which writers use that term? I looked it up and I don't see it defined as that kind of slang.oh, your local screenwriter's group. Of which you are a member.
So what have you written that's been on the screen?
gee, "a ****ing idiot"? I'm kind of disappointed. I kind of expected to be insulted with something a little more creative, a little more literate,from a guy who belongs to an actual screenwriter's group.
Funny thing, isn't it? If after reading this thread, somebody had asked me to guess which poster in this thread is a screenwriter, I would've guessed your name second to last.
No. Scratch that. I would have stopped guessing before I thought of your name, and would have said "I give up. Who is it?"
You can't even argue honestly. You just look at it as a competition and don't argue honestly. Look:
you did dump on it. Which is cool with me.Lots of people don't like it. I wasn't inovkved in it's creation. But you're disingenuous with your arguments. if you were more honest, I wouldnt dump on you so much. You did bash the Avengers, but you want to claim it was just my "interpretation" of your comments.
You don't even have the stones to own your own argument. And really all your arguments have a slight ring of exaggeration to them, and lack real conviction. Like you're trying to argue these points for exercise sake, but at the same time, you don't really read the responses very carefully. I get the feeling that if enough people here told you you're wrong here, and nobody agreed with you, you'd just start to concede all your points one by one.
I just don't believe that you believe what you're typing. You seem to just believe that you can argue the points.
so I'm a hack screenwriter now? because I mentioned a screenwriter's group?
haha dude you really are pathetic. it would suck to be you.
and ya, your name wouldn't have come up at all, in anything.
and actually, there are people that agree with me, you just choose not to see them.
Are you sure this is a really widespread term? I've never used plotted used in this context, only ever as the past tense of "plot," as in "the ideas were all plotted out in advance." Even trying to Google the term failed to bring anything up resembling how you're using it.
So talking like this will get us nowhere in a hurry.
widespread? it's writer's slang.
if you attend your local screenwriter's group, I'm sure you will hear the term.
you now know something you didn't know.
even in the context you know it, a script never wants to feel "plotted." if a script is described this way, it's usually a negative
so everyone's clear, a "plot" is the movie's storyline.
"plotted" is a term writers use that suggest something feels forced, out of place, unbelievable, etc.
"the massacre at the start of third act feels plotted."
when you make statements like this, you are essentially arguing against the points you are trying to make, unless you feel the entire movie was forced together. which you don''t.
it brings into question the credibility of your arguments since you don't know what you're talking about and you don't know what side you are arguing for.
before you go any further, look up the difference between "plotted" and "plot." its clear you don't what I'm talking about, so instead continuing to argue something you don't understand like a dbag, look it up.
you said "Stop trying to make into a litmus test for analytical thinking skills."
which I replied, this is a discussion forum to PROMOTE analytical thinking skills. don't tell me, or anyone else, to stop thinking just because it disagrees with how you feel.
i wasn't aware that publicly traded firms, like wayne co, are building breeder reactors daily. i wasn't aware that nuclear devices were so accessible in our world.
batman has no super powers meaning his world needs to be more believable. the batman film can fall under the super hero genre, but it is a TOTALLY different world than the avengers- which was my point. of course, you interpret that as me bashing your beloved avengers. i don't give a **** about you or the avengers. get over yourself, man.
batman is a detective. he was called detective by ra's al ghul throughout the comic books. and yes, nolan's films do have elements of standard crime thrillers. they certainly play more real than x-men/spider-man, and that is why people love them so much. that's pretty obvious. for these reasons, the batman world needs to feel more real, which it did not in TDKR. you have absolutely no problems with this, which shows either you are stubborn, gullible, or naive about films in general.
i really don't care about your taste in movies because, like i said, your film IQ is sub-par. you think you have definitive answers to things that are based on perspective and opinion, then try to argue them to no avail, while bashing people who feel differently.
sound productive to you?
yep, we can't all be winners. I'm sure you learned that the day you were born.
From what little research I've done, it seems possible to turn a theoretical cold-fusion device into a weapon.
In fusion, you usually have some sort of gas fed into a reactor, which fuses those atoms into bigger atoms, which releases energy. The fusion reaction is held inside of a magnetic field. It produces heat/light, but it can be contained. The energy can be released to produce heat/light that's used to actually produce electricity.
You could potentially create a theoretical (for the purposes of a movie) self-sustaining reactor where the fusion reaction happens between two atoms, produces two new and different atoms, and then those atoms produce a fusion reaction, which then, reverts them back to the the two original atoms. The amount of energy that is produced is more than what you put in, but the fusion reaction itself is stable, and never overwhelms the containment unit.An energy source would need to "prime" the reactor to start things off.
This would explain two things in the movie 1) how the reactor can even be "on" when it's disconnected from everything and 2) why it needed to be "started" in the first place.
So, let's pretend that that's the kind of reactor at play in the Batman movie. Then, when the scientist is brought in, he makes a modification to the reactor. The fusion processes continues as described, but because of the modification, the fusion reaction that is contained within the magnetic field starts to grow a little bit. Over time, it gets to be so big, that it breaks free of the containment device, and releases all the energy, causing a huge explosion.
This would explain the explosion at the end of the movie.
this is a logical explanation. thank you.
as I've stated my problem is more of nobody having the foresight to see that this could happen. doesn't it feel contrived?
then you add in a scientist who has the ultimate excuse in all of cinema, "only one in the world that knows how to do it." doesn't that feel convenient?
than he does it in under 20 minutes. doesn't that feel easy?
those are my main points, not that it is physically impossible or unbelievable. i don't know enough about nuclear physics to assert myself there.
i just didn't like the way dcartist addressed me in the previous post, which also stems back to our discussion in 2001: a space odyssey.
also, I don't think my questions have been answered by the film, which is why I am asking them. if you care to answer them, look at my previous post and go ahead. you could also put on the list, why the hell bane addressed the harvey dent memo?
actually i feel like my points are the minority. so ya, I'm not upset when people disagree because it is the overwhelming majority of the viewers who don't see it as I do. that's fine. it takes a lot more thought to look the other way and not simply "accept" something because the movie brushed on it.
it is a crime thriller. look up the definition of crime thriller genre. it certainly, well up until now, played more like a crime thriller than super hero movie.
batman was known as detective in the comics. he has no super power. do you understand?
that is probably the most telling comment you could make. very egotistical.
it's more like, you ACCEPT their explanation when it's a piece of ****. if that's fine with you, that's fine with me.
here's a basic concept you seem to not understand: this is a discussion forum that PROMOTES analytical thinking, don't tell someone to not post their thoughts just because they differ from yours.
you are, and this I know for certain, not the final authority in film, as much as you would like to be. in fact, you have yet to post anything that would even suggest an above average film IQ. (just being honest)
what is clear, though, you seem to think your interpretation of any film is the only one and you refuse to concede anything, even when viable points are given to you.
you would rather write pages trying to smooth out the plot-line, to no avail, than just admitting it felt forced.
and then you accuse me of not liking the movie because I bring up a point that bothers me. really? is it impossible for me to like the movie because I have a complaint with it?
so what kind of bomb was it? how did the scientist turn it into a weapon in under 20 min? how is the reactor in Miranda/Bane's game plan when she believed it was non-operational from the start? (they just got lucky? set everything up then- yes the reactor does work!?)
if wayne felt the reactor was such a threat, why not just disable it rather than hide it? in fact, why build it in the first place if there is the smallest chance it could become a nuclear bomb? why wasn't the nuke batman's first priority (instead of giving it to Gordon)? why in the world would he have to face Bane first before disposing of the bomb?
@highroller: no, my complaint has always been this particular sub-story feels cliche and contrived. a poor explanation is just the by-product. i wish it wasn't explained at all, rather in such a half ass fashion. if it found its way into the movie, obviously there was an explanation.
Again, since you don't seem to understand some basic concepts:
(1) the workings of the reactor were not specified in the movie. If a plot calls for a fusion reactor of unknown mechanism, small enough to fit into a van but able to power a city, a reasonable suspension of disbelief is that a genius scientist in the movie could figure out how to modify it to allow it to release energy at a more rapid rate and be used as a weapon.
(2) cold fusion ain't real, so if you're going to make arguments about whether a cold fusion reactor could be weaponized, you're just... well you'd just be continuing to do what you've already been doing.
Magickware99 was speculating. But you seem to want to cite him as authority on the "scientific impossibility" of the weaponization of the reactor in TDKR, and expert on all things cold fusion (despite the fact that cold fusion itself doesn't exist).
Magickware was just SPECULATING, just like everybody else here, which is perfectly fine.
Your citing his speculative comment as the final word on all things cold fusion is stimply stupid. Does the following sound like an authoritative scientific pronouncement of fact?
It was just Magickware's opinion and some speculation.
I understand he was just speculating, the reactor/bomb being an "impossible" task isn't even my main dig if you read my previous post.
I just pointed it out because, if indeed true, it's the most obvious way to show people an example of a plot-hole, something that doesn't physically work in real life.
my quarrel from the start has been that the sub story of the reactor/bomb feels plotted. it could be totally feasible and work in real life, it still feels incredibly contrived as others have pointed out.
just because it's possible doesn't necessarily mean it's believable, especially in the world Nolan has created. in fact, in TDRK it is HIGHLY UNBELIEVABLE and detracts from the movie.
if its a **** movie like the avengers, I really wouldn't care. nukes, missiles, unknown substances of energy- whatever. nobody cares.
this is Batman, a trilogy based on the concrete grittiness of the streets. save the hail-mary nuclear bomb **** to lesser movies like the avengers, movies that won't be questioned for how they use their super heroes.
Batman is a detective, he's not Thor, he needs explanation. his movies are crime thrillers that also need explanations. when the explanations suck or feel contrived, it stands out.
While not as extreme, the fusion reactor-turned-WMD is an example of this to many people, especially since Batman Begins and The Dark Knight made great strides to try to fit the concept of Batman into a setting where he could exist in a realistic setting. Therefore, to have a fantastical technology plot contrivance flies in the face of this to many, including myself.
Meanwhile, the existence of mobs, mob money, and Hong Kong are all things we know exist. And while it certainly requires suspension of belief to go along with the Joker's plans, it at least does not require us to greatly redefine our perception of Gotham and its differences between the way our planet works as much.
Not to mention Bane's level of clairvoyance and the number of plot problems his plans cause easily exceed the Joker's, and this is coming from someone who had that criticism about the Joker in the last film.
this is well said. it blows my mind how many people want to turn a blind eye to a piece of **** story line.
(2) is the "someone" who "mentioned that it is practically impossible to turn a cold fusion reactor into a weapon" the final authority? Does "somebody mentioning" their opinion now constitute proof?
Bane made the claim and the scientist stated that claim under gunpoint. This does not make it scientific certainty in the TDKR universe. Bane forced The doctor to do two things: (1) make the core into a bomb and (2) rig it as a time bomb with some sort of tamper prevention. Given that the doctor is the only guy who knows exactly what he did with the bomb, and nobody else is a double expert on fusion reactor bombs and sophisticated IEDs, that trying to defuse the bomb is extremely risky. Which I already covered in detail.
You seem under the impression that if a character in a movie says something and others in the movie believe it, that it somehow becomes scientific fact in that movie universe. It does not. Character statements are limited to the scope of the character's knowledge & opinion, and can be deliberately deceptive. Bane is a liar. He may be bluffing. Even if Batman believes he's not bluffing, Bane might still be only 90% sure that nobody else can defuse the bomb.
At the end of the movie, IF the flight option had not been available, riskier option B would have been to ATTEMPT to defuse the core. In genre/action movies it would not be the first time that Bond/the hero/the superhero defused a nuclear bomb despite lacking the appropriate expertise ( "blue wire? Red wire? Ah, Ernie meenie miney moe... Pick one and pray" ).
iirc, per Wayne, the doctor (a physicist) published paper on the theoretical weaponization of that TYPE of reactor, which was still theoretical, while not actually knowing that reactor actually existed. This was quite explicit I believe.
Bane, under the supervision of Talia (who suspected Bruce had perfected the reactor and was pressuring him to announce it) was obviously equally aware of the doctor's paper and the reactor as well. Bane kidnapped the doctor & brought reactor and doctor together and forced him at gunpoint to make the appropriate notifications to make it "explodable" and to turn it into a timebomb (presumably making it difficult to tamper with as well).
I know there's some implausible stuff in this movie, but no less plausible in movie context than the ridiculous melting pot of gang lords who looked like refugees from Mystery Men or Dick Tracy, who collectively gave ALL their money to Lau to hold for them, then all bent over and took it from the joker.
If you didn't enjoy the movie, that's fine.
Stop trying to make into a litmus test for analytical thinking skills. We all suspend our disbelief when we Subconsciously CHOOSE to. You did it just fine for the comical league of shadows in BB with the endless numbers of faceless ninja trained chumps who seemed to exist just to roll over and die, as well as The Joker's immensely implausible escape plans which only work if he can provoke the policeman into engaging him in a fistfight, but doesn't provoke him to the point of just bashing his head in or breaking his hands with a billy club. Even the initial bank robbery, where each guy is told to betray another, there are multiple points at which ANY one of the other men could catch on that his partner is going to shoot him in the head or back (NOT just the last guy), and the Joker could have ended up with a bullet in the back of his head.
The joker is a wonderfully entertaining and charismatic badguy and I just roll with it.
a litmus test for analytical thinking? what in the world are you talking about? and why are you getting so defensive?
you can keep on regurgitating what was said in the movie, it still doesn't fix how plotted that sub story is.
for the ninjas in BB, like the joker, which I explained, there was no explanation. THE WORLD IT WAS SET IN WAS THE EXPLANATION. and its fine that way. THERE WAS NO WOLRD CREATED IN TDKR, so they had to use exposition to explain all the little points. clearly, they came up with some plotted side story to connect the dots. IS THAT NOT OBVIOUS TO YOU?
in other words, if they did a better job, they wouldn't have to explain it.
and for future reference, don't address me like that and accuse me of trying to do things because you are butt hurt that i didn't like the movie.
as for the cold fusion reactor, DO SOME ****ING RESEARCH YOURSELF.
I guess that's where your true problem lies, not in the bomb, but in the fact that you actually think that it's important to the story being told.
It doesn't matter whether it's a ticking time bomb or a flock of radioactive geese; what's important is Wayne's journey.
I know you don't give two ****s about that, but that's the honest to God truth. If you can't see the journey of the film for the details I can't help you.
??
is the reactor not a big part of the story?
nobody's saying wayne's journey wasn't important. where did you get that from? and why does that justify sloppiness of the reactor/bomb?
we can still have wayne's journey AND a believable plot, do you not realize this? it's not one or the other as you make it out to be.
I didn't have a problem with the weaponization. And I REALLY am not an adherant of continuity or logic in film. But at some point, the script seemed to lean on a long pretense of character development rather than a tight engaging plot.
Plot issues that I recall:
Sending the entire police force into sewers and then Bane keeping them alive.
The ability of a rather small group of people to stave off national govt and cow the entire populace.
How long were they making explosive concrete?
Bane's Dent speech. Putting aside Bane's intentions, it took a weaker plot point and motivation of movie 2 and thrust it into the glaring spotlight.
Spinal recovery in Bane's hop-to-freedom prison.
Bane sneaking into the plane with a pillowcase on his head. CIA dude isn't going to peak?
Batman sitting in retirement since the last film was simply a disappointing way to begin the movie.
Bane breaks out the prisoners (who the League hates!) at the end of the takeover. In the comics, this was his method of defeating Bats and created awesome lead-up to Bane breaking him. In this film, it didn't make much sense motivationally, and only Crane shows up? Disappointing.
Gordon's character spent screen time without adding a lot, and even came across as a dislikable puss. Compare to his succinct punch and presence in the earlier films. They sacrificed an engaging character, and it wasn't worth it IMO.
ETC. It isn't that any one of these rough edges killed the film, but they became noticable because I found the film wasn't engaging enough to distract from them.
Don't get me wrong: There was some serious bad-ass stuff in the film. But in the context of the whole, there wasn't proportionally as much bad-ass as in previous films.
i agree with most of your points, especially #s 4 and 9.
ya i understand its a super-hero movie so not everything is going to be exact science. I've accepted that and Im certainly not one to complain about trivial things.
but c'mon. there is a point where you can't hide under the "super hero movie" umbrella - you want logical explanations for IMPORTANT things in the film. the reactor/weapon is an IMPORTANT thing in the film.
i don't know how some people can just dismiss it, or think they understand it, because the movie gave them ONE LINE suggesting an impossible scenario: THE SINGLE MOST BRILLIANT MAN IN THE WORLD IS ON THE JOB AND HE IS THE ONLY PERSON WHO EVER THOUGHT OF USING NUCLEAR POWER TO HIS ADVANTAGE. HE SOMEHOW GOT THE STEP ON WAYNE AND THE GENIUS EMPLOYEES AT WAYNE CO.
no logic, but somehow, since the film stated it, it must be true and to think otherwise is wrong? i don't buy it.
why do I not care about the BAT ( since it's impossible as people have mentioned) but I care about the reactor/weapon?
because the BAT isn't an integral part of the film. it's trivial. it's hollywood. it could be replaced and much in the film would be intact.
the sub story of the reactor/weapon is ENORMOUS to the film. it should have been more thought out or explained better. no one has yet to provide a definitive explanation to it. or even ventured to explain the timeline of Talia/Bane's connection to the reactor. doesn't that suggest something?
IT WASN'T CLEAR.
for those reasons, I can't give it a pass and simply say , "hey it's a superhero movie." that sub story is incredibly important to the film, it needs to be all in or all out.
It's not a plot hole if you paid attention to the film. Wayne's company built the tech and, obviously, showed it around. Then, one guy took the design and turned it into a weapon. Then, Wayne shut down the program and got rid of access to it. Wow, what a ****ing leap of logic.
EDIT: Also, it's not hyperbole. Every film can be picked apart on that level. It's a part of telling a condensed story. Name one film that doesn't call for a certain amount of suspension of disbelief or time condensing.
it's not a plot-hole? IT'S A ****ING IMPOSSIBLE TASK. IT CAN'T BE DONE SCIENTIFICALLY, YET IT IS CRUCIAL TO THE ****ING ENDING OF THE MOVIE.
YEA IT MAKES SENSE IN A LINEAR FASHION BUT ITS STILL UNCONCEIVABLE.
so why would Wayne build the thing if there was any chance it could become a weapon? he didn't know? or this lone scientist did what no one else in the entire world could? it reeks of being plotted and set up, i don't understand why you are arguing this.
so the reason gotham is in danger is pretty much Wayne's fault right? because he had no foresight that his invention could be turned into a reactor? that just ISNT bruce wayne or wayne co. it's a writing device that sticks out sorely. get over it.
"every film has lapses of logic"??? that is truly the dumbest I've ever heard. that's not hyperbole to you? i could name hundreds of movies, i just don't really want to hear your two cents on every single one.
you also said, "Every film has these little lapses in logic or leaps forward in time or circumstance to move the film forward, but people only pick on them when they need a reason to dislike something."
that is hyperbole and probably one of the dumbest things i've read. if you really feel that way, it's no wonder you have no problem with the reactor/bomb plot hole.
Well, at least you know how to infer things that were never said. A+ for putting words in my mouth.
I never said the world building was better in TDKR than its preceding films. In fact, I'd say it's right on par with the rest of Nolan's work. Which I ****ing said.
Yeah, it's really easy to say that one guy knows how to weaponize the device since shortly after Wayne showed it to anyone it was turned into a weapon and he hid it. How is this remotely difficult to comprehend? Do you have access to nuclear power plant schematics? How many people in the world do you think do have access to that sort of thing? Especially something that isn't even beyond the prototype phase?
Of course there's no need to explain the Joker's actions. But when his action rely a whole ****-ton on luck then it calls into question the story.
Yet, when Bane's plans call on something as simple as a small select number of people having access to something that's being kept a secret (!) it's ridiculous? Really? If it's such common knowledge to turn a power source into a bomb, I have some AAA batteries that you can use!
I've never praised Nolan as a perfect writer/director/whatever, but that doesn't make the accusations launched at this film any less ridiculous. Again, every damn film I've ever seen has things that can be questioned. It's just when something doesn't live up to the extremely high expectations that people had after Heath Ledger's Joker that people bring those stupid things up.
Yes, I said most of these complaints are stupid. Get over it.
EDIT: For the record, the Bat could never, ever actually fly and I had that thought every time it was on screen. But that did not make me dislike the film. I just accepted it and moved on.
i didn't put anything into your mouth, you are walking yourself in circles on your own accord.
so, you accept that NOBODY else has access to this type of thing, myself included, yet you have no clue how this one scientist does. okay, does that make sense to you? you just accept that Bane found him out of the billions of other people right?
someone already mentioned that it is practically impossible to turn a cold fusion reactor into a weapon, yet you accept it anyway. IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSILBLE (LIKE IT CANT HAPPEN IN THE REAL WORLD), but it works for you. okay? cool.
you're pretty much arguing that turning a reactor into a weapon isn't common knowledge, but gladly accept the convenience of "the only man in the entire world" knows how to do it, and he's at Bane's disposal. and you accept this as if it's a natural progression of the film, which I think is hilarious.
it is obvious you are trying to defend Nolan and TDKR by muting the point. the fact is, my point is valid and others have seen it as well.
why don't you answer questions like, how is this guy the only one in the world with this knowledge? how did he get the blueprints, weapon tech, etc? how did he learn about the reactor in the first place? what form of science does he practice where he can perform the impossible? how does he know so much more than the average scientist?
you haven't answered any of that, you're simply regurgitating the plot that doesn't make sense.
so I'm a hack screenwriter now? because I mentioned a screenwriter's group?
haha dude you really are pathetic. it would suck to be you.
and ya, your name wouldn't have come up at all, in anything.
and actually, there are people that agree with me, you just choose not to see them.
but hey, everything's plotted right?
Infraction issued for flaming ~r_0
widespread? it's writer's slang.
if you attend your local screenwriter's group, I'm sure you will hear the term.
you now know something you didn't know.
even in the context you know it, a script never wants to feel "plotted." if a script is described this way, it's usually a negative
a script is a natural unfolding of a story.
so everyone's clear, a "plot" is the movie's storyline.
"plotted" is a term writers use that suggest something feels forced, out of place, unbelievable, etc.
"the massacre at the start of third act feels plotted."
when you make statements like this, you are essentially arguing against the points you are trying to make, unless you feel the entire movie was forced together. which you don''t.
it brings into question the credibility of your arguments since you don't know what you're talking about and you don't know what side you are arguing for.
in short, it makes you look like a ****ing idiot.
but hey, just my 2 cents.
Infraction issued for flaming ~r_0
before you go any further, look up the difference between "plotted" and "plot." its clear you don't what I'm talking about, so instead continuing to argue something you don't understand like a dbag, look it up.
you said "Stop trying to make into a litmus test for analytical thinking skills."
which I replied, this is a discussion forum to PROMOTE analytical thinking skills. don't tell me, or anyone else, to stop thinking just because it disagrees with how you feel.
i wasn't aware that publicly traded firms, like wayne co, are building breeder reactors daily. i wasn't aware that nuclear devices were so accessible in our world.
batman has no super powers meaning his world needs to be more believable. the batman film can fall under the super hero genre, but it is a TOTALLY different world than the avengers- which was my point. of course, you interpret that as me bashing your beloved avengers. i don't give a **** about you or the avengers. get over yourself, man.
batman is a detective. he was called detective by ra's al ghul throughout the comic books. and yes, nolan's films do have elements of standard crime thrillers. they certainly play more real than x-men/spider-man, and that is why people love them so much. that's pretty obvious. for these reasons, the batman world needs to feel more real, which it did not in TDKR. you have absolutely no problems with this, which shows either you are stubborn, gullible, or naive about films in general.
i really don't care about your taste in movies because, like i said, your film IQ is sub-par. you think you have definitive answers to things that are based on perspective and opinion, then try to argue them to no avail, while bashing people who feel differently.
sound productive to you?
yep, we can't all be winners. I'm sure you learned that the day you were born.
try not to be a loser all the time though.
Infraction issued for flaming ~r_0
this is a logical explanation. thank you.
as I've stated my problem is more of nobody having the foresight to see that this could happen. doesn't it feel contrived?
then you add in a scientist who has the ultimate excuse in all of cinema, "only one in the world that knows how to do it." doesn't that feel convenient?
than he does it in under 20 minutes. doesn't that feel easy?
those are my main points, not that it is physically impossible or unbelievable. i don't know enough about nuclear physics to assert myself there.
i just didn't like the way dcartist addressed me in the previous post, which also stems back to our discussion in 2001: a space odyssey.
also, I don't think my questions have been answered by the film, which is why I am asking them. if you care to answer them, look at my previous post and go ahead. you could also put on the list, why the hell bane addressed the harvey dent memo?
actually i feel like my points are the minority. so ya, I'm not upset when people disagree because it is the overwhelming majority of the viewers who don't see it as I do. that's fine. it takes a lot more thought to look the other way and not simply "accept" something because the movie brushed on it.
it is a crime thriller. look up the definition of crime thriller genre. it certainly, well up until now, played more like a crime thriller than super hero movie.
batman was known as detective in the comics. he has no super power. do you understand?
"didn't have to explain it to ME."
that is probably the most telling comment you could make. very egotistical.
it's more like, you ACCEPT their explanation when it's a piece of ****. if that's fine with you, that's fine with me.
here's a basic concept you seem to not understand: this is a discussion forum that PROMOTES analytical thinking, don't tell someone to not post their thoughts just because they differ from yours.
you are, and this I know for certain, not the final authority in film, as much as you would like to be. in fact, you have yet to post anything that would even suggest an above average film IQ. (just being honest)
what is clear, though, you seem to think your interpretation of any film is the only one and you refuse to concede anything, even when viable points are given to you.
you would rather write pages trying to smooth out the plot-line, to no avail, than just admitting it felt forced.
and then you accuse me of not liking the movie because I bring up a point that bothers me. really? is it impossible for me to like the movie because I have a complaint with it?
so what kind of bomb was it? how did the scientist turn it into a weapon in under 20 min? how is the reactor in Miranda/Bane's game plan when she believed it was non-operational from the start? (they just got lucky? set everything up then- yes the reactor does work!?)
if wayne felt the reactor was such a threat, why not just disable it rather than hide it? in fact, why build it in the first place if there is the smallest chance it could become a nuclear bomb? why wasn't the nuke batman's first priority (instead of giving it to Gordon)? why in the world would he have to face Bane first before disposing of the bomb?
@highroller: no, my complaint has always been this particular sub-story feels cliche and contrived. a poor explanation is just the by-product. i wish it wasn't explained at all, rather in such a half ass fashion. if it found its way into the movie, obviously there was an explanation.
I understand he was just speculating, the reactor/bomb being an "impossible" task isn't even my main dig if you read my previous post.
I just pointed it out because, if indeed true, it's the most obvious way to show people an example of a plot-hole, something that doesn't physically work in real life.
my quarrel from the start has been that the sub story of the reactor/bomb feels plotted. it could be totally feasible and work in real life, it still feels incredibly contrived as others have pointed out.
just because it's possible doesn't necessarily mean it's believable, especially in the world Nolan has created. in fact, in TDRK it is HIGHLY UNBELIEVABLE and detracts from the movie.
if its a **** movie like the avengers, I really wouldn't care. nukes, missiles, unknown substances of energy- whatever. nobody cares.
this is Batman, a trilogy based on the concrete grittiness of the streets. save the hail-mary nuclear bomb **** to lesser movies like the avengers, movies that won't be questioned for how they use their super heroes.
Batman is a detective, he's not Thor, he needs explanation. his movies are crime thrillers that also need explanations. when the explanations suck or feel contrived, it stands out.
why is this hard to understand?
this is well said. it blows my mind how many people want to turn a blind eye to a piece of **** story line.
a litmus test for analytical thinking? what in the world are you talking about? and why are you getting so defensive?
you can keep on regurgitating what was said in the movie, it still doesn't fix how plotted that sub story is.
for the ninjas in BB, like the joker, which I explained, there was no explanation. THE WORLD IT WAS SET IN WAS THE EXPLANATION. and its fine that way. THERE WAS NO WOLRD CREATED IN TDKR, so they had to use exposition to explain all the little points. clearly, they came up with some plotted side story to connect the dots. IS THAT NOT OBVIOUS TO YOU?
in other words, if they did a better job, they wouldn't have to explain it.
and for future reference, don't address me like that and accuse me of trying to do things because you are butt hurt that i didn't like the movie.
as for the cold fusion reactor, DO SOME ****ING RESEARCH YOURSELF.
??
is the reactor not a big part of the story?
nobody's saying wayne's journey wasn't important. where did you get that from? and why does that justify sloppiness of the reactor/bomb?
we can still have wayne's journey AND a believable plot, do you not realize this? it's not one or the other as you make it out to be.
i agree with most of your points, especially #s 4 and 9.
ya i understand its a super-hero movie so not everything is going to be exact science. I've accepted that and Im certainly not one to complain about trivial things.
but c'mon. there is a point where you can't hide under the "super hero movie" umbrella - you want logical explanations for IMPORTANT things in the film. the reactor/weapon is an IMPORTANT thing in the film.
i don't know how some people can just dismiss it, or think they understand it, because the movie gave them ONE LINE suggesting an impossible scenario: THE SINGLE MOST BRILLIANT MAN IN THE WORLD IS ON THE JOB AND HE IS THE ONLY PERSON WHO EVER THOUGHT OF USING NUCLEAR POWER TO HIS ADVANTAGE. HE SOMEHOW GOT THE STEP ON WAYNE AND THE GENIUS EMPLOYEES AT WAYNE CO.
no logic, but somehow, since the film stated it, it must be true and to think otherwise is wrong? i don't buy it.
why do I not care about the BAT ( since it's impossible as people have mentioned) but I care about the reactor/weapon?
because the BAT isn't an integral part of the film. it's trivial. it's hollywood. it could be replaced and much in the film would be intact.
the sub story of the reactor/weapon is ENORMOUS to the film. it should have been more thought out or explained better. no one has yet to provide a definitive explanation to it. or even ventured to explain the timeline of Talia/Bane's connection to the reactor. doesn't that suggest something?
IT WASN'T CLEAR.
for those reasons, I can't give it a pass and simply say , "hey it's a superhero movie." that sub story is incredibly important to the film, it needs to be all in or all out.
it's not a plot-hole? IT'S A ****ING IMPOSSIBLE TASK. IT CAN'T BE DONE SCIENTIFICALLY, YET IT IS CRUCIAL TO THE ****ING ENDING OF THE MOVIE.
YEA IT MAKES SENSE IN A LINEAR FASHION BUT ITS STILL UNCONCEIVABLE.
so why would Wayne build the thing if there was any chance it could become a weapon? he didn't know? or this lone scientist did what no one else in the entire world could? it reeks of being plotted and set up, i don't understand why you are arguing this.
so the reason gotham is in danger is pretty much Wayne's fault right? because he had no foresight that his invention could be turned into a reactor? that just ISNT bruce wayne or wayne co. it's a writing device that sticks out sorely. get over it.
"every film has lapses of logic"??? that is truly the dumbest I've ever heard. that's not hyperbole to you? i could name hundreds of movies, i just don't really want to hear your two cents on every single one.
you also said, "Every film has these little lapses in logic or leaps forward in time or circumstance to move the film forward, but people only pick on them when they need a reason to dislike something."
that is hyperbole and probably one of the dumbest things i've read. if you really feel that way, it's no wonder you have no problem with the reactor/bomb plot hole.
i didn't put anything into your mouth, you are walking yourself in circles on your own accord.
so, you accept that NOBODY else has access to this type of thing, myself included, yet you have no clue how this one scientist does. okay, does that make sense to you? you just accept that Bane found him out of the billions of other people right?
someone already mentioned that it is practically impossible to turn a cold fusion reactor into a weapon, yet you accept it anyway. IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSILBLE (LIKE IT CANT HAPPEN IN THE REAL WORLD), but it works for you. okay? cool.
you're pretty much arguing that turning a reactor into a weapon isn't common knowledge, but gladly accept the convenience of "the only man in the entire world" knows how to do it, and he's at Bane's disposal. and you accept this as if it's a natural progression of the film, which I think is hilarious.
it is obvious you are trying to defend Nolan and TDKR by muting the point. the fact is, my point is valid and others have seen it as well.
why don't you answer questions like, how is this guy the only one in the world with this knowledge? how did he get the blueprints, weapon tech, etc? how did he learn about the reactor in the first place? what form of science does he practice where he can perform the impossible? how does he know so much more than the average scientist?
you haven't answered any of that, you're simply regurgitating the plot that doesn't make sense.