The Dark Knight Rises Why is everyone slamming TDKR?

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

there's a lot of sloppy editing (as in shot to shot editing), sound mixing, etc.

A surprising amount of errors for such a big budget film. I mean, what other movie in history unintentionally had a character where the audience couldn't understand what he was saying? It's mind-boggling.

 

[BatLobster]

I'm talking strictly about the writing.

As a professional editor, I don't like getting into arguments about what's sloppy editing and what isn't. I think sometimes people are assuming a LOT when they say that. They may be right, but there's no real way to know. A lot of factors go into every editing decision.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

well maybe sloppy isn't the right word. But whatever it was, it didn't work sometimes.

An example is the scene of Catwoman and Bats in the sewer. "he's behind you" "who?" "me!". That scene was edited so quickly. It felt like an error. Whatever it is, it didn't work for me. That coupled with the sound mix. The voices were practically inaudible.

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah, and that's all I'm saying. I'm not against people critiquing the movie, I just think throwing around the word sloppy could very easily be mischaracterizing the intentions of all the talented artists and craftsmen that worked on the movie. It suggests that they just didn't care, which I take some issue with when everything points to the contrary.

That's all.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Yeah, I guess it's just something I have to learn to deal with, lol.

I've got this love/hate relationship with TDKR these last few months.

Lol, how come?

But didn't the special forces get in while hiding in the Fema(?) trucks?. Do we really know Fema trucks were driving into Gotham the moment Bruce needed to get in there? No.

But, if I may, that makes the most sense. Too bad we really have no idea how he got back.

IF we could have seen him sneak in, that would have been great, at least for me.

It may be a plot hole to some--for me, it took me right out of the movie. Oh well.

It's fine if you felt like you needed to see it, I sure didn't. I'm glad we see Bruce escaping the Pit and then we see him next walking up to Selina. It added more to the excitement of seeing Bruce back because one can use their imagination of how Bruce returned.

there's a lot of sloppy editing (as in shot to shot editing), sound mixing, etc.

A surprising amount of errors for such a big budget film. I mean, what other movie in history had unintentionally had a character where the audience couldn't understand what he was saying? It's mind-boggling.

I think after months since the film's been released, people are generalizing too much such as Fudgie saying everyone will hate the film or you saying the audience couldn't understand someone. A few had problems with hearing Batman in TDK, but that didn't stop people from still enjoying the film, and same as TDKR. The majority could understand Bane.

well maybe sloppy isn't the right word. But whatever it was, it didn't work sometimes.

An example is the scene of Catwoman and Bats in the sewer. "he's behind you" "who?" "me!". That scene was edited so quickly. It felt like an error. Whatever it is, it didn't work for me. That coupled with the sound mix. The voices were practically inaudible.

A quick scene isn't an error.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Yeah, and that's all I'm saying. I'm not against people critiquing the movie, I just think throwing around the word sloppy could very easily be mischaracterizing the intentions of all the talented artists and craftsmen that worked on the movie. It suggests that they just didn't care, which I take some issue with when everything points to the contrary.

That's all.

It's always better to take the creator/process out of the work and judge it based on its own merits, especially since we have no idea how they worked, but I don't blame people for seeing it that way when that's how it comes across.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I think after months since the film's been released, people are generalizing too much such as Fudgie saying everyone will hate the film or you saying the audience couldn't understand someone. A few had problems with hearing Batman in TDK, but that didn't stop people from still enjoying the film, and same as TDKR. The majority could understand Bane.

Well I can speak about my own experience; I did not understand many of Bane's lines. I've never had that problem with any other movie.

This problem came up in many reviews. Take a look at the bigger video reviews on YouTube. They all mention it.

I've never seen this complaint in a review of any other movie ever.

 

[Anno_Domini]

You and a few video bloggers does not reflect "the audience" as a whole that you seem to make it sound, though.

 

[Tequilla]

there's a lot of sloppy editing (as in shot to shot editing)

.

What do you consider sloppy editing (as in shot to shot editing) ?

 

[Ryan]

I have to agree with what was stated earlier. It wasn't plot holes that ruined TDKR for me. I just didn't find it as enjoyable as the others. I always find it arrogant when people say that I didn't find it enjoyable because I didn't get it..or other such nonsense. I 'got'...Batman Begins, I "got" TDK, so suddently I wasn't able to get TDKR? Ridiculous. Its a personal preference plain and simple. There were moments in TDKR I really enjoyed, so I guess I got those. I just feel as a whole it didn't work for me.

 

[BatLobster]

It'd be so much easier though if more people just put it that way. "It just didn't work for me as a whole." There, simple. Totally subjective and impossible for one to argue.

But unfortunately a lot of disgruntled fans over the past 8 months just had to try and knock the film down a peg in every way possible, often in an attempt to get other people to dislike it as much as them (not you obviously Ryan). And sadly I think they did "convert" some people who actually enjoyed the movie when they watched it. I also found it kind of arrogant when people try to list all these "plot holes" and things wrong with the movie as a way of saying, "See? See? That's why this movie fails on an objective level and if you like it you're just overlooking all this sloppiness."

I "get" why some people didn't like TDKR. It just did work for me, magnificently so.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

You and a few video bloggers does not reflect "the audience" as a whole that you seem to make it sound, though.

I think it reflects it more than your own hunches though.

 

[Brain Damage]

The only thing disappointing about not showing Bruce's return is that it would have been cool to see. If that's the only reason to justify it being in, then it may be a tough choice, but under these circumstances it's gotta go.

But it's not just cool to see - it's necessary. I feel like I've said this dozens of times, but when you set up a city as being near impossible to get in or out of, it's cheating to have your protagonist find a way in off-screen. Even if you know he's more than capable of finding a way in, it's still cheap to not show us how. We know that Bane is more than capable of kicking the snot out of Batman the first time they fight. Would it have been okay if we just saw the aftermath of the fight?

Whether it was a result of the writing or the editing, it was, in my opinion, sloppy storytelling. It was Nolan thinking he could get away with something that myself and a lot of others found he couldn't get away with. If it didn't bother you, more power to you. But for me, it pulled me out of the movie in a way that TDK or BB never did.

 

[DACrowe]

well maybe sloppy isn't the right word. But whatever it was, it didn't work sometimes.

An example is the scene of Catwoman and Bats in the sewer. "he's behind you" "who?" "me!". That scene was edited so quickly. It felt like an error. Whatever it is, it didn't work for me. That coupled with the sound mix. The voices were practically inaudible.

That is not an error. It was intentionally edited at that abnormal speed to increase tension for the audience that "something is off" (before Bane, y'know, breaks him after Catwoman also betrays him in a few seconds) while also showing that this is all old hat for Batman. There is a callback to BB and it allows the image of showing Batman is still the shadowy wraith who uses "theatricality and deception." It is showing he is still a competent fighter who relies on all his old tricks right before he runs into something it will not work on.

 

[DACrowe]

Well I can speak about my own experience; I did not understand many of Bane's lines. I've never had that problem with any other movie.

This problem came up in many reviews. Take a look at the bigger video reviews on YouTube. They all mention it.

I've never seen this complaint in a review of any other movie ever.

Yes let's take a look at the bigger reviews. And let's get away from fanboys and teenagers simply on YouTube as well.

Rotten Tomatoes: 87% Fresh

Metacritic: 78% Positive

AFI's Top 10 Films of 2012

Time Magazine's Top 10 Films of 2012 (it placed #5)

Rolling Stone's Top 11 Films of 2012

And just for general audience reactions:

Cinemascore: A

User Ratings at Rotten Tomatoes: 92%

IMDb (fanboy mecca) Score: 8.6

And so on. But some kids on YouTube didn't like it so that is the general AND critical response to the film?

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I'm not saying that people on YouTube didn't like it and that it didn't get good reviews.

I'm just saying the sound-mixing was a problem that people pointed out, even in positive reviews.

I love the movie. But I can admit that it has problems.

 

[BCDawg97]

It'd be so much easier though if more people just put it that way. "It just didn't work for me as a whole." There, simple. Totally subjective and impossible for one to argue.

But unfortunately a lot of disgruntled fans over the past 8 months just had to try and knock the film down a peg in every way possible, often in an attempt to get other people to dislike it as much as them (not you obviously Ryan). And sadly I think they did "convert" some people who actually enjoyed the movie when they watched it. I also found it kind of arrogant when people try to list all these "plot holes" and things wrong with the movie as a way of saying, "See? See? That's why this movie fails on an objective level and if you like it you're just overlooking all this sloppiness."

I "get" why some people didn't like TDKR. It just did work for me, magnificently so.

Winner. Drop the mic and walk away. Close the thread. No really, close it. at this point we are just arguing semantics and personal opinion.... Nah, I'm kidding. Argue away. But you are all wrong if you didn't like the movie

 

[BatLobster]

But it's not just cool to see - it's necessary. I feel like I've said this dozens of times, but when you set up a city as being near impossible to get in or out of, it's cheating to have your protagonist find a way in off-screen. Even if you know he's more than capable of finding a way in, it's still cheap to not show us how. We know that Bane is more than capable of kicking the snot out of Batman the first time they fight. Would it have been okay if we just saw the aftermath of the fight?

And on the other side of the fence, I feel like myself and others have stated dozens of times that the film itself does suggest a few possible ways he could have gotten in. It may not actually tell us, but it plants a few seeds that can grow in your imagination.

I also don't think the film made a huge deal of effort to show that it was so hard to get into the city. All we're shown is the army being forced to guard the one remaining bridge (and supply trucks are being allowed through). It's a big island. It'd be different if there had been a scene that showed a mercenary sniper picking off some guy who was trying to sneak through on the ice. But they never show that, because Bane/Talia weren't concerned about that. Their main goal was to keep the US army (or its allies) from interfering. The whole point of that scene with Barsad and the army on the bridge is to establish that, no, they don't have the manpower to guard the entire island, but they're gonna force the army to either call their bluff or not. And the emphasis is on people trying to get off the island ("Why would we help you keep your hostages?"). If the movie was trying so hard to show that it was hard to get on the island, they should have cut the lines about setting up "terms of access for supplies and communication" and the whole special forces subplot. That to me painted a different picture than the one you're describing.

And I still say as a plot omission, it's no different than the way Bruce is able to put together the unprecedented sonar machine completely off-screen in TDK in such a short amount of time, in such a way that NOBODY (not Lucius Fox, not the government) knew what he was doing. Then again, maybe you can get into a debate about whether or not he was technically the main protagonist in TDK...

Anyway, I get it. It's just a fundamental difference of opinion, as are most of these TDKR things. I'm only trying to clarify my point of view.

 

[Ryan]

I think the whole idea of arguing over whether one should like the film or not is pretty ridiculous in in itself. I honestly don't buy (and its just my opinion) that people are trying to convert others to not like the film. If people are, that is pretty sad, and what would be worse is if people are liking the film or not liking the film simply by what others are feeding them. I do believe a lot of the problem lies in both sides of the fence getting their backs up when either the movie is praised or condemned. For whatever reason, posters on both sides take it personally and almost feel like they have to justify their beliefs. Why not just be content with your own feelings towards the film? Again, I even hate saying anything negative about the film, because it seems you have to be on one side or the other. Again, as a whole, the film did not work for me, but (and this always gets lost in my postings) there were things that showed signs of brilliance.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I guess some people don't understand when such a big chunk of the audience think something differently.

For example, so many people have no issue with the "getting back into Gotham" thing. When they see people who have issue with it, claiming that it's bad filmmaking, they argue otherwise, because it was fine for them.

However, I'd argue that something that is lost on 50% of your audience, something that isn't intended to be obscure or subtle, and failing to communicate what you're trying to communicate, is bad filmmaking, even though I personally had no problem with it (because the way I saw it, the movie tells you).

 

[Brain Damage]

And on the other side of the fence, I feel like myself and others have stated dozens of times that the film itself does suggest a few possible ways he could have gotten in. It may not actually tell us, but it plants a few seeds that can grow in your imagination.

I also don't think the film made a huge deal of effort to show that it was so hard to get into the city. All we're shown is the army being forced to guard the one remaining bridge (and supply trucks are being allowed through). It's a big island. It'd be different if there had been a scene that showed a mercenary sniper picking off some guy who was trying to sneak through on the ice. But they never show that, because Bane/Talia weren't concerned about that. Their main goal was to keep the US army (or its allies) from interfering. The whole point of that scene with Barsad and the army on the bridge is to establish that, no, they don't have the manpower to guard the entire island, but they're gonna force the army to either call their bluff or not. And the emphasis is on people trying to get off the island ("Why would we help you keep your hostages?"). If the movie was trying so hard to show that it was hard to get on the island, they should have cut the lines about setting up "terms of access for supplies and communication" and the whole special forces subplot. That to me painted a different picture than the one you're describing.

And I still say as a plot omission, it's no different than the way Bruce is able to put together the unprecedented sonar machine completely off-screen in TDK in such a short amount of time, in such a way that NOBODY (not Lucius Fox, not the government) knew what he was doing. Then again, maybe you can get into a debate about whether or not he was technically the main protagonist in TDK...

Anyway, I get it. It's just a fundamental difference of opinion, as are most of these TDKR things. I'm only trying to clarify my point of view.

Fair enough, I am too. It certainly didn't ruin the movie for me. It pulled me out of it, but I was like "oh, well, I guess that just sort of happened" and allowed myself to focus on the rest of what was going on. I think if you hate TDKR only for that reason (or just the plot holes in general) you're being too nitpicky

If a story is emotional, engaging and well told, I won't let a few inconsistencies ruin it for me. Unless they're inconsistencies that affect the story to a DRASTIC level. But I can't think of a movie like that off the top of my head.

 

[BatLobster]

double post

 

[BatLobster]

Fair enough, I am too. It certainly didn't ruin the movie for me. It pulled me out of it, but I was like "oh, well, I guess that just sort of happened" and allowed myself to focus on the rest of what was going on. I think if you hate TDKR only for that reason (or just the plot holes in general) you're being too nitpicky

If a story is emotional, engaging and well told, I won't let a few inconsistencies ruin it for me. Unless they're inconsistencies that affect the story to a DRASTIC level. But I can't think of a movie like that off the top of my head.

Agreed. I see where you are coming from

I guess some people don't understand when such a big chunk of the audience think something differently.

For example, so many people have no issue with the "getting back into Gotham" thing. When they see people who have issue with it, claiming that it's bad filmmaking, they argue otherwise, because it was fine for them.

However, I'd argue that something that is lost on 50% of your audience, something that isn't intended to be obscure or subtle, and failing to communicate what you're trying to communicate, is bad filmmaking, even though I personally had no problem with it (because the way I saw it, the movie tells you).

And see, I don't think you can say that if something polarizes (aka 50/50), it's bad. The only thing that any of us can say "objectively" from either side of the fence is that the film had some polarizing elements, or is itself polarizing.

Anyway, I am completely secure in my opinion of the movie. I post about if often, either praising it or defending it because I truly love it. Posting about it makes me think about it, thinking about it keeps me interested in it. All in all it's a positive experience for me.

And again, Ryan I take no issue with you. You've been clear, concise and polite about your issues with the film. Although unfortunately, I have seen plenty of cases of people saying things like, "I loved the film when I saw it, but then I read about all the plot holes and now it doesn't hold up." Kevin Smith is a prime example of this. He gushed over the film initially, crying and everything during his podcast about it. Then over time he kinda joined in the crowd of naysayers a bit and got all uptight about the "plot holes". He still loves the film but it seems the criticisms have damaged it for him. That to me is just too bad. One should form their own opinion based on their emotional experience of sitting through the movie.

Actually, to tie everything together for anyone interested: Youtube search "Kevin Smith Rian Johnson", then click the video that says "Dark Knight Rises Plot Holes Explained!" (not sure if I'm allowed to link to it since it has profanity). Cool little discussion between Kevin Smith and Rian Johnson (director of Looper) about plot holes and the issue of Bruce getting back to Gotham.

 

[Snow Queen]

Actually, to tie everything together for anyone interested: Youtube search "Kevin Smith Rian Johnson", then click the video that says "Dark Knight Rises Plot Holes Explained!" (not sure if I'm allowed to link to it since it has profanity). Cool little discussion between Kevin Smith and Rian Johnson (director of Looper) about plot holes and the issue of Bruce getting back to Gotham.

What was Johnson's stance on the matter and the film in general?

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Here's the vid