature disappearing act, so as long as it falls within the bounds of plausibility?

 

[the_scream]

This is where arguments start.

True. But I wasn't the instigator.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

yea i slightly agree with crook about the penthouse scene, it does seem quite unbelievable even for the batman. but i don't think it makes it look stupid, i think its awesome. if that part wasn't in the trailers(which they shouldn't of done) then that would of been a genuine moment where it makes you jump. thats what batmans all about. people seem to forget that this is fantasy, yea it's grounded in reality but the reason why so many people love batman and in particular TDK is because its real, yet fantastical. just think of how crap it would be if it was limited by reality too much, we would miss out on a lot of things that make it such a great film. so what i'm saying is there has to be a balance between realism and fantasy and considering the scenes with batman and joker are the only scenes that allow for fantasy they shouldn't be restricted.

 

[Darkfly]

I love arguments like this, so much fun to watch

 

[the_scream]

Try looking at what you've posted before thinking I've missed anything.


And HOW is a gorilla able to slip by unnoticed despite being in front of the audience? Why, because there's an entire diversion taking place that distracts the viewer from noticing such an object moving across the screen. This is implied in my very first sentence.


And yet, it is a trick for the simple fact that you've been fooled.


The scenario is quite different when something just pops out of nowhere, and stays there. You might have had a point if Batman magically took away Joker's knife in the middle of the scene or something and leaped away without people noticing. Not the case. Batman appears for some time, and stays there long enough to answer Joker. It is the equivalent of staring at a big red dot on a blank canvas, and a green dot just appears somewhere else on the paper. You're gonna notice it no matter how focused you are on something else. The likelihood of this happening is exponentially increased when there are hundreds of people engulfing the entire area.

Incidentally, the best explanation I've heard from this scene is the simplest. And that is, the crowd DID see Batman, but kept quiet. Not quite the infallible counterpoint, but it's satisfactory. My point on the matter still stands however.


At the risk of repeating myself for the third time, did you just completely miss when I wrote that I have no problem with Batman's signature disappearing act, so as long as it falls within the bounds of plausibility?

You seem intent on being rude. Nevertheless:

Have you seen the gorilla video out of interest? People are throwing a ball around and a gorilla stands in front of the screen and beats its chest. The diversion is minor. The point being that even a minor distraction can completely blind someone to something obvious.

In this case, the diversion is the psychotic clown. If you can believe a diversion such as a ball throwing game is enough to capture your attention, then a threatening clown is likely to do the same to the people at the party.

The principle is the same. You would be surprised that even a guy standing there in a bat costume could go unnoticed if people were terrified and staring at a psycho with a knife.

 

[the_scream]

Crook wrote: The scenario is quite different when something just pops out of nowhere, and stays there. You might have had a point if Batman magically took away Joker's knife in the middle of the scene or something and leaped away without people noticing. Not the case. Batman appears for some time, and stays there long enough to answer Joker. It is the equivalent of staring at a big red dot on a blank canvas, and a green dot just appears somewhere else on the paper. You're gonna notice it no matter how focused you are on something else.

t: It's funny you say this because if looked at the link I posted, this was there:

Another experiment was carried out by Steve Most, Chabis and Scholl. They had objects moving randomly on a computer screen. Participants were instructed to attend to the black objects and ignore the white, or vice versa. After several trials, a red cross unexpectedly appeared and traveled across the display, remaining on the computer screen for five seconds. The results of the experiment showed that even though the cross was distinctive from the black and white objects both in color and shape, about a third of participants nonetheless missed it. They had found that people may be attentionally tuned to certain perceptual dimensions, such as brightness or shape.

 

[Matt Murdock]

 

[Crook]

people seem to forget that this is fantasy, yea it's grounded in reality but the reason why so many people love batman and in particular TDK is because its real, yet fantastical. just think of how crap it would be if it was limited by reality too much, we would miss out on a lot of things that make it such a great film. so what i'm saying is there has to be a balance between realism and fantasy and considering the scenes with batman and joker are the only scenes that allow for fantasy they shouldn't be restricted.

I'm aware that this is a film and that it doesn't rely too heavily on realism. Nevertheless the act of disappearing/reappearing is not something I would consider to be on the same level as a magical power, for instance. We know he is human so it's only reasonable to assume the majority of his abilities, no matter how great they are, will be limited from his lack of being supernatural.

For the fourth time, for the most part I don't take issue with it. In BB, it was handled very well and didn't border on the unbelievable. TDK just took it up a notch, and while it wasn't too distracting for me, I'm not gonna deny that on a second-look it comes off as ridiculous.

You seem intent on being rude.

You seem to be under the wrong impression. I have not insulted you and the only reason for my slight undertones of bemusement is because I can't believe an argument like this in particular, could be taken so far.

Have you seen the gorilla video out of interest? People are throwing a ball around and a gorilla stands in front of the screen and beats its chest. The diversion is minor. The point being that even a minor distraction can completely blind someone to something obvious.

Of course I have seen the video. Wouldn't be smart of me to address your points without doing so. I know exactly the point of that visual experiment, and I flat out disagree with the notion that it was a mere minor diversion. I've shown that vid to plenty of friends, watching it with them, and it's easy to see how one could overlook an obvious addition to the scenery.

There are a lot of things going on that video, coupled with rapid movement that nearly blurs the entire event. The reason why it works is because of the speed and general chaos it causes your eye to follow the ball.

In this case, the diversion is the psychotic clown. If you can believe a diversion such as a ball throwing game is enough to capture your attention, then a threatening clown is likely to do the same to the people at the party.

Even with such an experiment however, I doubt it'd yield success if partaken in front of a live audience. That is, no video and people are actually there watching it take place. This is purely a guess on my part, but the luxury provided by field of vision would greatly hamper the effectiveness of this technique. Again, I bring up the blank canvas analogy which I think is a better comparison to the TDK scene.

The principle is the same. You would be surprised that even a guy standing there in a bat costume could go unnoticed if people were terrified and staring at a psycho with a knife.

I'm sure some people would. Not everyone in the vicinity however.

Crook wrote: The scenario is quite different when something just pops out of nowhere, and stays there. You might have had a point if Batman magically took away Joker's knife in the middle of the scene or something and leaped away without people noticing. Not the case. Batman appears for some time, and stays there long enough to answer Joker. It is the equivalent of staring at a big red dot on a blank canvas, and a green dot just appears somewhere else on the paper. You're gonna notice it no matter how focused you are on something else.

It's funny you say this because if looked at the link I posted, this was there:

Another experiment was carried out by Steve Most, Chabis and Scholl. They had objects moving randomly on a computer screen. Participants were instructed to attend to the black objects and ignore the white, or vice versa. After several trials, a red cross unexpectedly appeared and traveled across the display, remaining on the computer screen for five seconds. The results of the experiment showed that even though the cross was distinctive from the black and white objects both in color and shape, about a third of participants nonetheless missed it. They had found that people may be attentionally tuned to certain perceptual dimensions, such as brightness or shape.

This only serves to favor my point. 33% is significantly less of a result than the bear/ball experiment. As I've stated above, it is likely some people would be prone to missing it, but not everyone. In fact, the study even says the majority would notice it.

 

[Matt Murdock]

When did a thread about biggest disappointments in the movie (which in and of itself is setting things off on a negative foot), turn into an argument about the viability of Batman popping up in the middle of his own penthouse?

Let it go guys, surriously!

 

[Matt Murdock]

You seem to be under the wrong impression. I have not insulted you and the only reason for my slight undertones of bemusement is because I can't believe an argument like this in particular, could be taken so far.

You're in as much of a position to stop this discussion as he is. All you have to do is stop butting horns with the guy. It's not that difficult.

 

[Crook]

You're in as much of a position to stop this discussion as he is. All you have to do is stop butting horns with the guy. It's not that difficult.

It's nearly 5 in the morning and I can't sleep. Typing makes the time go by much faster than lurking and browsing.