Sure, the dark knight rises had a lot of issues, but...

[QUOTE="rocinante_"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] LMAO, I can only hope that was sarcasm. SaintLeonidas

could you elaborate? been a while since i've seen the film, so i'm curious

1) How the hell did the Joker escape the bank in thebeginning? The bus he was in just happened to pull out at the exact time a gap in the line of buses was driving by? How did no one in the buses or surrounding the bank see the bus, covered in debris from the bank, pulling out. Was the driver in the bus behind it blind?

2) How exactly did Batman and Rachel survive the fall from Wayne's apartment? His cape only barely opens towards the very end of the fall, hardly enough to slow his descentto be perfectly fine after landing on the car. And what the hell happened with The Joker after this scene? One moment he is holding everyone in Waynes place hostage, Batman jumps out the window leaving him there, then it cuts to another scene where everythingis "fine". Did the Joker just leave everyone there? Wasnt like he was finished looking for Harvey Dent, the main reason he was there. Also how did he leave? The back door? After knowing Rachel was safe why didn't Batman immediately return to try to find the Joker?

3) Jokers entire "plan" on getting caught makes no sense. They claim he "wanted to get caught"....huh? The only reason he got caught was because Gordon was still alive, the Joker didn't know this, he had no way of knowing Gordon would be there to capture him. Had Gordon not been alive the Joker had Batman there on the ground, who knows what could have happened. Also when he is in the police station, how the hell does the Joker survive an explosion that knocks out every cop in the station?

4) How the hell did Two Face, after getting severe burns, his eye barely being held into his damn socket, survive a car crash, that was suppose to kill everyone else in the car? How was he even able to function with that pain? How did he leave the hospital before the explosion, the hospital that was surrounded by cops trying to evacuate people?

5) How did Bruce manage to get into Hong Kong? How did he get his suit there with him? Are we suppose to believe all that stuff fit in the small dufflebag he threw in the water? How did he scale that building without getting caught? Are we to really believe the Chinese government would allow an undocumentedplane to fly over a major city like that? If it was documented, how did Bruce manage to hire these guys? Did he do it as Batman, because they would know it was him. Furthermore, how the hell did Batman manage to sneak a guy back into the country?

Those are just the ones that come to mind. Both films had a lot of plotholes. Neither were perfect. So I can't see how people can ignore such blatant holes in one film, yet complain about the plotholes in another.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="rocinante_"]

could you elaborate? been a while since i've seen the film, so i'm curious

dercoo

I think your confusing plot hole for movie-ality.

The only potential plot hole on that list is 3.

The rest come from the movie not being "realistic" enough which

A:Not needed, its fiction.

B:Not a plot hole.

The exact same things can be said about all the "plot holes" in 'The Dark Knight Rises'. Pretty much every hole in the story can be explained/filled with a bit of reasoning/thought and understanding that it is a fictional film. The problem (and none of the holes in 'The Dark Knight' bothered me because they too can be thought-out) is that people seem to be so easily able to come up with excuses and ignore issues in that film, yet in this those same sorts of script/plot issues are all the sudden enough to ruin the film. People should view each film evenly to some extent. If they just didn't like it, maybe due to the "complexity" or size of the plot or pacing issues then that is fine, but it gets annoying when people pick and choose when they let these things bother them. Like in science-fiction films, when they can except the "realities" of one film, but then in another film say "no way that could be possible!".

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="rocinante_"]

could you elaborate? been a while since i've seen the film, so i'm curious

JoGoSo

1) Still doesn't explain how no one saw that it was the bus that crashed into the bank. Again, the bus that the Joker pulled out in front of would have definitely seen that it was pulling out of the wall of a freaking bank. Unless, as I said, the bus driver was blind.

2) Editing doesn't help this. It is pretty clear that the cape doesn't open until right before the end of the fall. And still doesn't explain what happened with the Joker...which is pretty important. He was in a room filled with some of Gotham's richest individuals. Batman had just jumped out a freaking window. We are just to assume he left, but still to just cut into another scene makes no sense.

3) That is still a bit of a stretch, and doesn't explain how he survived the explosion.

4) Yes...a hospital surrounded by police, being watched by helicopters, would have not seen a famous person such as Dent, now with half his faced scarred (he would stand out) just walking out of the hospital. Again, we can assume it happened as easily as that, but it is still a hole in the script that is hard to overlook.

5) Huh? He was on a boat, swam to shore, then all the sudden is on top of a building. Okay, we assume he managed to do all this perfectly fine. Still doesn't explained how he hired a plane, without them knowing it was either Bruce or Batman, and just flew over a busy city like it was nothing. Try flying a plane like that, in the middle of the night, over a city like Hong Kong or New York...see what happens.

Even so, none of these issues really bothered me. Just as you did, anyone could assume or explain these holes with a bit of thought. But the same could and should be applied to 'The Dark Knight Rises'. If someone can sit there and make excuses for issues in 'The Dark Knight' they then shouldn't turn around and complain about the same sorts of issues in 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

i may not know what the pure definition of a plot hole is but only number 3 i wouldn't consider a "plot hole" not to say the other things don't deserve less attention, they just don't fall under MY definition of a plot hole.mrmusicman247

What about this from Batman begins? I never noticed that. This is very depressing.

"The league of shadows had the perfect plan to destroy Gotham. By sneaking-in a toxin in the water supplies for weeks before revealing their machine and its purpose, their tactical supremacy was everything but challenged. That is.... unless a single person out of the millions of Gothamers used boiled water in the past few months. But what are the odds of any of them taking daily showers and cooking food ? Exactly. None."

IronBeaver

it's so much worse than that. If the microwave thing worked like they said it did then every living organism in the city would have exploded from being boiled from the inside out.

[QUOTE="JoGoSo"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

SaintLeonidas

1) Still doesn't explain how no one saw that it was the bus that crashed into the bank. Again, the bus that the Joker pulled out in front of would have definitely seen that it was pulling out of the wall of a freaking bank. Unless, as I said, the bus driver was blind.

2) Editing doesn't help this. It is pretty clear that the cape doesn't open until right before the end of the fall. And still doesn't explain what happened with the Joker...which is pretty important. He was in a room filled with some of Gotham's richest individuals. Batman had just jumped out a freaking window. We are just to assume he left, but still to just cut into another scene makes no sense.

3) That is still a bit of a stretch, and doesn't explain how he survived the explosion.

4) Yes...a hospital surrounded by police, being watched by helicopters, would have not seen a famous person such as Dent, now with half his faced scarred (he would stand out) just walking out of the hospital. Again, we can assume it happened as easily as that, but it is still a hole in the script that is hard to overlook.

5) Huh? He was on a boat, swam to shore, then all the sudden is on top of a building. Okay, we assume he managed to do all this perfectly fine. Still doesn't explained how he hired a plane, without them knowing it was either Bruce or Batman, and just flew over a busy city like it was nothing. Try flying a plane like that, in the middle of the night, over a city like Hong Kong or New York...see what happens.

Even so, none of these issues really bothered me. Just as you did, anyone could assume or explain these holes with a bit of thought. But the same could and should be applied to 'The Dark Knight Rises'. If someone can sit there and make excuses for issues in 'The Dark Knight' they then shouldn't turn around and complain about the same sorts of issues in 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="JoGoSo"]JoGoSo

What about the ending are you complaing about? Everything about Bane and Talia's plot is explained and anything involving Batman's "death", how he escaped the Bat has been talked over many times, and just like how you can make assumptions for how things played out in your explanations above, one could make just as many assumptions as to how he escaped.

Because it's not the exploitable image that this thread deserves, but the exploitable image that it needs.

[QUOTE="JoGoSo"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

SaintLeonidas

What about the ending are you complaing about? Everything about Bane and Talia's plot is explained and anything involving Batman's "death", how he escaped the Bat has been talked over many times, and just like how you can make assumptions for how things played out in your explanations above, one could make just as many assumptions as to how he escaped.

[QUOTE="rocinante_"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] LMAO, I can only hope that was sarcasm. SaintLeonidas

could you elaborate? been a while since i've seen the film, so i'm curious

1) How the hell did the Joker escape the bank in thebeginning? The bus he was in just happened to pull out at the exact time a gap in the line of buses was driving by? How did no one in the buses or surrounding the bank see the bus, covered in debris from the bank, pulling out. Was the driver in the bus behind it blind?

2) How exactly did Batman and Rachel survive the fall from Wayne's apartment? His cape only barely opens towards the very end of the fall, hardly enough to slow his descentto be perfectly fine after landing on the car. And what the hell happened with The Joker after this scene? One moment he is holding everyone in Waynes place hostage, Batman jumps out the window leaving him there, then it cuts to another scene where everythingis "fine". Did the Joker just leave everyone there? Wasnt like he was finished looking for Harvey Dent, the main reason he was there. Also how did he leave? The back door? After knowing Rachel was safe why didn't Batman immediately return to try to find the Joker?

3) Jokers entire "plan" on getting caught makes no sense. They claim he "wanted to get caught"....huh? The only reason he got caught was because Gordon was still alive, the Joker didn't know this, he had no way of knowing Gordon would be there to capture him. Had Gordon not been alive the Joker had Batman there on the ground, who knows what could have happened. Also when he is in the police station, how the hell does the Joker survive an explosion that knocks out every cop in the station?

4) How the hell did Two Face, after getting severe burns, his eye barely being held into his damn socket, survive a car crash, that was suppose to kill everyone else in the car? How was he even able to function with that pain? How did he leave the hospital before the explosion, the hospital that was surrounded by cops trying to evacuate people?

5) How did Bruce manage to get into Hong Kong? How did he get his suit there with him? Are we suppose to believe all that stuff fit in the small dufflebag he threw in the water? How did he scale that building without getting caught? Are we to really believe the Chinese government would allow an undocumentedplane to fly over a major city like that? If it was documented, how did Bruce manage to hire these guys? Did he do it as Batman, because they would know it was him. Furthermore, how the hell did Batman manage to sneak a guy back into the country?

Those are just the ones that come to mind. Both films had a lot of plotholes. Neither were perfect. So I can't see how people can ignore such blatant holes in one film, yet complain about the plotholes in another.

If you dont like the movie, then that is your opinion. But you dont have to try to discredit it by putting a bunch of things that are either wrong or not even plot holes.

1. This has to be a joke. They arent going to explain how he does it, a movie would be 10 hours long if they explained every detail of it. You are to know that he is a criminal genuis, and that he has the ABILITY TO DO IT, but they arent going to go over it.

2. "And what the hell happened with The Joker after this scene? One moment he is holding everyone in Waynes place hostage, Batman jumps out the window leaving him there, then it cuts to another scene where everythingis "fine".

The same way BATMAN DISAPPEARS WHEN GORDON TURNS HIS BACK.

3. He wanted to get caught. They didnt say he wanted to get caught "by Chief Gordon".

4. Once again, not sure if serious. You might as well had asked how is Mr Freeze alive with only a head. It is a fictional movie with people who dont live in the world we live in.

5. "How did he scale that building without getting caught? "

And this is the prime example of not only your argument, but your so called "problems" with the movie. There is a person who is called SPIDERMAN who does the same things. For the last time, it is a superhero movie with people who do things that we couldnt do!!!!!!

Or that the water in human bodies wasn't evaported either.

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

SaintLeonidas

I think your confusing plot hole for movie-ality.

The only potential plot hole on that list is 3.

The rest come from the movie not being "realistic" enough which

A:Not needed, its fiction.

B:Not a plot hole.

The exact same things can be said about all the "plot holes" in 'The Dark Knight Rises'. Pretty much every hole in the story can be explained/filled with a bit of reasoning/thought and understanding that it is a fictional film. The problem (and none of the holes in 'The Dark Knight' bothered me because they too can be thought-out) is that people seem to be so easily able to come up with excuses and ignore issues in that film, yet in this those same sorts of script/plot issues are all the sudden enough to ruin the film. People should view each film evenly to some extent. If they just didn't like it, maybe due to the "complexity" or size of the plot or pacing issues then that is fine, but it gets annoying when people pick and choose when they let these things bother them. Like in science-fiction films, when they can except the "realities" of one film, but then in another film say "no way that could be possible!".

This is just plan improper thinking.

Each film(and any narrative work) creates its own universe, and realm of disbelief influenced by the story's tone, characters, and narrative flow.

Judging a film like "inglorious Bastards" by the same standards as "Schindler's List" is just moronic.

Film is art, and art should never be judged on a flat, even scale.

Art is based around emotions and needs to be judged with them, in context to the situation.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="JoGoSo"] The ending is terrible because it doesn't explain anything whatsoever to a point that is EVERYTHING to the story. It makes no sense and is one of a few times that a plothole exists in modern movies. JoGoSo

What about the ending are you complaing about? Everything about Bane and Talia's plot is explained and anything involving Batman's "death", how he escaped the Bat has been talked over many times, and just like how you can make assumptions for how things played out in your explanations above, one could make just as many assumptions as to how he escaped.

1) Fairly easy to assume that with the Bat on autopilot, and that we never see a constant shot of him flying over the bay, he could have ejected into the water. Or as people have pointed out, the shadows inside the vehicle when they show him flying have shadows that would suggest he was not flying over the bay. You used editing as an excuses for explanations for holes in 'The Dark Knight', same can be said here. The editing never fully shows what happened to him, and could have easily been used to trick the viewer, as many films do, to set your expectations to think one things happened but in reality something else did.

2) Again, easy to assume the Bat's autopilot was set to bring the bomb out over the bay, and he escaped by ejecting, maybe when the Bat blew through the building he got out, or when it was over the water he ejected into the bay, and had swam off.

3) ...this is a pretty stupid complaint. It is pretty damn clear why. He was aging, his body was deteriorating and he felt his time as Batman was complete. He wanted to sacrifice himself, or the image, for the city. All Gotham needs is a symbol, that has been a theme throughout the entire trilogy. By making the ultimate sacrifice Batman became a symbol stronger than anything he could have done while alive. In the first film they had no idea who he was, in the second they started out liking him though still a vigilant and ended with them thinking he was a murderer, and then in the third the city and police revered him so greatly they made a statue in his honor. Then he left the mantle to Blake, who most likely wouldn't actually be Batman due to respect. But he could still use the idea of him, as well as the equipment left behind, to keep the symbol alive and fight crime.

As I said, one can EASILY come up with excuses or explanations on how things happened, just as people have done a lot with 'The Dark Knight' and I see no reason why they are incapable of doing the same with 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="rocinante_"]

could you elaborate? been a while since i've seen the film, so i'm curious

champion837

If you dont like the movie, then that is your opinion. But you dont have to try to discredit it by putting a bunch of things that are either wrong or not even plot holes.

And this is the prime example of not only your argument, but your so called "problems" with the movie. There is a person who is called SPIDERMAN who does the same things. For the last time, it is a superhero movie with people who do things that we couldnt do!!!!!!

God you're dumb. Never said I didn't like the film. They are in fact plot holes. Plot holes are omissions of important information regarding the plot and everything I mentioned are blatant omissions of information regarding the plot. And they aren't wrong...because they did in fact happen. You might not agree that they are issues...but they are things that were not explained.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

I think your confusing plot hole for movie-ality.

The only potential plot hole on that list is 3.

The rest come from the movie not being "realistic" enough which

A:Not needed, its fiction.

B:Not a plot hole.

dercoo

The exact same things can be said about all the "plot holes" in 'The Dark Knight Rises'. Pretty much every hole in the story can be explained/filled with a bit of reasoning/thought and understanding that it is a fictional film. The problem (and none of the holes in 'The Dark Knight' bothered me because they too can be thought-out) is that people seem to be so easily able to come up with excuses and ignore issues in that film, yet in this those same sorts of script/plot issues are all the sudden enough to ruin the film. People should view each film evenly to some extent. If they just didn't like it, maybe due to the "complexity" or size of the plot or pacing issues then that is fine, but it gets annoying when people pick and choose when they let these things bother them. Like in science-fiction films, when they can except the "realities" of one film, but then in another film say "no way that could be possible!".

This is just plan improper thinking.

Each film(and any narrative work) creates its own universe, and realm of disbelief influenced by the story's tone, characters, and narrative flow.

Judging a film like "inglorious Bastards" by the same standards as "Schindler's List" is just moronic.

Film is art, and art should never be judged on a flat, even scale.

Art is based around emotions and needs to be judged with them, in context to the situation.

...Hence the "to some extent". I'm talking about two films that ARE apart of the same universe. It is completely ridiculous to ignore problems in 'The Dark Knight', but nit-pick and complain about similiar issues in its sequel 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

The exact same things can be said about all the "plot holes" in 'The Dark Knight Rises'. Pretty much every hole in the story can be explained/filled with a bit of reasoning/thought and understanding that it is a fictional film. The problem (and none of the holes in 'The Dark Knight' bothered me because they too can be thought-out) is that people seem to be so easily able to come up with excuses and ignore issues in that film, yet in this those same sorts of script/plot issues are all the sudden enough to ruin the film. People should view each film evenly to some extent. If they just didn't like it, maybe due to the "complexity" or size of the plot or pacing issues then that is fine, but it gets annoying when people pick and choose when they let these things bother them. Like in science-fiction films, when they can except the "realities" of one film, but then in another film say "no way that could be possible!".

SaintLeonidas

This is just plan improper thinking.

Each film(and any narrative work) creates its own universe, and realm of disbelief influenced by the story's tone, characters, and narrative flow.

Judging a film like "inglorious Bastards" by the same standards as "Schindler's List" is just moronic.

Film is art, and art should never be judged on a flat, even scale.

Art is based around emotions and needs to be judged with them, in context to the situation.

...Hence the "to some extent". I'm talking about two films that ARE apart of the same universe. It is completely ridiculous to ignore problems in 'The Dark Knight', but nit-pick and complain about similiar issues in its sequel 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

They are not the same problems though.

TDK problems dealt with realism, while most TDKR problems deal with structure, narative, and characters.

When I complain about the fusion bomb I'm not complaining about the realism of it, but the unneededcomplexityto the plot.

Why waste time creating a new bomb when jacking an existing warhead would do(and take less than 1/3 the screen time)

Why would Bruce hide the solution to the world's energy crisis because it could be armed like a bomb when nukes already exist.

Its like if Tony stark tried to hide the existence of arc reactors because they can be weaponised.

[QUOTE="JoGoSo"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

What about the ending are you complaing about? Everything about Bane and Talia's plot is explained and anything involving Batman's "death", how he escaped the Bat has been talked over many times, and just like how you can make assumptions for how things played out in your explanations above, one could make just as many assumptions as to how he escaped.

SaintLeonidas

1) Fairly easy to assume that with the Bat on autopilot, and that we never see a constant shot of him flying over the bay, he could have ejected into the water. Or as people have pointed out, the shadows inside the vehicle when they show him flying have shadows that would suggest he was not flying over the bay. You used editing as an excuses for explanations for holes in 'The Dark Knight', same can be said here. The editing never fully shows what happened to him, and could have easily been used to trick the viewer, as many films do, to set your expectations to think one things happened but in reality something else did.

2) Again, easy to assume the Bat's autopilot was set to bring the bomb out over the bay, and he escaped by ejecting, maybe when the Bat blew through the building he got out, or when it was over the water he ejected into the bay, and had swam off.

3) ...this is a pretty stupid complaint. It is pretty damn clear why. He was aging, his body was deteriorating and he felt his time as Batman was complete. He wanted to sacrifice himself, or the image, for the city. All Gotham needs is a symbol, that has been a theme throughout the entire trilogy. By making the ultimate sacrifice Batman became a symbol stronger than anything he could have done while alive. In the first film they had no idea who he was, in the second they started out liking him though still a vigilant and ended with them thinking he was a murderer, and then in the third the city and police revered him so greatly they made a statue in his honor. Then he left the mantle to Blake, who most likely wouldn't actually be Batman due to respect. But he could still use the idea of him, as well as the equipment left behind, to keep the symbol alive and fight crime.

As I said, one can EASILY come up with excuses or explanations on how things happened, just as people have done a lot with 'The Dark Knight' and I see no reason why they are incapable of doing the same with 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

[QUOTE="champion837"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"].

SaintLeonidas

If you dont like the movie, then that is your opinion. But you dont have to try to discredit it by putting a bunch of things that are either wrong or not even plot holes.

And this is the prime example of not only your argument, but your so called "problems" with the movie. There is a person who is called SPIDERMAN who does the same things. For the last time, it is a superhero movie with people who do things that we couldnt do!!!!!!

God you're dumb. Never said I didn't like the film. They are in fact plot holes. Plot holes are omissions of important information regarding the plot and everything I mentioned are blatant omissions of information regarding the plot. And they aren't wrong...because they did in fact happen. You might not agree that they are issues...but they are things that were not explained.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="champion837"]

If you dont like the movie, then that is your opinion. But you dont have to try to discredit it by putting a bunch of things that are either wrong or not even plot holes.

And this is the prime example of not only your argument, but your so called "problems" with the movie. There is a person who is called SPIDERMAN who does the same things. For the last time, it is a superhero movie with people who do things that we couldnt do!!!!!!

champion837

God you're dumb. Never said I didn't like the film. They are in fact plot holes. Plot holes are omissions of important information regarding the plot and everything I mentioned are blatant omissions of information regarding the plot. And they aren't wrong...because they did in fact happen. You might not agree that they are issues...but they are things that were not explained.

And I agree, and if you had read my other posts you would see I'm not criticizing the film for things I felt were issues that hurt the film, but trying to show examples of holes in the plot of TDK to show how it had just as many flaws as TDKR.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

This is just plan improper thinking.

Each film(and any narrative work) creates its own universe, and realm of disbelief influenced by the story's tone, characters, and narrative flow.

Judging a film like "inglorious Bastards" by the same standards as "Schindler's List" is just moronic.

Film is art, and art should never be judged on a flat, even scale.

Art is based around emotions and needs to be judged with them, in context to the situation.

dercoo

...Hence the "to some extent". I'm talking about two films that ARE apart of the same universe. It is completely ridiculous to ignore problems in 'The Dark Knight', but nit-pick and complain about similiar issues in its sequel 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

They are not the same problems though.

TDK problems dealt with realism, while most TDKR problems deal with structure, narative, and characters.

When I complain about the fusion bomb I'm not complaining about the realism of it, but the unneededcomplexityto the plot.

Why waste time creating a new bomb when jacking an existing warhead would do(and take less than 1/3 the screen time)

Why would Bruce hide the solution to the world's energy crisis because it could be armed like a bomb when nukes already exist.

Its like if Tony stark tried to hide the existence of arc reactors because they can be weaponised.

Again, as I already stated in this thread, if people don't like things such as the complexity of the films (I specifically mentioned this earlier) than that is fine. But even if you think the complexity of such things was unneeded and hurt the film, it doesn't take away from the fact that things such as why they used the fusion bomb (maybe to hide a bombs creation as a legitimate device, get it inside Gotham, and then change it), or why Wayne hid it (maybe he would eventually show people but just felt it wasn't time, or he knew all too well the dangers of such weapons, and had bad feelings about it) can all be explained with a bit of thought. We seem to be talking about different things. I understand if you thought such things were just unneeded. I'm talking about holes in the stories of both films, that whether needed or not, were not explained. And how if people can ignore or make up excuses for the reasoning behind these in one film, I don't see why they are incapable of putting the same extra thought towards issues in TDKR.

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

God you're dumb. Never said I didn't like the film. They are in fact plot holes. Plot holes are omissions of important information regarding the plot and everything I mentioned are blatant omissions of information regarding the plot. And they aren't wrong...because they did in fact happen. You might not agree that they are issues...but they are things that were not explained.

SaintLeonidas

And I agree, and if you had read my other posts you would see I'm not criticizing the film for things I felt were issues that hurt the film, but trying to show examples of holes in the plot of TDK to show how it had just as many flaws as TDKR.

So answer this simple question, because you can say what you intended to do, but just answer this...

How would you feel if someone asked the question "How does batman disappear behind Gordon", like you did with the Joker thing? Do you think that is a plot hole as well?

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="JoGoSo"]1. How Bruce survived with 5 seconds on the clock 2. How he actually used autopilot to save himself 3. Why the heck he faked his death to begin with .JoGoSo

1) Fairly easy to assume that with the Bat on autopilot, and that we never see a constant shot of him flying over the bay, he could have ejected into the water. Or as people have pointed out, the shadows inside the vehicle when they show him flying have shadows that would suggest he was not flying over the bay. You used editing as an excuses for explanations for holes in 'The Dark Knight', same can be said here. The editing never fully shows what happened to him, and could have easily been used to trick the viewer, as many films do, to set your expectations to think one things happened but in reality something else did.

2) Again, easy to assume the Bat's autopilot was set to bring the bomb out over the bay, and he escaped by ejecting, maybe when the Bat blew through the building he got out, or when it was over the water he ejected into the bay, and had swam off.

3) ...this is a pretty stupid complaint. It is pretty damn clear why. He was aging, his body was deteriorating and he felt his time as Batman was complete. He wanted to sacrifice himself, or the image, for the city. All Gotham needs is a symbol, that has been a theme throughout the entire trilogy. By making the ultimate sacrifice Batman became a symbol stronger than anything he could have done while alive. In the first film they had no idea who he was, in the second they started out liking him though still a vigilant and ended with them thinking he was a murderer, and then in the third the city and police revered him so greatly they made a statue in his honor. Then he left the mantle to Blake, who most likely wouldn't actually be Batman due to respect. But he could still use the idea of him, as well as the equipment left behind, to keep the symbol alive and fight crime.

As I said, one can EASILY come up with excuses or explanations on how things happened, just as people have done a lot with 'The Dark Knight' and I see no reason why they are incapable of doing the same with 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

...do you really not know how autopilot works? :lol: You set a destination...and the ship flys itself. Hence, um, he could set the autopilot to fly over the bay, and then escape before it did :lol:

And your complaints about his death has nothing to do with "plot holes". Sounds merely like you don't like how it played out, but it is pretty easy to understand why he needed to come back originally (um...to fight Bane who was destroying the city) and then when that was over, fake his death to cemented Batman's legacy, as making the ultimate sacrifice for Gotham.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="champion837"] I could care less what you think a plot hole is, the fact that arguing about something so obvious that are in superhero movies like spiderman, and passing them off as criticisms is just silly to me.champion837

And I agree, and if you had read my other posts you would see I'm not criticizing the film for things I felt were issues that hurt the film, but trying to show examples of holes in the plot of TDK to show how it had just as many flaws as TDKR.

So answer this simple question, because you can say what you intended to do, but just answer this...

How would you feel if someone asked the question "How does batman disappear behind Gordon", like you did with the Joker thing? Do you think that is a plot hole as well?

Huh? Plot holes are omissions of IMPORTANT information regarding the PLOT. Such as what the hell the Joker was doing in a room of Gotham's richest while Batman was falling out of a building in 'The Dark Knight'; or how Bruce got back into Gotham in 'The Dark Knight Rises'. How he disappears behind Gordon isn't imporant information regarding the plot, and it isn't hard to assume he glides off, or being in total black and trained in stealth just ran off.

[QUOTE="JoGoSo"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

SaintLeonidas

1) Still doesn't explain how no one saw that it was the bus that crashed into the bank. Again, the bus that the Joker pulled out in front of would have definitely seen that it was pulling out of the wall of a freaking bank. Unless, as I said, the bus driver was blind.

YEah and we have had groups of people watch a person getting raped with out doing anything.. We have had people bleed to death on the side walk with people walking by and not doing anything.. How is this far fetched when we have had worse things happen in reality?

2) Editing doesn't help this. It is pretty clear that the cape doesn't open until right before the end of the fall. And still doesn't explain what happened with the Joker...which is pretty important. He was in a room filled with some of Gotham's richest individuals. Batman had just jumped out a freaking window. We are just to assume he left, but still to just cut into another scene makes no sense.

This is so fvcking dumb to even argue about, ITS A CAPE.. IT wouldn't have WORKED IN REAL LIFE to begin with..

3) That is still a bit of a stretch, and doesn't explain how he survived the explosion.

4) Yes...a hospital surrounded by police, being watched by helicopters, would have not seen a famous person such as Dent, now with half his faced scarred (he would stand out) just walking out of the hospital. Again, we can assume it happened as easily as that, but it is still a hole in the script that is hard to overlook.

.........Every one was evacutating because of the bomb threat.. When you have people running for their lives they are not going to be paying attention..

5) Huh? He was on a boat, swam to shore, then all the sudden is on top of a building. Okay, we assume he managed to do all this perfectly fine. Still doesn't explained how he hired a plane, without them knowing it was either Bruce or Batman, and just flew over a busy city like it was nothing. Try flying a plane like that, in the middle of the night, over a city like Hong Kong or New York...see what happens.

They were smugglers, smugglers deal with very shady people.. This isn't a stretch.. As for crossing a city.. MOVIE.. ITs as ridiculous as.. Well just as ridiculous as a man that dresses up like a bat and catches criminals no?

Even so, none of these issues really bothered me. Just as you did, anyone could assume or explain these holes with a bit of thought. But the same could and should be applied to 'The Dark Knight Rises'. If someone can sit there and make excuses for issues in 'The Dark Knight' they then shouldn't turn around and complain about the same sorts of issues in 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

[QUOTE="champion837"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

And I agree, and if you had read my other posts you would see I'm not criticizing the film for things I felt were issues that hurt the film, but trying to show examples of holes in the plot of TDK to show how it had just as many flaws as TDKR.

SaintLeonidas

So answer this simple question, because you can say what you intended to do, but just answer this...

How would you feel if someone asked the question "How does batman disappear behind Gordon", like you did with the Joker thing? Do you think that is a plot hole as well?

Huh? Plot holes are omissions of IMPORTANT information regarding the PLOT. Such as what the hell the Joker was doing in a room of Gotham's richest while Batman was falling out of a building in 'The Dark Knight'; or how Bruce got back into Gotham in 'The Dark Knight Rises'. How he disappears behind Gordon isn't imporant information regarding the plot, and it isn't hard to assume he glides off, or being in total black and trained in stealth just ran off.

"isn't imporant information regarding the plot"

And how the joker walked out (youre not even arguing that he couldnt have just simply walked out, but the MANNER of which he did) is? That is important to the plot? The simple answer is no, how quiet he was when he left the party is not "important" information.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="JoGoSo"]sSubZerOo

1) Still doesn't explain how no one saw that it was the bus that crashed into the bank. Again, the bus that the Joker pulled out in front of would have definitely seen that it was pulling out of the wall of a freaking bank. Unless, as I said, the bus driver was blind.

YEah and we have had groups of people watch a person getting raped with out doing anything.. We have had people bleed to death on the side walk with people walking by and not doing anything.. How is this far fetched when we have had worse things happen in reality?

2) Editing doesn't help this. It is pretty clear that the cape doesn't open until right before the end of the fall. And still doesn't explain what happened with the Joker...which is pretty important. He was in a room filled with some of Gotham's richest individuals. Batman had just jumped out a freaking window. We are just to assume he left, but still to just cut into another scene makes no sense.

This is so fvcking dumb to even argue about, ITS A CAPE.. IT wouldn't have WORKED IN REAL LIFE to begin with..

3) That is still a bit of a stretch, and doesn't explain how he survived the explosion.

4) Yes...a hospital surrounded by police, being watched by helicopters, would have not seen a famous person such as Dent, now with half his faced scarred (he would stand out) just walking out of the hospital. Again, we can assume it happened as easily as that, but it is still a hole in the script that is hard to overlook.

.........Every one was evacutating because of the bomb threat.. When you have people running for their lives they are not going to be paying attention..

5) Huh? He was on a boat, swam to shore, then all the sudden is on top of a building. Okay, we assume he managed to do all this perfectly fine. Still doesn't explained how he hired a plane, without them knowing it was either Bruce or Batman, and just flew over a busy city like it was nothing. Try flying a plane like that, in the middle of the night, over a city like Hong Kong or New York...see what happens.

They were smugglers, smugglers deal with very shady people.. This isn't a stretch.. As for crossing a city.. MOVIE.. ITs as ridiculous as.. Well just as ridiculous as a man that dresses up like a bat and catches criminals no?

Even so, none of these issues really bothered me. Just as you did, anyone could assume or explain these holes with a bit of thought. But the same could and should be applied to 'The Dark Knight Rises'. If someone can sit there and make excuses for issues in 'The Dark Knight' they then shouldn't turn around and complain about the same sorts of issues in 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

LMAO all you are doing is proving my point. All of what I mentioned are omissions of information regarding the plot. Things that were never really explained though in order to believe the plot, or for it to have any consistency, explanations would have been nice. But you, like other people, were able to assume and come up with explanations for why they happened or were not explained in full. I understand that, and had you actually read other things I posted in this thread you'd know I do not find them to be actual issues and with you on many of those assumptions. My point is that these same sorts of omissions are present in 'The Dark Knight Rises'. They too can also be explained if, like you did here, someone took the time to think about and assume how things played out or why they were not explained in full. The problem I have is that people make the effort to defend these things in 'The Dark Knight' but don't bothered even thinking for a moment all the possible explanations for these omissions in 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

Batman Begins was awesome. calling it the worst out of the 3 gives bad connotationmrmusicman247

Honestly, I actually stopped watching it partway through. All of Nolan's films take themselves very, very seriously, and if the quality of the plot doesn't live up to that tone it becomes unbearable to watch.

[QUOTE="JoGoSo"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

1) Fairly easy to assume that with the Bat on autopilot, and that we never see a constant shot of him flying over the bay, he could have ejected into the water. Or as people have pointed out, the shadows inside the vehicle when they show him flying have shadows that would suggest he was not flying over the bay. You used editing as an excuses for explanations for holes in 'The Dark Knight', same can be said here. The editing never fully shows what happened to him, and could have easily been used to trick the viewer, as many films do, to set your expectations to think one things happened but in reality something else did.

2) Again, easy to assume the Bat's autopilot was set to bring the bomb out over the bay, and he escaped by ejecting, maybe when the Bat blew through the building he got out, or when it was over the water he ejected into the bay, and had swam off.

3) ...this is a pretty stupid complaint. It is pretty damn clear why. He was aging, his body was deteriorating and he felt his time as Batman was complete. He wanted to sacrifice himself, or the image, for the city. All Gotham needs is a symbol, that has been a theme throughout the entire trilogy. By making the ultimate sacrifice Batman became a symbol stronger than anything he could have done while alive. In the first film they had no idea who he was, in the second they started out liking him though still a vigilant and ended with them thinking he was a murderer, and then in the third the city and police revered him so greatly they made a statue in his honor. Then he left the mantle to Blake, who most likely wouldn't actually be Batman due to respect. But he could still use the idea of him, as well as the equipment left behind, to keep the symbol alive and fight crime.

As I said, one can EASILY come up with excuses or explanations on how things happened, just as people have done a lot with 'The Dark Knight' and I see no reason why they are incapable of doing the same with 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

SaintLeonidas

...do you really not know how autopilot works? :lol: You set a destination...and the ship flys itself. Hence, um, he could set the autopilot to fly over the bay, and then escape before it did :lol:

And your complaints about his death has nothing to do with "plot holes". Sounds merely like you don't like how it played out, but it is pretty easy to understand why he needed to come back originally (um...to fight Bane who was destroying the city) and then when that was over, fake his death to cemented Batman's legacy, as making the ultimate sacrifice for Gotham.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

1) Still doesn't explain how no one saw that it was the bus that crashed into the bank. Again, the bus that the Joker pulled out in front of would have definitely seen that it was pulling out of the wall of a freaking bank. Unless, as I said, the bus driver was blind.

YEah and we have had groups of people watch a person getting raped with out doing anything.. We have had people bleed to death on the side walk with people walking by and not doing anything.. How is this far fetched when we have had worse things happen in reality?

2) Editing doesn't help this. It is pretty clear that the cape doesn't open until right before the end of the fall. And still doesn't explain what happened with the Joker...which is pretty important. He was in a room filled with some of Gotham's richest individuals. Batman had just jumped out a freaking window. We are just to assume he left, but still to just cut into another scene makes no sense.

This is so fvcking dumb to even argue about, ITS A CAPE.. IT wouldn't have WORKED IN REAL LIFE to begin with..

3) That is still a bit of a stretch, and doesn't explain how he survived the explosion.

4) Yes...a hospital surrounded by police, being watched by helicopters, would have not seen a famous person such as Dent, now with half his faced scarred (he would stand out) just walking out of the hospital. Again, we can assume it happened as easily as that, but it is still a hole in the script that is hard to overlook.

.........Every one was evacutating because of the bomb threat.. When you have people running for their lives they are not going to be paying attention..

5) Huh? He was on a boat, swam to shore, then all the sudden is on top of a building. Okay, we assume he managed to do all this perfectly fine. Still doesn't explained how he hired a plane, without them knowing it was either Bruce or Batman, and just flew over a busy city like it was nothing. Try flying a plane like that, in the middle of the night, over a city like Hong Kong or New York...see what happens.

They were smugglers, smugglers deal with very shady people.. This isn't a stretch.. As for crossing a city.. MOVIE.. ITs as ridiculous as.. Well just as ridiculous as a man that dresses up like a bat and catches criminals no?

Even so, none of these issues really bothered me. Just as you did, anyone could assume or explain these holes with a bit of thought. But the same could and should be applied to 'The Dark Knight Rises'. If someone can sit there and make excuses for issues in 'The Dark Knight' they then shouldn't turn around and complain about the same sorts of issues in 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

SaintLeonidas

LMAO all you are doing is proving my point. All of what I mentioned are omissions of information regarding the plot. Things that were never really explained though in order to believe the plot, or for it to have any consistency, explanations would have been nice. But you, like other people, were able to assume and come up with explanations for why they happened or were not explained in full. I understand that, and had you actually read other things I posted in this thread you'd know I do not find them to be actual issues and with you on many of those assumptions. My point is that these same sorts of omissions are present in 'The Dark Knight Rises'. They too can also be explained if, like you did here, someone took the time to think about and assume how things played out or why they were not explained in full. The problem I have is that people make the effort to defend these things in 'The Dark Knight' but don't bothered even thinking for a moment all the possible explanations for these omissions in 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

Because I am not going to spend my time explaining why people second guess a movie that was already immensely long.. Do people realize the movies were 2 and half hours long? Things have to ommitted to make the time bareable.. This pretty much illustrates the generation in which we must have everything spoon fed because they can't think for their fvcking selves.. And my main problem with Dark Knight Rises has more to do with the entire plot it self more than any one event..

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="champion837"]

So answer this simple question, because you can say what you intended to do, but just answer this...

How would you feel if someone asked the question "How does batman disappear behind Gordon", like you did with the Joker thing? Do you think that is a plot hole as well?

champion837

Huh? Plot holes are omissions of IMPORTANT information regarding the PLOT. Such as what the hell the Joker was doing in a room of Gotham's richest while Batman was falling out of a building in 'The Dark Knight'; or how Bruce got back into Gotham in 'The Dark Knight Rises'. How he disappears behind Gordon isn't imporant information regarding the plot, and it isn't hard to assume he glides off, or being in total black and trained in stealth just ran off.

"isn't imporant information regarding the plot"

And how the joker walked out (youre not even arguing that he couldnt have just simply walked out, but the MANNER of which he did) is? That is important to the plot? The simple answer is no, how quiet he was when he left the party is not "important" information.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="JoGoSo"]JoGoSo

...do you really not know how autopilot works? :lol: You set a destination...and the ship flys itself. Hence, um, he could set the autopilot to fly over the bay, and then escape before it did :lol:

And your complaints about his death has nothing to do with "plot holes". Sounds merely like you don't like how it played out, but it is pretty easy to understand why he needed to come back originally (um...to fight Bane who was destroying the city) and then when that was over, fake his death to cemented Batman's legacy, as making the ultimate sacrifice for Gotham.

.. This is really hilarious.. Its a flying tank with propellers under it, able to be so menuverable that it can fly low to the ground and turn on a dime.. And your beef is that he could eject while auto pilot was on, because it defies realism? Lol what? This isn't defending the ending.. I just find this line of logic hilarious..

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

sSubZerOo

LMAO all you are doing is proving my point. All of what I mentioned are omissions of information regarding the plot. Things that were never really explained though in order to believe the plot, or for it to have any consistency, explanations would have been nice. But you, like other people, were able to assume and come up with explanations for why they happened or were not explained in full. I understand that, and had you actually read other things I posted in this thread you'd know I do not find them to be actual issues and with you on many of those assumptions. My point is that these same sorts of omissions are present in 'The Dark Knight Rises'. They too can also be explained if, like you did here, someone took the time to think about and assume how things played out or why they were not explained in full. The problem I have is that people make the effort to defend these things in 'The Dark Knight' but don't bothered even thinking for a moment all the possible explanations for these omissions in 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

Because I am not going to spend my time explaining why people second guess a movie that was already immensely long.. Do people realize the movies were 2 and half hours long? Things have to ommitted to make the time bareable.. This pretty much illustrates the generation in which we must have everything spoon fed because they can't think for their fvcking selves.. And my main problem with Dark Knight Rises has more to do with the entire plot it self more than any one event..

I'm so confused right now. I'm in agreement with you on the explanations. My post was simply pointing out how 'The Dark Knight' had issues like 'The Dark Knight Rises' and trying to talk about how ridiculous it is to accept the issues in one film but then not bothered doing the same for the other. As I said already in the thread, if people don't like it because the way the whole plot plays out than that is fine, but it is ridiculous how nit-picky some people have been with the film, and yet don't nit-pick glaring issues in 'The Dark Knight'.

[QUOTE="champion837"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

Huh? Plot holes are omissions of IMPORTANT information regarding the PLOT. Such as what the hell the Joker was doing in a room of Gotham's richest while Batman was falling out of a building in 'The Dark Knight'; or how Bruce got back into Gotham in 'The Dark Knight Rises'. How he disappears behind Gordon isn't imporant information regarding the plot, and it isn't hard to assume he glides off, or being in total black and trained in stealth just ran off.

SaintLeonidas

"isn't imporant information regarding the plot"

And how the joker walked out (youre not even arguing that he couldnt have just simply walked out, but the MANNER of which he did) is? That is important to the plot? The simple answer is no, how quiet he was when he left the party is not "important" information.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

LMAO all you are doing is proving my point. All of what I mentioned are omissions of information regarding the plot. Things that were never really explained though in order to believe the plot, or for it to have any consistency, explanations would have been nice. But you, like other people, were able to assume and come up with explanations for why they happened or were not explained in full. I understand that, and had you actually read other things I posted in this thread you'd know I do not find them to be actual issues and with you on many of those assumptions. My point is that these same sorts of omissions are present in 'The Dark Knight Rises'. They too can also be explained if, like you did here, someone took the time to think about and assume how things played out or why they were not explained in full. The problem I have is that people make the effort to defend these things in 'The Dark Knight' but don't bothered even thinking for a moment all the possible explanations for these omissions in 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

SaintLeonidas

Because I am not going to spend my time explaining why people second guess a movie that was already immensely long.. Do people realize the movies were 2 and half hours long? Things have to ommitted to make the time bareable.. This pretty much illustrates the generation in which we must have everything spoon fed because they can't think for their fvcking selves.. And my main problem with Dark Knight Rises has more to do with the entire plot it self more than any one event..

I'm so confused right now. I'm in agreement with you on the explanations. My post was simply pointing out how 'The Dark Knight' had issues like 'The Dark Knight Rises' and trying to talk about how ridiculous it is to accept the issues in one film but then not bothered doing the same for the other. As I said already in the thread, if people don't like it because the way the whole plot plays out than that is fine, but it is ridiculous how nit-picky some people have been with the film, and yet don't nit-pick glaring issues in 'The Dark Knight'.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"][QUOTE="champion837"]

"isn't imporant information regarding the plot"

And how the joker walked out (youre not even arguing that he couldnt have just simply walked out, but the MANNER of which he did) is? That is important to the plot? The simple answer is no, how quiet he was when he left the party is not "important" information.

JoGoSo

LMAO you just proved my point. "The plan was to protect people at the party"....yeah he did a good job at that, you know, by jumping out a window and leaving them all alone to deal with the Joker :lol: If that was the case then he would have gone right back up to see if the Joker was still there. Maybe he did, but we are never told if he did or didn't. There is absolutely zero mention of him doing so. Yes we can assume he did, but it is still important information that was left out that without any explanation goes against the logic of the film (which is as you put it, Batman wanting to protect the people at the party).

[QUOTE="JoGoSo"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

...do you really not know how autopilot works? :lol: You set a destination...and the ship flys itself. Hence, um, he could set the autopilot to fly over the bay, and then escape before it did :lol:

And your complaints about his death has nothing to do with "plot holes". Sounds merely like you don't like how it played out, but it is pretty easy to understand why he needed to come back originally (um...to fight Bane who was destroying the city) and then when that was over, fake his death to cemented Batman's legacy, as making the ultimate sacrifice for Gotham.

sSubZerOo

.. This is really hilarious.. Its a flying tank with propellers under it, able to be so menuverable that it can fly low to the ground and turn on a dime.. And your beef is that he could eject while auto pilot was on, because it defies realism? Lol what? This isn't defending the ending.. I just find this line of logic hilarious..

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="JoGoSo"]JoGoSo

...do you really not know how autopilot works? :lol: You set a destination...and the ship flys itself. Hence, um, he could set the autopilot to fly over the bay, and then escape before it did :lol:

And your complaints about his death has nothing to do with "plot holes". Sounds merely like you don't like how it played out, but it is pretty easy to understand why he needed to come back originally (um...to fight Bane who was destroying the city) and then when that was over, fake his death to cemented Batman's legacy, as making the ultimate sacrifice for Gotham.

...you don't need to be a pilot to understand how autopilot works. It's purpose is to control/guide a vehicle so a human doesn't. This is freaking common knowledge. So it isn't hard to understand, AT ALL, that he could have set the autopilot to guide the Bat over they bay. And what are you talking about? Autopilot not letting you eject? Why wouldn't it? How are you accepting the logic of the vehicle even existing but failing to comprehend the idea of it have an eject system?

The scene does make sense, it makes a lot of sense. And the ending fits the entire trilogy. Batman was never going to be Batman forever. He was always facing the conflict of whether he should risk everything for the city. Since the beginning he has mentioned that it didn't matter who was behind the mask, but just that a symbol was needed. In the end he thought he could finally move on from being Batman (after accepting his past, and pain), save the city one last time, make Gotham believe he made the ultimate sacrifice and cement Batman's legacy as the cities savior and a symbol of justice, which was his whole goal. But he knew Gotham would still need help, so he left the job to someone else. So this whole "he became a coward after enduring the prison" makes zero sense what so ever...like seriously were you even thinking when you wrote that? If that was true he would have never returned after leaving prison. But no, he did, and he risked his life fighting Bane and helping to get the city to fight back :lol:

[QUOTE="JoGoSo"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

...do you really not know how autopilot works? :lol: You set a destination...and the ship flys itself. Hence, um, he could set the autopilot to fly over the bay, and then escape before it did :lol:

And your complaints about his death has nothing to do with "plot holes". Sounds merely like you don't like how it played out, but it is pretty easy to understand why he needed to come back originally (um...to fight Bane who was destroying the city) and then when that was over, fake his death to cemented Batman's legacy, as making the ultimate sacrifice for Gotham.

SaintLeonidas

...you don't need to be a pilot to understand how autopilot works. It's purpose is to control/guide a vehicle so a human doesn't. This is freaking common knowledge. So it isn't hard to understand, AT ALL, that he could have set the autopilot to guide the Bat over they bay. And what are you talking about? Autopilot not letting you eject? Why wouldn't it? How are you accepting the logic of the vehicle even existing but failing to comprehend the idea of it have an eject system?

The scene does make sense, it makes a lot of sense. And the ending fits the entire trilogy. Batman was never going to be Batman forever. He was always facing the conflict of whether he should risk everything for the city. Since the beginning he has mentioned that it didn't matter who was behind the mask, but just that a symbol was needed. In the end he thought he could finally move on from being Batman (after accepting his past, and pain), save the city one last time, make Gotham believe he made the ultimate sacrifice and cement Batman's legacy as the cities savior and a symbol of justice, which was his whole goal. But he knew Gotham would still need help, so he left the job to someone else. So this whole "he became a coward after enduring the prison" makes zero sense what so ever...like seriously were you even thinking when you wrote that? If that was true he would have never returned after leaving prison. But no, he did, and he risked his life fighting Bane and helping to get the city to fight back :lol:

[QUOTE="JoGoSo"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] ...how the hell is it not important to the plot when Gotham's most ruthless and insane villain is in a room with Gotham's richest people, with all his henchmen, looking for Harvey Dent and we just assume he said "Well...sorry for disrupting your party. Peace" and then leave? And then when he left, what did Batman do? After he feel on the car what did he do to search for the Joker? These are important because the whole pot revolved around Batman's trying to catch the Joker and with it left the way it was it doesn't seem like he tried to hard. There are also things that could have easily be explained with a bit of exposition, even one line of dialogue to explain how the Joker left before Batman could make it back to Wayne's apartment. But instead we are left to assume how it played out. SaintLeonidas

LMAO you just proved my point. "The plan was to protect people at the party"....yeah he did a good job at that, you know, by jumping out a window and leaving them all alone to deal with the Joker :lol: If that was the case then he would have gone right back up to see if the Joker was still there. Maybe he did, but we are never told if he did or didn't. There is absolutely zero mention of him doing so. Yes we can assume he did, but it is still important information that was left out that without any explanation goes against the logic of the film (which is as you put it, Batman wanting to protect the people at the party).

Dark Knight Rises is garbage, I mean it's just all over the place. Very difficult to understand.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="JoGoSo"] I'm having doubts that you are a pilot of anything. Just in case, tell me again, what is the destination for "get the bomb as far away from the city as fast as possible" That is an autopilot system I have never heard of. Again, if it was in Bruce's plan all along, i apologize, but that still doesn't change the suckiness of using it as a scapegoat. Also, has there ever been a plane that autopilots and allows for ejection at the same time? That must be the most dangerous plane in existence. As I said, there's no question that I think the ending sucks with or without plotholes. However, the autopilot plothole is a plothole. I think people don't understand what a plothole is. I think the word is used too much to convey things we think is important but really aren't (Like which exit Dent took from the hospital). It's something that happens that is germane to the story that isn't explained by the story. The best example is The Lost World when the T-Rex manages to run throughout the narrow halls of the cargo ship and kill the whole crew - while there is an attempt to close the bay door on her (Yes, I know the real story, but it's irrelevant to movie that doesn't explain it). The scene has to make sense in the context of the story being told. It doesn't even have to be a complaint. They can work well in the context of the story and it clearly works in Nolan's favor here give the defensiveness of the ones who actually liked it. It's just that it's emotion driven with no link to logic whatsoever unless, you the viewer, creates it. To me, even in the best scenario created by the viewer, that fanfiction still sucks. Nolan is a detail freak. He explains everything when it's important to do so. Even his twists are explained ahead of time. He even added one detail that was unnecessary with the 5 second countdown. If he had left that out altogether, I would have still hated the ending, but it wouldn't have had a plothole. Yet, in the interest of fan satisfaction, he and his bro decided that the twist was actually more important than the story. Fortunately, it doesn't make the trilogy retroactively bad. I'll just assume that Bruce became a coward after enduring the prison and lived happily ever after with his criminal girlfriend- robbing from rich people in Florence to make a living. I'm apparently allowed to take such liberties.JoGoSo

...you don't need to be a pilot to understand how autopilot works. It's purpose is to control/guide a vehicle so a human doesn't. This is freaking common knowledge. So it isn't hard to understand, AT ALL, that he could have set the autopilot to guide the Bat over they bay. And what are you talking about? Autopilot not letting you eject? Why wouldn't it? How are you accepting the logic of the vehicle even existing but failing to comprehend the idea of it have an eject system?

The scene does make sense, it makes a lot of sense. And the ending fits the entire trilogy. Batman was never going to be Batman forever. He was always facing the conflict of whether he should risk everything for the city. Since the beginning he has mentioned that it didn't matter who was behind the mask, but just that a symbol was needed. In the end he thought he could finally move on from being Batman (after accepting his past, and pain), save the city one last time, make Gotham believe he made the ultimate sacrifice and cement Batman's legacy as the cities savior and a symbol of justice, which was his whole goal. But he knew Gotham would still need help, so he left the job to someone else. So this whole "he became a coward after enduring the prison" makes zero sense what so ever...like seriously were you even thinking when you wrote that? If that was true he would have never returned after leaving prison. But no, he did, and he risked his life fighting Bane and helping to get the city to fight back :lol:

LMAO, again you are asking all these questions about the autopilot. This is all sh*t that one can easily make assumptions about, just as you so easily make assumptions as to what Batman did after falling from the building. Again, it all boils down to you being completely unable to over look complete nit-picking, and actually thinking for even a second how it could have played out. Bruce fixed the auto-pilot, because why wouldn't he? It can be set at any moment. He could have done it right before he went over the bay, then ejected out to be far enough away from the explosion. This not only makes sense, but a conclusion anyone could easily come to. Then again you say stuff that makes me think you have zero idea of what autopilot is. Why did he get into it if there was autopilot? Autopilot=/=remote control. He would need to steer it out to bay, then set teh autopilot to guide farther out.

"When Gotham needs him the most"? Huh? He already defeated Talia, Bane and got the bomb out to sea. All Gotham needed then was to rebuild, and to do such a thing would need inspiration, such as Batman's sacrifice. He always knew he could walk away. There are multiple conversations in this and the previous films where they talk about him stepping down. It only makes sense that after facing his toughest battle, over coming his greatest personal challenge, and saving Gotham for the League, that he finally take the opportunity to "retire" completely, and while doing so leave his mark by "sacrificing" Batman.

And honestly, your arrogance on the matter is laughable. "You are also wrong about the premise". Oh really? Based on what? Your personal view on the trilogy? Sorry buddy, what you think about the films themes aren't universal to everyone. Not liking the ending is one thing, but to be so sure about how "stupid/wrong" it is based on the rest of the trilogy is hilarious.

Plot holes aside tdkr just wasn't all that enjoyable to me. I can't put my thumb on why, I think part of it was it felt really cheesy.

BB and TDK were both alot more enjoyable.

Also http://www.cracked.com/article_20012_if-dark-knight-rises-was-10-times-shorter-more-honest.htmli

Still...TDK>BB>TDKR

iloverikku11