While on the subject of TDKR, can someone explain to me why Bruce wastes at least several hours pouring the gasoline all over that building to make the giant bat sign?
because it looks cool on screen.
While on the subject of TDKR, can someone explain to me why Bruce wastes at least several hours pouring the gasoline all over that building to make the giant bat sign?
Oh God it looks like a Jerry Springer catfight.
While on the subject of TDKR, can someone explain to me why Bruce wastes at least several hours pouring the gasoline all over that building to make the giant bat sign?
Oh God it looks like a Jerry Springer catfight.
While on the subject of TDKR, can someone explain to me why Bruce wastes at least several hours pouring the gasoline all over that building to make the giant bat sign?
Theatricality and Deception.
But most importantly, he's giving the people of Gotham a symbol to rally behind. He's letting them all know that Batman has returned and it's time to set things right. Does this really need to be explained? Did you miss all those time Robin was drawing the Bat symbol everywhere so people wouldn't give a hope?
Problem is he completely wastes the element of surprise, and could have used those extra hours to assault Bane earlier and maybe even deactivated the nuke on time.
Oh God it looks like a Jerry Springer catfight.
While on the subject of TDKR, can someone explain to me why Bruce wastes at least several hours pouring the gasoline all over that building to make the giant bat sign?
How? Bane is surrounded by an Army of League trained Assassins and the nuke is MOBILE with a mystery trigger man. The only plan that could work was an all out assault on Bane.
One of my favourite examples of the showing of the passage of time is Sherlock's Scandal in Belgravia - its set over a reasonably long period of time but the direction(helped strongly by the writing - which I feel is the biggest problem with DKRs passage of time) shows and tells it seamlessly. You feel time pass as much as the characters.
For some films its not too important, but when you divide your main characters apart over a long period of time its pretty essential to make the viewer feel the effect of having them removed. Its quite an essential idea, Bruce watching Gotham in need is to show this - his want to get back, the hurt the city is going through. But it really struggles to make the time clear (and is not helped by the frankly awful and lazy scene where he appears under a bridge - felt like second unit stuff on a very important moment).
While on the subject of TDKR, can someone explain to me why Bruce wastes at least several hours pouring the gasoline all over that building to make the giant bat sign?
As for time in movies , just recently watching the Godfather , the span of the film is huge. Brando gets older in a section of the movie and Michael announces his comeback to Kate (saying how long he has been in America since the return) , but i firmly believe lots of people would have an hard time to know how long is the passage and especially where it splits.
Wait, I thought it was a very mediocre movie but my impression was that the majority of people/GAF thought it was good. At least, going off the impressions thread when the movie first came out.
There's an interview where Nolan talks quite a bit about this aspect of time and how hard it can be to show its passage without being bluntly explicit about it. His idea was to show time with very basic visual cues. Seasonly weather and how Gotham becomes an isolated place , with isolated streets , no life and everybody confined either at gatherings or their homes. Outside of the montage , there's really no dramatic outputs of the city , which i think is very much purposeful. The movie is really not about the fake revolution Bane tries to implement.
As for time in movies , just recently watching the Godfather , the span of the film is huge. Brando gets older in a section of the movie and Michael announces his comeback to Kate (saying how long he has been in America since the return) , but i firmly believe lots of people would have an hard time to know how long is the passage and especially where it splits.
only one more:
![]()
Maybe its the acting? In Godfather you see time move because quite clearly Michael changes as a character and forms into someone from well - nothing. In Batman, everyone is more or less the same at the end as they were at the start.
It is hard to show the passage of time and yes clearly the snow was a part of that, but even visual cues like the cops coming out - not in their uniform and shirts done up could begin to help. That was a big miss; along with most of the characters acting like it has been about a week (which is partly the directors responsibility). Even Bruce/Batman seems to return to Gotham like the well never happened and as if he'd been out for a week. Heck; even Talia acts like she saw him last week.
Its a bug bear and you might be right its something most viewers see in every film; it just really stood out to me. The Sherlock episode I mention uses events as well as weather - Christmas, New Year - but its backed up by acting, when someone leaves - you feel the lack of their presence on the characters and the feelings they have on their return. Even the end jumps forward in time (and uses flashbacks) but the actors and also the pacing somewhat really reflect we are in a different time period. Its so perfect that am not criticising DKR for not managing the same, just as an example of how it can be done and how it can't.
Great flick. The most comic book Nolan Batman movie.
Bats meeting Bane in the sewers that very first time--no other encounter in any other super hero movie has that gravitas. None.
By ending, I don't mean the final battle. That kind of sucked. Everything that happens after the bomb detonates, I adore.
Though, as somebody else mentioned, I think it's much better we stop using those gifs as a form of argument altogether.
Robin's orphan vision to tell how Wayne is Batman (maybe the script is rushing to get to the point as much as the editing and any reasonable way to find out would have taken precious time from our friend the dick cop)
Well, look at it this way. Blake (not Robin come on, a one-line off-joke to get the cheap recognition laugh does not a Robin make) suffered the same sort of tragedy as Bruce did, and when he saw Bruce, he saw that Bruce was doing the same thing. Then when Batman shows up, Blake thinks well, youd need a lot of money to do Batman stuff, like having YOUR OWN SUPER-TANK and stuff, and who do I know who has both a lot of money and the same burning desire to Stop Crime that I do? And there you go.
As others have noted often enough: it is not terribly hard to figure out Batmans identity if you are not willfully blind. I mean, fuck, Egghead managed to do it (almost) during the 60s TV series. And he was Egghead.
In any case, if during Joseph Gordon-Levitts speech about how he was traumatized for life by the deaths of his parents and how it changes you, your first reaction was well how did he figure out Batmans secret identity, I would kindly suggest maybe you were concentrating on the wrong bit of the movie.
Guys, do you realize stunt men don't actually punch each other, and if you slow every fight scene down you'll notice this?only one more:
![]()
Guys, do you realize stunt men don't actually punch each other, and if you slow every fight scene down you'll notice this?
This movie is like Prometheus to me. It's a terrible, stupid film, but I can generally watch it whenever it's on TV. Weird.
From IMDB:
"Had Heath Ledger not died, the film would have involved the Joker going on trial while Two-Face (who survived the last film) went on a rampage across Gotham."
It would be a completely different movie. We would probably se a Joker's riot like in the Arkham games.
Can you imagene another film with Heath as the Joker?
Hopefully in a few years we can get a digital Heath as the Joker. Pretty sure this will happen somewhere down the line.
Didn't you see the Sopranos? It worked there.
![]()
Can you imagene another film with Heath as the Joker?
Hopefully in a few years we can get a digital Heath as the Joker. Pretty sure this will happen somewhere down the line.
"Had Heath Ledger not died, the film would have involved the Joker going on trial while Two-Face (who survived the last film) went on a rampage across Gotham."
It would be a completely different movie. We would probably se a Joker's riot like in the Arkham games.
Honestly, the only thing I truly dislike about the film is how he magically heals from having a broken back.
So Batman is hanging from the ceiling. Hypothetically, if he did that for a few months, could he align himself?
That's just going to depend on what damage occurred — if the spinal cord tore, if the vertebrae shattered, if arteries were severed. If everything else in his body remained intact except for the shape of the spine, then the shape of the spine could absolutely shift with gravity. But it's never one thing. Generally, it's fourteen things happening all at once. But if his bones were intact and they just moved out of place, gravity could do the job.
Pure internet fabrication.
Why ? They both survived in the enf of TDK.
Did you miss the part where Two Face died?