|
Why do people compare DKR to Avatar? The only thing they share is the fact they're blockbusters.
DKR: Our world, (somewhat) realistic, dark, original story, 2D and 3rd in a trilogi (involving character development)
Avatar: Another planet, not really realistic, colorful fairylike world with cool imaginary creatures, basicly a ripoff of every single story (Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas etc etc), amazing 3D and a single movie.
These movies can't be compared. And if you still try to - you should know your opinion is very subjective.
Personally, I loved DKR and I thought the only great experience regarding Avatar was the 3D, which was pretty much 524134352% better than anything I'd seen before
|
On July 27 2012 21:33 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 21:10 SRBNikola wrote:Someone said Avatar is GOOD movie? What? WHAT? As for Nolan, look at Memento, and its unique story telling, Nolan and Quentin Tarantino are only famous directors i know that tried innovating. For me Cameron movies i saw SUCK, only ones i saw were Titanic and Avatar. On July 27 2012 20:36 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 27 2012 20:30 -Archangel- wrote:On July 27 2012 19:56 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 27 2012 19:49 Shantastic wrote:On July 27 2012 19:18 Parcelleus wrote:On July 27 2012 19:08 Leach wrote:On July 27 2012 18:47 Parcelleus wrote:On July 27 2012 18:26 nepeta wrote:
So if you think this film was any good, what on earth might your frame of reference be? Stupid, wanton violence all through, completely devoid of acting save for the parts of Bruce Wayne and Alfred, the restoration line was the only one which made any sense, unfortunately it was underdevelopped in favour of random apocalyptic nonsense and troglodyte fisticuffs. The female acting seemed to consist of make-up and diet.
The people in the theater around me seemed to enjoy it enormously, and as they were drinking beer (in the theater, really?) and munching fast food all through the ordeal, I must be getting old. Or have more than one brain cell. As this was the first visit since about five years, I think my next interval will be fifty years, hopefully by that time I'll be too dead to get any more bored and disgusted by it. I couldnt agree more. Before I went to DKR, I had a feeling that I would regret venturing into mainstream hollywood movie land , but I hoped that Nolan was going to do something as interesting as Batman Begins - big let down. The way Nolan turned Batman into Independence day style just made me cringe and lacked any emersion into the Batman Universe for me. My last venture to the movies was about 5 years ago too, dont think I'll ever bother again unless its a James Cameron movie (Predator1, Aliens 2, Avatar). I recently saw Avatar on DVD, I wish I saw that in 3D, such a multi-layered masterpiece. Have to keep an eye out if it comes to a 3D theatre again. my 2 cents. So you're saying you dislike "mainstream hollywood movie land" but you're a huge fan of Avatar? Huh, how does that add up with Avatar being the most succesful and mainstram movie of all times? Please stop being a wannabe movie afficionado..... I listed some of my exceptions to the usual Hollywood stuff. I also stated that I watched Avatar on DVD , ie. not at the cinema, which shows how excited I am for most 'hollywood' bore. AVatar was a pleasent surprise indeed. By "Hollywood bore," do you mean movies in which the writers made even the slightest effort with the script? There is no doubt in my mind that Avatar is a far better movie than TDKR, and that its script, while not its strong point is better. Cameron is a by far more talented director than Nolan. Avatar is such a crap movie it cannot stand in the same sentence with any Nolan movie. I cannot take seriously people that praise Avatar but spit on other Hollywood movies. There are many very good Hollywood movies, I haven't seen one by Nolan (granted, I haven't seen what seems to be his best one, The Prestige). Avatar is not my favorite movie by far, but two huge qualitites : stunning visual and impressive camerawork, which are quite important for an action movie. I can't see how what Nolan does visually is even close to what Cameron did. He did manage to make one fight scene that did not look bad (Bane vs Batman), which is a first by him, but the choregraphy is so simplistic that it's easily forgetable. Nolan didnt even try to impress you with stunning visuals, he tried to tell you story of batman set in world close to ours. Cameron took story 500 years old and put it in stunning visuals. I for one am never impressed with visuals in movies, and for example my favorite is Fight Club that has no visuals or super effects but is best peace of cinematography i ever saw. It's a very shallow vision of what art is : form and content both matters and are linked together anyway.
Yes, but if you ask me, there's very little "content" in most of Cameron's movies. I was actually debating internally if you are trolling while comparing to Cameron, but I do think that some of his older movies were innovative and interesting. But not avatar, come on.
|
On July 27 2012 21:33 corumjhaelen wrote:
it's prtty clear you don't know much about cinema history
Whereas someone who hadn't gone to the movies in 5 years obviously does. Seriously where do you come off being such an arrogant douche? If you don't like it that's fine but don't pretend that your tastes are magically superior to everyone that did enjoy it.
Personally, the biggest problem I had in the film was the fight scene at the end with all the mercenaries fighting cops as if everyone forgot how guns worked. Other than that, very solid movie.
|
On July 27 2012 21:38 CubEdIn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 21:33 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 27 2012 21:10 SRBNikola wrote:Someone said Avatar is GOOD movie? What? WHAT? As for Nolan, look at Memento, and its unique story telling, Nolan and Quentin Tarantino are only famous directors i know that tried innovating. For me Cameron movies i saw SUCK, only ones i saw were Titanic and Avatar. On July 27 2012 20:36 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 27 2012 20:30 -Archangel- wrote:On July 27 2012 19:56 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 27 2012 19:49 Shantastic wrote:On July 27 2012 19:18 Parcelleus wrote:On July 27 2012 19:08 Leach wrote:On July 27 2012 18:47 Parcelleus wrote:
[quote]
I couldnt agree more.
Before I went to DKR, I had a feeling that I would regret venturing into mainstream hollywood movie land , but I hoped that Nolan was going to do something as interesting as Batman Begins - big let down. The way Nolan turned Batman into Independence day style just made me cringe and lacked any emersion into the Batman Universe for me.
My last venture to the movies was about 5 years ago too, dont think I'll ever bother again unless its a James Cameron movie (Predator1, Aliens 2, Avatar). I recently saw Avatar on DVD, I wish I saw that in 3D, such a multi-layered masterpiece. Have to keep an eye out if it comes to a 3D theatre again.
my 2 cents.
So you're saying you dislike "mainstream hollywood movie land" but you're a huge fan of Avatar? Huh, how does that add up with Avatar being the most succesful and mainstram movie of all times? Please stop being a wannabe movie afficionado..... I listed some of my exceptions to the usual Hollywood stuff. I also stated that I watched Avatar on DVD , ie. not at the cinema, which shows how excited I am for most 'hollywood' bore. AVatar was a pleasent surprise indeed. By "Hollywood bore," do you mean movies in which the writers made even the slightest effort with the script? There is no doubt in my mind that Avatar is a far better movie than TDKR, and that its script, while not its strong point is better. Cameron is a by far more talented director than Nolan. Avatar is such a crap movie it cannot stand in the same sentence with any Nolan movie. I cannot take seriously people that praise Avatar but spit on other Hollywood movies. There are many very good Hollywood movies, I haven't seen one by Nolan (granted, I haven't seen what seems to be his best one, The Prestige). Avatar is not my favorite movie by far, but two huge qualitites : stunning visual and impressive camerawork, which are quite important for an action movie. I can't see how what Nolan does visually is even close to what Cameron did. He did manage to make one fight scene that did not look bad (Bane vs Batman), which is a first by him, but the choregraphy is so simplistic that it's easily forgetable. Nolan didnt even try to impress you with stunning visuals, he tried to tell you story of batman set in world close to ours. Cameron took story 500 years old and put it in stunning visuals. I for one am never impressed with visuals in movies, and for example my favorite is Fight Club that has no visuals or super effects but is best peace of cinematography i ever saw. It's a very shallow vision of what art is : form and content both matters and are linked together anyway. Yes, but if you ask me, there's very little "content" in most of Cameron's movies. I was actually debating internally if you are trolling while comparing to Cameron, but I do think that some of his older movies were innovative and interesting. But not avatar, come on.
Between the 3d and some of the amazing scenes in the sky, I don't see how you can call that not innovative. The visuals too (even if I did not find them very appealing, they were impressive technically).
And yes, I did not like the plot (but it's not really Pocahontas or Dance with the wolves, its main inspiration is a movie I just can't recall right now, I'll edit/PM you later if you're interested), the colonel was annoying, but at least it was clear, to the point and did not insist for hours on obvious things. It was also meant to be a fable, so saying it's simplistic is true but not that much of an argument.
And to the other poster, I'm sorry if I sound arrogant, but I do suggest that the other guy reads up about cinema history and watch a bit more movies before saying Taarantino and Nolan are the two only innovators you know, because it's a bit sad. Also I went to the cinema plenty of times in the last five years, you might be confusing me with someone else.
|
On July 27 2012 21:39 Serelitz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 21:33 corumjhaelen wrote:
it's prtty clear you don't know much about cinema history Whereas someone who hadn't gone to the movies in 5 years obviously does. Seriously where do you come off being such an arrogant douche? If you don't like it that's fine but don't pretend that your tastes are magically superior to everyone that did enjoy it. Personally, the biggest problem I had in the film was the fight scene at the end with all the mercenaries fighting cops as if everyone forgot how guns worked. Other than that, very solid movie.
If you're gonna go there, then please explain how the f*ck someone fixes a broken back with a punch to the vertebrae? :D
@corumjhaelen: it was good from the technical point of view, I never denied that, but the story telling was boring as hell. Even if it was "to the point", that doesn't make it good. I seriously did not care who died in that movie, and I couldn't wait for it to end half way through. And yes I saw it in IMAX at opening night.
|
I think what people need to understand is that you cannot judge every film with the same criteria. More people need to adopt Roger Ebert's philosophy.
From Ebert's wikipedia:
Ebert has described his critical approach to films as "relative, not absolute"; he reviews a film for what he feels will be its prospective audience, yet always with at least some consideration as to its value as a whole. He awards four stars to films of the highest quality, and generally a half star to those of the lowest unless he considers the film to be "artistically inept" and/or "morally repugnant", in which case it will receive no stars.
Follow this approach and I daresay you'll find yourself enjoying more films.
|
On July 27 2012 21:39 Serelitz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 21:33 corumjhaelen wrote:
it's prtty clear you don't know much about cinema history Whereas someone who hadn't gone to the movies in 5 years obviously does. Seriously where do you come off being such an arrogant douche? If you don't like it that's fine but don't pretend that your tastes are magically superior to everyone that did enjoy it. Personally, the biggest problem I had in the film was the fight scene at the end with all the mercenaries fighting cops as if everyone forgot how guns worked. Other than that, very solid movie.
Did anyone actually see bane give out enough ammo for all those ak-47's? or were most of them just for intimidation? There was no scene in which it was implied there was ammo in the guns or ammo given to the prisoners, you all just assumed that, and considering only 1 or 2 of them actually opened fire i assume that most of the guns weren't loaded and that it was actually intended, perhaps the point was the policemen calling the prisoners bluff.
|
On July 27 2012 21:50 CubEdIn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 21:39 Serelitz wrote:On July 27 2012 21:33 corumjhaelen wrote:
it's prtty clear you don't know much about cinema history Whereas someone who hadn't gone to the movies in 5 years obviously does. Seriously where do you come off being such an arrogant douche? If you don't like it that's fine but don't pretend that your tastes are magically superior to everyone that did enjoy it. Personally, the biggest problem I had in the film was the fight scene at the end with all the mercenaries fighting cops as if everyone forgot how guns worked. Other than that, very solid movie. If you're gonna go there, then please explain how the f*ck someone fixes a broken back with a punch to the vertebrae? :D @corumjhaelen: it was good from the technical point of view, I never denied that, but the story telling was boring as hell. Even if it was "to the point", that doesn't make it good. I seriously did not care who died in that movie, and I couldn't wait for it to end half way through. And yes I saw it in IMAX at opening night.
I kind of agree with you here, so I'd qualify Avatar as average. My opinion though, is that Nolan's storytelling is bad too.
cf http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=203159¤tpage=71#1418
Which means that Avatar is a better movie in my book than TDKR
Also, I tend to value technical matters a bit more because in the grand scheme of things they are pretty important, as they more or less enable other people to tell their story better. The language gets better.
|
[SPOILERS]
Regarding the final twist regarding Miranda, can someone tell what was the point of her not revealing herself as one of the architects of the operation after Batman had been first defeated? To me it basically looked like a contrived way of allowing the movie to have a final twist. Both Bane and Miranda thought they would no longer have to deal with Batman, they controlled the city, were apparently untouchable, and would both die anyway with the bomb. Why not simply join Bane instead of staying undercover?
|
On July 27 2012 21:50 CubEdIn wrote:
If you're gonna go there, then please explain how the f*ck someone fixes a broken back with a punch to the vertebrae? :D
Clearly his back wasn't literally broken. This isn't a complete copy of the comics - it doesn't have to be completely broken.
|
On July 27 2012 21:31 GrimmJ wrote:
James Cameron is not a better director than Nolan. The script of "Avatar" is not better than TDKR. Avatar was basically Disney's "Pocahontas", just reanimated and on a different planet. I fell asleep during that movie. Cameron used better technology, but his story-telling is not better than Nolan's in any way. Before you say something like that, watch all of Nolan's films.
Did anyone else feel like the Batman trilogy relate-able to The Presitge? As in the the three acts of a magician: The pledge, the turn, and the prestige?
From The Prestige
"Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called "The Pledge". The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man. He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course... it probably isn't. The second act is called "The Turn". The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige"."
Ha, I was having that exact discussion back at XMas time with my brother, hypothesizing how they'd make TDKR the "prestige."
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
By the way, does anyone remember the part where Bruce sneaks back into Gotham after climbing out of the prison, and tells Selina that the bomb will go off the next day? I had just assumed he knew the specs about the reactor & core when weaponized, and calculated the remaining time based on how long the core has been on the move. However, later on, we see him asking someone else (was it Fox?) how long they had until it goes off. Was he just double checking, or did he just know the date it would go off and not know the exact time. Oh, and how in the hell did he manage to sneak back into Gotham when it was completely cut off from the outside? Nevermind the fact that he was broke as fuck when he escaped the prison.
On July 27 2012 23:02 kwizach wrote:
[SPOILERS]
Regarding the final twist regarding Miranda, can someone tell what was the point of her not revealing herself as one of the architects of the operation after Batman had been first defeated? To me it basically looked like a contrived way of allowing the movie to have a final twist. Both Bane and Miranda thought they would no longer have to deal with Batman, they controlled the city, were apparently untouchable, and would both die anyway with the bomb. Why not simply join Bane instead of staying undercover?
Plot convenience. Of course, Talia would've revealed herself if she & Bane thought Bruce/Batman was out of the picture for good.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
|
On July 27 2012 23:02 kwizach wrote:[SPOILERS] + Show Spoiler +Regarding the final twist regarding Miranda, can someone tell what was the point of her not revealing herself as one of the architects of the operation after Batman had been first defeated? To me it basically looked like a contrived way of allowing the movie to have a final twist. Both Bane and Miranda thought they would no longer have to deal with Batman, they controlled the city, were apparently untouchable, and would both die anyway with the bomb. Why not simply join Bane instead of staying undercover?
+ Show Spoiler +It would defeat the purpose behind "it could be anyone with the bomb trigger". She was perfectly placed in Wayne Enterprises to keep tabs on Batman's allies. It is much more useful to be a mole in the opposition because any plan would likely involve the key people like Fox, Gordon, etc.
|
On July 27 2012 23:07 lynx.oblige wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 21:50 CubEdIn wrote:
If you're gonna go there, then please explain how the f*ck someone fixes a broken back with a punch to the vertebrae? :D
Clearly his back wasn't literally broken. This isn't a complete copy of the comics - it doesn't have to be completely broken.
Actually it wasnt broken, his vertebra was disjoint, that can heal with hand pushing it back, ofc he needs to get used to it and stuff.
|
On July 27 2012 23:53 HyperLink wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 23:02 kwizach wrote:[SPOILERS] + Show Spoiler +Regarding the final twist regarding Miranda, can someone tell what was the point of her not revealing herself as one of the architects of the operation after Batman had been first defeated? To me it basically looked like a contrived way of allowing the movie to have a final twist. Both Bane and Miranda thought they would no longer have to deal with Batman, they controlled the city, were apparently untouchable, and would both die anyway with the bomb. Why not simply join Bane instead of staying undercover? + Show Spoiler +It would defeat the purpose behind "it could be anyone with the bomb trigger". She was perfectly placed in Wayne Enterprises to keep tabs on Batman's allies. It is much more useful to be a mole in the opposition because any plan would likely involve the key people like Fox, Gordon, etc.
+ Show Spoiler +They wouldn't need to reveal that she had the trigger, she could simply take her place with Bane. Also, since she was already in the know as to who held the important positions at Wayne Enterprises, she could simply have them taken out - no need to stay in as a mole...
|
On July 27 2012 23:53 HyperLink wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 23:02 kwizach wrote:[SPOILERS] + Show Spoiler +Regarding the final twist regarding Miranda, can someone tell what was the point of her not revealing herself as one of the architects of the operation after Batman had been first defeated? To me it basically looked like a contrived way of allowing the movie to have a final twist. Both Bane and Miranda thought they would no longer have to deal with Batman, they controlled the city, were apparently untouchable, and would both die anyway with the bomb. Why not simply join Bane instead of staying undercover? + Show Spoiler +It would defeat the purpose behind "it could be anyone with the bomb trigger". She was perfectly placed in Wayne Enterprises to keep tabs on Batman's allies. It is much more useful to be a mole in the opposition because any plan would likely involve the key people like Fox, Gordon, etc.
+ Show Spoiler +
It would be funny if instead of Morgan Freeman trying to defuse the bomb, they had Miranda be the one to defuse it. ...so Batman goes and defeats Bane and Bane says something ominus before dying. Then they get the bomb to the core and Miranda instead of deactivating it, sabotages the kill switch. She would then reveal herself to be Talia and explain all the Bane/Her/Liam exposition. It would have worked way better with the whole false 'hope' thing.
But then Batman puts it on the batwing and flies away Small changes but it would have made the ending affirm the major themes of the movie better.
|
On July 28 2012 00:30 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 23:53 HyperLink wrote:On July 27 2012 23:02 kwizach wrote:[SPOILERS] + Show Spoiler +Regarding the final twist regarding Miranda, can someone tell what was the point of her not revealing herself as one of the architects of the operation after Batman had been first defeated? To me it basically looked like a contrived way of allowing the movie to have a final twist. Both Bane and Miranda thought they would no longer have to deal with Batman, they controlled the city, were apparently untouchable, and would both die anyway with the bomb. Why not simply join Bane instead of staying undercover? + Show Spoiler +It would defeat the purpose behind "it could be anyone with the bomb trigger". She was perfectly placed in Wayne Enterprises to keep tabs on Batman's allies. It is much more useful to be a mole in the opposition because any plan would likely involve the key people like Fox, Gordon, etc. + Show Spoiler +They wouldn't need to reveal that she had the trigger, she could simply take her place with Bane. Also, since she was already in the know as to who held the important positions at Wayne Enterprises, she could simply have them taken out - no need to stay in as a mole...
+ Show Spoiler +And that'd go against what they said vs Batman as well - they want people to think they have a chance/hope right until the very end.
|
On July 28 2012 00:37 Serelitz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 00:30 kwizach wrote:On July 27 2012 23:53 HyperLink wrote:On July 27 2012 23:02 kwizach wrote:[SPOILERS] + Show Spoiler +Regarding the final twist regarding Miranda, can someone tell what was the point of her not revealing herself as one of the architects of the operation after Batman had been first defeated? To me it basically looked like a contrived way of allowing the movie to have a final twist. Both Bane and Miranda thought they would no longer have to deal with Batman, they controlled the city, were apparently untouchable, and would both die anyway with the bomb. Why not simply join Bane instead of staying undercover? + Show Spoiler +It would defeat the purpose behind "it could be anyone with the bomb trigger". She was perfectly placed in Wayne Enterprises to keep tabs on Batman's allies. It is much more useful to be a mole in the opposition because any plan would likely involve the key people like Fox, Gordon, etc. + Show Spoiler +They wouldn't need to reveal that she had the trigger, she could simply take her place with Bane. Also, since she was already in the know as to who held the important positions at Wayne Enterprises, she could simply have them taken out - no need to stay in as a mole... + Show Spoiler +And that'd go against what they said vs Batman as well - they want people to think they have a chance/hope right until the very end.
+ Show Spoiler +I don't really get how her simply joining Bane would have changed anything regarding that. The people would probably not even notice considering they don't know her, and taking out 2-3 individuals like Fox would not have changed anything in the grand scheme of things.
|
On July 28 2012 01:02 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 00:37 Serelitz wrote:On July 28 2012 00:30 kwizach wrote:On July 27 2012 23:53 HyperLink wrote:On July 27 2012 23:02 kwizach wrote:[SPOILERS] + Show Spoiler +Regarding the final twist regarding Miranda, can someone tell what was the point of her not revealing herself as one of the architects of the operation after Batman had been first defeated? To me it basically looked like a contrived way of allowing the movie to have a final twist. Both Bane and Miranda thought they would no longer have to deal with Batman, they controlled the city, were apparently untouchable, and would both die anyway with the bomb. Why not simply join Bane instead of staying undercover? + Show Spoiler +It would defeat the purpose behind "it could be anyone with the bomb trigger". She was perfectly placed in Wayne Enterprises to keep tabs on Batman's allies. It is much more useful to be a mole in the opposition because any plan would likely involve the key people like Fox, Gordon, etc. + Show Spoiler +They wouldn't need to reveal that she had the trigger, she could simply take her place with Bane. Also, since she was already in the know as to who held the important positions at Wayne Enterprises, she could simply have them taken out - no need to stay in as a mole... + Show Spoiler +And that'd go against what they said vs Batman as well - they want people to think they have a chance/hope right until the very end. + Show Spoiler +I don't really get how her simply joining Bane would have changed anything regarding that. The people would probably not even notice considering they don't know her, and taking out 2-3 individuals like Fox would not have changed anything in the grand scheme of things.
+ Show Spoiler +Then why not just kill Batman/Bruce Wayne? "[Their] punishment must be more severe." They wanted the people of Gotham to be broken mentally before finally finishing them off. The whole philosophy behind what Bane did was to crush the hopes of everyone in Gotham. Batman and those aligned with him were all targets he wanted to break. What better way than to witness it first hand, Fox and Gordon believing they could make a difference only to inevitably lose which is exactly why Batman was kept alive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
