I just saw the movie earlier tonight, and I think it was pretty good. Pretty great in fact, but I agree with Swizzy in that it wasn't perfect by any means, and it had a ton of things that could have been better, or could have made better or more sense. This film had really high expectations, and didn't have the luster of the last two films. So the fact that it disappointed people, and that these people want to express their disappointment seems only fair.
But I just wanted to say that both Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Anne Hathaway were massively attractive in this film.
Fair point. I watched the movie without seeing any of the trailers or reading reviews.
That said, I think BB is the best of the trilogy. I appreciated TDK from a technical perspective, but never warmed to it all that much in comparison to BB. However, I love TDKR, despite its flaws. It is most definitely more than the sum of its parts.
On August 07 2012 16:21 Lightwip wrote: Anyone else realize how a few scenes involved deaths that were ruined by the lack of blood that should obviously be there?
or when they started shooting down a tightly packed street with many machine guns and 5 people died
I'm gonna repeat myself here: If some detail like a lack of blood is enough to ruin an entire scene for you, I seriously wonder how you enjoy any movie at all. There's inconsistencies in every movie, do you point all those out too? Its like people went into this movie with the purpose of looking for things that are wrong.
On August 07 2012 16:57 Supamang wrote: I'm gonna repeat myself here: If some detail like a lack of blood is enough to ruin an entire scene for you, I seriously wonder how you enjoy any movie at all. There's inconsistencies in every movie, do you point all those out too? Its like people went into this movie with the purpose of looking for things that are wrong.
Usually it's not a problem. Most scenes in BB and TDK were cast in such a way that blood was unnecessary. While it's easy enough to ignore some inconsistencies/scientific impossibilities (ex: Black hole mechanics in Star Trek 2009), if something blatantly obvious is done wrong, it's too serious of a mistake to ignore, even in the moment. A few inconsistencies here and there are alright if they're not easily caught as soon as they happen by absolutely anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention to the progression of events.
A crowd charging into a line of people with automatic weapons, though? I know it's a minor thing, but that totally blew my suspension of disbelief. I saw that, and literally thought "welp, that's retarded, every one of those people would be dead in about 30 seconds". It just ruined my immersion....
Yeah? You know a lot about charging into gun fire? Just look at D Day. The Allies charged into far greater fire power and far greater positioning and still got it done. Automatic weapons can jam, run out of ammo, miss, etc... Not to mention only the first and maybe second row of guys could fire and that street was pretty narrow. That many guys charging forward would certainly not be gunned down by a dozen or so assault rifles. Not every bullet = one kill.
No offense, but I don't think you know a lot about charging into gun fire. The Allies' landing on D-DAY had nothing to do with this in terms of positioning. The cops should never have been able to come even close to the terrorists - the fact that the street was pretty narrow is precisely why the cops should have been moved down pretty easily.
How so? Their firepower wasn't anything spectacular. A handful of assault rifles that hold 30 rounds at a time? Killing every cop within the amount of time it takes them to sprint 50-100 yards with assault rifles? Yeah right. Even if every bullet they had did equal a kill, I doubt they had enough ammunition. Sure, D-Day had wider beaches, but they were also landing on Higgins boats that were about four people wide. I'd call that narrow. The Germans had heavy, belt-fed machine guns in hill-top, fortified bunkers, mortars, and snipers and eventually the Allies made it up the beach anyway because they threw enough people on it (obviously there's more to it than that, but you get the idea). Guns are powerful, but even they have limits.
The first few rows of cops would probably be dead, yeah. It was even shown in the movie a bunch of them dropping. But killing several thousand people with assault rifles? No sir.
Please, just drop the D-Day comparison. It makes no sense. It has nothing to do with the scene we're discussing. It is, quite simply, a terrible analogy.
The firepower of the terrorists, as displayed in the movie, was more than sufficient to mow down a good part esof the cops who were stupid enough to all line up in a single narrow street. This should be apparent to anyone familiar with automatic rifles such as those wielded by the terrorists.
I'm not saying it's exactly like D-Day, but I'm saying that just because someone is outgunned does not mean they're outmatched.
Yes, but that hardly matters, because we can discuss the scene instead of throwing generalizations like "being outgunned is not necessarily being outmatched".
On August 07 2012 14:12 Pyskee wrote: You're obviously not familiar with automatic weapons then because you think that one bullet = one kill. If those tanks were working, then yeah, the cops would have been fucked. But that Bat or whatever disabled those somehow and so all the terrorists were left with was a couple of rifles. 30 rounds in a few seconds. Reload. Oh shit, they ran 50 yards in that amount of time. Really not that difficult.
I am familiar with automatic weapons, and no I certainly don't think that one bullet = one kill. I do believe, though, that the terrorists had more than enough rifles to decimate at least half of the police force before the officers even reached them - if they weren't shooting in the air, that is. I genuinely don't think you'll find anyone that has used automatic weapons before and is familiar with them disagree with me.
A crowd charging into a line of people with automatic weapons, though? I know it's a minor thing, but that totally blew my suspension of disbelief. I saw that, and literally thought "welp, that's retarded, every one of those people would be dead in about 30 seconds". It just ruined my immersion....
Yeah? You know a lot about charging into gun fire? Just look at D Day. The Allies charged into far greater fire power and far greater positioning and still got it done. Automatic weapons can jam, run out of ammo, miss, etc... Not to mention only the first and maybe second row of guys could fire and that street was pretty narrow. That many guys charging forward would certainly not be gunned down by a dozen or so assault rifles. Not every bullet = one kill.
No offense, but I don't think you know a lot about charging into gun fire. The Allies' landing on D-DAY had nothing to do with this in terms of positioning. The cops should never have been able to come even close to the terrorists - the fact that the street was pretty narrow is precisely why the cops should have been moved down pretty easily.
How so? Their firepower wasn't anything spectacular. A handful of assault rifles that hold 30 rounds at a time? Killing every cop within the amount of time it takes them to sprint 50-100 yards with assault rifles? Yeah right. Even if every bullet they had did equal a kill, I doubt they had enough ammunition. Sure, D-Day had wider beaches, but they were also landing on Higgins boats that were about four people wide. I'd call that narrow. The Germans had heavy, belt-fed machine guns in hill-top, fortified bunkers, mortars, and snipers and eventually the Allies made it up the beach anyway because they threw enough people on it (obviously there's more to it than that, but you get the idea). Guns are powerful, but even they have limits.
The first few rows of cops would probably be dead, yeah. It was even shown in the movie a bunch of them dropping. But killing several thousand people with assault rifles? No sir.
Please, just drop the D-Day comparison. It makes no sense. It has nothing to do with the scene we're discussing. It is, quite simply, a terrible analogy.
The firepower of the terrorists, as displayed in the movie, was more than sufficient to mow down a good part esof the cops who were stupid enough to all line up in a single narrow street. This should be apparent to anyone familiar with automatic rifles such as those wielded by the terrorists.
I'm not saying it's exactly like D-Day, but I'm saying that just because someone is outgunned does not mean they're outmatched.
Yes, but that hardly matters, because we can discuss the scene instead of throwing generalizations like "being outgunned is not necessarily being outmatched".
On August 07 2012 14:12 Pyskee wrote: You're obviously not familiar with automatic weapons then because you think that one bullet = one kill. If those tanks were working, then yeah, the cops would have been fucked. But that Bat or whatever disabled those somehow and so all the terrorists were left with was a couple of rifles. 30 rounds in a few seconds. Reload. Oh shit, they ran 50 yards in that amount of time. Really not that difficult.
I am familiar with automatic weapons, and no I certainly don't think that one bullet = one kill. I do believe, though, that the terrorists had more than enough rifles to decimate at least half of the police force before the officers even reached them - if they weren't shooting in the air, that is. I genuinely don't think you'll find anyone that has used automatic weapons before and is familiar with them disagree with me.
I have used several automatic rifles and I can tell you that it's not as easy as Call of Duty. The first automatic I fired was a 9mm Uzi. 9mm! And I had to fire that in 3-4 round bursts to keep from hitting the sky. Try a 7.62, while being under the pressure of guys charging at you and you're bound to miss more than half the time.
A crowd charging into a line of people with automatic weapons, though? I know it's a minor thing, but that totally blew my suspension of disbelief. I saw that, and literally thought "welp, that's retarded, every one of those people would be dead in about 30 seconds". It just ruined my immersion....
Yeah? You know a lot about charging into gun fire? Just look at D Day. The Allies charged into far greater fire power and far greater positioning and still got it done. Automatic weapons can jam, run out of ammo, miss, etc... Not to mention only the first and maybe second row of guys could fire and that street was pretty narrow. That many guys charging forward would certainly not be gunned down by a dozen or so assault rifles. Not every bullet = one kill.
No offense, but I don't think you know a lot about charging into gun fire. The Allies' landing on D-DAY had nothing to do with this in terms of positioning. The cops should never have been able to come even close to the terrorists - the fact that the street was pretty narrow is precisely why the cops should have been moved down pretty easily.
How so? Their firepower wasn't anything spectacular. A handful of assault rifles that hold 30 rounds at a time? Killing every cop within the amount of time it takes them to sprint 50-100 yards with assault rifles? Yeah right. Even if every bullet they had did equal a kill, I doubt they had enough ammunition. Sure, D-Day had wider beaches, but they were also landing on Higgins boats that were about four people wide. I'd call that narrow. The Germans had heavy, belt-fed machine guns in hill-top, fortified bunkers, mortars, and snipers and eventually the Allies made it up the beach anyway because they threw enough people on it (obviously there's more to it than that, but you get the idea). Guns are powerful, but even they have limits.
The first few rows of cops would probably be dead, yeah. It was even shown in the movie a bunch of them dropping. But killing several thousand people with assault rifles? No sir.
Please, just drop the D-Day comparison. It makes no sense. It has nothing to do with the scene we're discussing. It is, quite simply, a terrible analogy.
The firepower of the terrorists, as displayed in the movie, was more than sufficient to mow down a good part esof the cops who were stupid enough to all line up in a single narrow street. This should be apparent to anyone familiar with automatic rifles such as those wielded by the terrorists.
I'm not saying it's exactly like D-Day, but I'm saying that just because someone is outgunned does not mean they're outmatched.
Yes, but that hardly matters, because we can discuss the scene instead of throwing generalizations like "being outgunned is not necessarily being outmatched".
On August 07 2012 14:12 Pyskee wrote: You're obviously not familiar with automatic weapons then because you think that one bullet = one kill. If those tanks were working, then yeah, the cops would have been fucked. But that Bat or whatever disabled those somehow and so all the terrorists were left with was a couple of rifles. 30 rounds in a few seconds. Reload. Oh shit, they ran 50 yards in that amount of time. Really not that difficult.
I am familiar with automatic weapons, and no I certainly don't think that one bullet = one kill. I do believe, though, that the terrorists had more than enough rifles to decimate at least half of the police force before the officers even reached them - if they weren't shooting in the air, that is. I genuinely don't think you'll find anyone that has used automatic weapons before and is familiar with them disagree with me.
I have used several automatic rifles and I can tell you that it's not as easy as Call of Duty. The first automatic I fired was a 9mm Uzi. 9mm! And I had to fire that in 3-4 round bursts to keep from hitting the sky. Try a 7.62, while being under the pressure of guys charging at you and you're bound to miss more than half the time.
Again, I know "it's not as easy as CoD". It's still easier than using your damn fists.
A crowd charging into a line of people with automatic weapons, though? I know it's a minor thing, but that totally blew my suspension of disbelief. I saw that, and literally thought "welp, that's retarded, every one of those people would be dead in about 30 seconds". It just ruined my immersion....
Yeah? You know a lot about charging into gun fire? Just look at D Day. The Allies charged into far greater fire power and far greater positioning and still got it done. Automatic weapons can jam, run out of ammo, miss, etc... Not to mention only the first and maybe second row of guys could fire and that street was pretty narrow. That many guys charging forward would certainly not be gunned down by a dozen or so assault rifles. Not every bullet = one kill.
No offense, but I don't think you know a lot about charging into gun fire. The Allies' landing on D-DAY had nothing to do with this in terms of positioning. The cops should never have been able to come even close to the terrorists - the fact that the street was pretty narrow is precisely why the cops should have been moved down pretty easily.
How so? Their firepower wasn't anything spectacular. A handful of assault rifles that hold 30 rounds at a time? Killing every cop within the amount of time it takes them to sprint 50-100 yards with assault rifles? Yeah right. Even if every bullet they had did equal a kill, I doubt they had enough ammunition. Sure, D-Day had wider beaches, but they were also landing on Higgins boats that were about four people wide. I'd call that narrow. The Germans had heavy, belt-fed machine guns in hill-top, fortified bunkers, mortars, and snipers and eventually the Allies made it up the beach anyway because they threw enough people on it (obviously there's more to it than that, but you get the idea). Guns are powerful, but even they have limits.
The first few rows of cops would probably be dead, yeah. It was even shown in the movie a bunch of them dropping. But killing several thousand people with assault rifles? No sir.
Please, just drop the D-Day comparison. It makes no sense. It has nothing to do with the scene we're discussing. It is, quite simply, a terrible analogy.
The firepower of the terrorists, as displayed in the movie, was more than sufficient to mow down a good part esof the cops who were stupid enough to all line up in a single narrow street. This should be apparent to anyone familiar with automatic rifles such as those wielded by the terrorists.
I'm not saying it's exactly like D-Day, but I'm saying that just because someone is outgunned does not mean they're outmatched.
Yes, but that hardly matters, because we can discuss the scene instead of throwing generalizations like "being outgunned is not necessarily being outmatched".
On August 07 2012 14:12 Pyskee wrote: You're obviously not familiar with automatic weapons then because you think that one bullet = one kill. If those tanks were working, then yeah, the cops would have been fucked. But that Bat or whatever disabled those somehow and so all the terrorists were left with was a couple of rifles. 30 rounds in a few seconds. Reload. Oh shit, they ran 50 yards in that amount of time. Really not that difficult.
I am familiar with automatic weapons, and no I certainly don't think that one bullet = one kill. I do believe, though, that the terrorists had more than enough rifles to decimate at least half of the police force before the officers even reached them - if they weren't shooting in the air, that is. I genuinely don't think you'll find anyone that has used automatic weapons before and is familiar with them disagree with me.
I have used several automatic rifles and I can tell you that it's not as easy as Call of Duty. The first automatic I fired was a 9mm Uzi. 9mm! And I had to fire that in 3-4 round bursts to keep from hitting the sky. Try a 7.62, while being under the pressure of guys charging at you and you're bound to miss more than half the time.
Funny. I fired a 9mm Uzi as part of shooting training in my military service. The easiest to handle gun I ever got to shoot there. But this is still irrelevant.
It looked to me like almost every criminal in that confrontation had a gun. While for some reason the policemen lost theirs while being trapped in the sewers. If there were roughly as much criminals as policemen in that scene, than it should have been a onesided massacre.
1 guy with an assault rifle should be able to kill at least 1--4 guys with no assault rifles charging straight towards him. When theres 1000 assault rifle guys against 3000 non assault rifles guys, than aiming would be almost unnecessary. But that´s just a nitpick about the armed versus unarmed fight scene.
Much worse to me was too many new important characters(Bane, Miranda, Blake, Catwoman, (Dagget)) and some general stupidity(The clean slate program thing, the authentication of stock market trades via fingerprint, Banes and Mirandas motivation to sit on a fucking nuclear bomb for half a year, why they not just kill Batman if they hate him so much, so many things about the nuclear bomb)
It was a great movie. Some flaws of course (such as the police-criminals scene) but movies were not meant to be made in so much details I think. Honestly the only thing I did not like is how Robin was presented. Smart guy yes, but he was nothing special in hand combat and at the end he even had no one to teach him, so how was he supposed to become a real batman replacement? He should have been shown as an already developed fighter, maybe not like batman, but at least the best in the police force, someone who is very enthusiastic and talanted in his hand to hand fight training, something in that direction
On August 08 2012 01:29 paralleluniverse wrote: I saw the movie today, I enjoyed it a lot. The ending was very satisfying and well done.
However, I'm highly confused about how Batman magically healed from being stabbed.
the same way he magically healed from a spinal injury . Lazy writing.
He had a dislocated vertebrae, and had 5 months to recover from it.
And stab wounds aren't instantly fatal, especially since she wasn't trying to stab him to death. More importantly, he wasn't doing any fancy acrobatics after getting stabbed, he was sitting in a cockpit. So, while it would be eventually fatal, and extremely painful, it's not like you can't move.
What you should be asking about is how his leg didn't have any problems in the pit (and afterwards).
On August 08 2012 01:29 paralleluniverse wrote: I saw the movie today, I enjoyed it a lot. The ending was very satisfying and well done.
However, I'm highly confused about how Batman magically healed from being stabbed.
the same way he magically healed from a spinal injury . Lazy writing.
He had a dislocated vertebrae, and had 5 months to recover from it.
And stab wounds aren't instantly fatal, especially since she wasn't trying to stab him to death. More importantly, he wasn't doing any fancy acrobatics after getting stabbed, he was sitting in a cockpit. So, while it would be eventually fatal, and extremely painful, it's not like you can't move.
What you should be asking about is how his leg didn't have any problems in the pit (and afterwards).
Please, he's the goddamn Batman. He's not going to let a little thing like a bum leg or a stab wound or a spine injury or a nuclear explosion keep him down.
On August 08 2012 01:29 paralleluniverse wrote: I saw the movie today, I enjoyed it a lot. The ending was very satisfying and well done.
However, I'm highly confused about how Batman magically healed from being stabbed.
the same way he magically healed from a spinal injury . Lazy writing.
He had a dislocated vertebrae, and had 5 months to recover from it.
And stab wounds aren't instantly fatal, especially since she wasn't trying to stab him to death. More importantly, he wasn't doing any fancy acrobatics after getting stabbed, he was sitting in a cockpit. So, while it would be eventually fatal, and extremely painful, it's not like you can't move.
What you should be asking about is how his leg didn't have any problems in the pit (and afterwards).
Please, he's the goddamn Batman. He's not going to let a little thing like a bum leg or a stab wound or a spine injury or a nuclear explosion keep him down.
Best possible explanation to the whole inconsistency thing.
On August 06 2012 13:35 Scarecrow wrote: Really disappointed. Nowhere near the quality of the first two. Overly long, boring and predictable. The plot was really poorly paced: the beat down and pit needed to come earlier. The finale just felt so limp and plodding, killing the toy tanks until what's her name crashed and died. The catwoman/robin sideshows added very little. The 'Rise' from the pit had almost no emotional impact. It was honestly hard to care about anyone in this movie.
Other issues: stupid Robin shit on the bridge. Needed a more intense Bane final battle for how much he was built up, less of that stupid helicoptor and toy tanks. More Batman and cool gadgets. Either make it a full on Avenger's style blockbuster or give it some real emotional impact, for me it had neither. The script and acting was also sub-par compared to the two previous films.
EPT
