It wasn’t the show we were expecting to do, but here we are anyway: in the wake of the murders in Colorado, we discuss Christopher Nolan’s final Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises.
To download this episode, use this URL: http://rowthree.com/audio/mamo/mamo262.mp3
Mentioned in the episode:
My review of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES:
http://www.thesubstream.com/article-review-the-dark-knight-rises.html
“What’s So Great About Batman?” documentary:
http://www.thesubstream.com/video-whats-so-great-about-batman.html
I’ve come to the point where I’ve all but stopped reading reviews before seeing movies (especially since I believe most mainstream critics have a bias against the genre films I love). I see film, write my thoughts about it, then maybe I see what other people have to say.
As for me thinking about the shooting while watching the movie, I have to admit that I was more bothered before seeing the film than during. Even though my excited for the film was a bit subdued, I tried not to make this tragedy stop me from enjoying a film I had been waiting months (or even years) to see.
As for the film itself, I very much enjoyed it and I wasn’t really bothered by the things you were nitpicking. In fact, the only thing that truly rubbed me the wrong way was the sudden (and somewhat lame) way Bane was taken out of the picture.
I expect The Dark Knight Rises to be very close to (if not at) the top of my favourite films at the end of the year.
Not only did Bane come across to me as quite the lame villain, I found it really annoying that Batman only tries to damage his respirator mask at the end of the movie.
Batman vs Superman, hell Batman versus the whole Justice League and Batman wins. Why? Because Batman finds his opponents weakness and fights strategically. I realize that Nolan’s Batman has never been a very smart version of the character, in that he never really becomes the “world’s greatest detective” but with fighting Bane, Batman becomes really, *really* stupid. First thing he should have done is just to grab that mask and pull.
The comics and other adaptions of Bane is a bit lame because he almost always gets defeated by someone cutting the venom tube. which is right out in the open (someone should tell him he needs to tuck that tube in or encase it in something heavier than plastic). This Bane has his weakness right out in front of his face.
The fights between Batman and Bane became really frustrating because I just wanted to yell at the screen “GRAB THE MASK!” Yet I knew that wouldn’t happen until the end of the movie, because otherwise Bane gets beaten early and no more movie. Still it ranked up there with the scene from Prometheus where they are running away from the crashing ship in the same direction it is falling. Which is annoying that these are the 2 movies that I thought would be the most intelligent having something that I at least feel people should have stopped in the early draft stage saying we need to do something different, this is just too stupid.
Even though I’m still struggling with the movie, I have to say Bane was the one element which I thoroughly loved. I loved the way he was shot – how his shoulders so often filled the frame. I thought he was intimidating and the most menacing villain (at least physically) in the whole trilogy. And that fight with him and Batman in the sewers was perfectly realized.
Well, for my part I never felt like Bane became any more interesting than he was in the very first scene. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; I don’t think he’s a failure as a villain. But I agree with Mr. Fabb, and felt like the big sewer fight with Batman was there to fulfill a plot requirement rather than really extend the relationship between the two characters.
That said, I love Tom Hardy obviously, and liked the final confrontation between Bane & Bats a lot more.
That opening scene in general was really amazing. Unfortunately, nothing else managed to live up to the action of that scene in my opinion.
Also I think I know why I liked the first act much better. Besides it being the parts where I didn’t know what was going to happen next, I really like their take on Catwoman and her confrontations with Bruce Wayne & then the villains. I had a similar problem with Batman Returns, where I didn’t like Burton’s & Devito’s take on Penguin but really liked Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman.
Penguins running through the streets with missiles on their backs were just plain silly. Just as Police running down the middle of the street and the criminals have automatic weapons yet keep missing anyone and hitting the streets & sidewalks with only a few police officers getting hit before it goes to hand to hand was also plain silly.
Both movies in my opinion needed more Catwoman and edit out as much as possible Penguin & Bane.
I really liked Bane in this (I don’t know much about him other than his appearance in Arkham Asylum and the opening arc of the New 52′s Batman: The Dark Knight, so I have very little to compare to). I thought the combination of menacing framing, line-reading choices (which I know some disliked, but I really liked), and expressive eyes worked quite well. He had a cold and calculating demeanor, with a dangerous intelligence and physicality, but mixed with a sometimes almost jokey and sarcastic way of speaking that somehow all merged to be really effective to me.
The mask thing – I figured that no one really knew why he wore the mask or if it was a weakness. He could’ve just worn it to look scarier. Which, sure, Batman could’ve snagged onto and tried to remove it earlier, but I didn’t get the sense that he really knew it was worth going after until after he was in the prison and heard about Bane’s injury. The very next fight after he gets back, he goes after the mask almost immediately. For my part, I didn’t actually realize those were tubes that could be disconnected until Batman knocked them out. It just looked like solid metal to me – if anything, i was wondering why Batman didn’t try to somehow cut off or remove the mask from the straps on the back.
Plus, Batman was simultaneously over-confident and thrown off-guard in the sewer fight, and wasn’t making great decisions anyway.
I really want to see the film again partly because this series has had a cascading level of quality for me, I have liked each successive movie more than the previous and that continued with Rises.
This trilogy feels like Nolan is hitting on the aspects of Batman that I most enjoy and it feels designed so that I would love it. Which is also why I can totally understand people who see chinks in the armor. He references all 5 of my favorite Batman stories in this one movie and throughout the trilogy (3 Miller stories, 1 Paul Pope, and the Grant Morrison super run) as well as everything from the 60s show to TAS and everything in between. The term I have been using to describe the movie is kaleidoscopic, it is a definite statement about the character of Bruce Wayne and Batman and that overshadows everything else.
Tom Hardy was magnetic, charismatic, and sharpened to a point. Oldman was his always amazing self and the perfect Gordon, Levitt and Hathaway were great additions and the Caine stuff really worked for me. I was surprised at how late they pulled the Talia card that it became surprising by proxy of delay.
First your construct your Batman, then you shatter him and then you rebuild him even better.
And all that is on top of the score / sound and the look / shooting of it.
This movie was everything I wanted and more. Pure Cinema.
This is interesting. I feel like Nolan’s movies stick pretty close to Year One and the Dark Knight Returns in terms of tone. Its a grim and realistic Batman for the most part, which Nolan has translated to screen successfully.
I like all of his films but I don’t love them. I don’t think there is a way Batman is supposed to be. I hate it when people say this Batman is a return to the way he is in the comics. Batman has been in comics since 1939, and over the decades he has been campy to serious and every shade in between along the way.
Personally, I like the 60s Batman, the Burton Batmans, and TAS Batman more. There is some joy and colorful villains in these interpretations of Batman that does not exist in the Nolan movies for me. His films feel like David Mazzucchelli put to screen and not Tim Sale. Both interpretations of Batman are great but I like Tim Sale more.
I guess the word kaleidoscopic seemed odd to me. The films to me feel pretty laser focused on realism (The Joker can’t look like the Joker of the comics because thats not realistic. We don’t call Catwoman Catwoman because thats silly). These films feel very focused and planed to me, which I don’t associate with kaleidoscopic.
I don’t think Dark Knight Returns and Year One have the same tone. Year One is very grounded, I will agree with that. However DKR is very much bombastic, incredible, outlandish or as said in the comic: http://i49.tinypic.com/11mgqaw.jpg “Twice as Big as you can Imagine”
I mean DKR is a comic where Batman carries a thug up the side of a building just to see the look on his face when he shows him where he is: http://www.blogcdn.com/www.comicsalliance.com/media/2010/06/greatbatman02.jpg
That is a comic where a character forces their neck to twist far enough to commit suicide, where the Joker flies around on dolls and where Mutants and Genetic outcasts meet in the Gotham City dumps, not to mention the events of the finale.
When I say Kaleidoscopic I am not talking about color, I am talking about differences of takes on the character and theme and tone, maybe facets of a diamond would have been better? The ending of the movie is straight from the 60s show (much like Ra’s plan in Begins), the evil business man is straight out of and named for a character in TAS, there is No Mans Land, Knightfall, Legacy, Son of the Demon, RIP, Batman & Son, Year 100, Batman Incorporated, Brubaker/Cooke/Stewart Catwoman, Batman & Robin and so much more that I probably didn’t catch on viewing number one.
The movie takes everything that has existed featuring the character and blends it into a final movie that works for me on every level.
Sure The Joker doesn’t look on the outside to be as theatrical, but in his actions he reveals that more than costuming could ever do. He blocks a path with a Firetruck he lit on fire, the pencil trick, the NURSE scene.
Nolan’s films exist in A reality but not the one we live in and that is consistent larger than life and very Batman. Batman is not this or that portrayal he is the combination and the culmination of all of them to this whole which pays all that off.
I feel like DKR and Year One (along with watchman and killing joke) laid the groundwork for the grim and gritty superhero that seems to have struck a cord with modern comic fans. I think Spawn comes directly from these comics. I will agree that Year One is more realistic than DKR. But DKR has the tank, the mutants, and the a bomb. In the DKR I feel like both Batman and his villains are super serious and threatening. Nolan I think takes his inspiration in large part from these comics. Wether he consciously set out to do so or its coincidence (I suspect the former).
I like all these books. I like DKR and Year One and Nolan’s Batman films. But they are not the version of Batman that I prefer.
The thing I don’t like is how heavily he wants to ground things. The bat mobile is military tank. The characters costumes are much less flamboyant. Gotham is a modern city, its not the stylized gothic architecture of the Burton films or the dark art deco of the TAS. Sure there are goofy bits one can bring up from the Nolan films, but by and large I feel he wants realism in his Batverse.
The bat-plane that looks like logo, just so it can fly up to the moon and make a cool silhouette of the bat signal does not exist in Nolan’s film. Its hard to articulate, but I feel these subtle differences have meaning. There is a caution with making things too unrealistic, too stylistic or too fun. In the process I personally have less fun with them.
Ledger’s Joker is the obvious stand out of the entire trilogy of films. Buts its not enough to change my opinion that these movies are ultra serious. Maybe too serious.
Two things.
DKR and Watchmen yes they contributed to a ton of copycats that interpreted the wrong things from them. Yet those two original works are not grim or gritty like people ascribe to them. Both are very thoughtful, hopeful forward thinking books.
I don’t think he wants realism I think he wants to show that Batman isn’t flamboyant or real, one or the other is impossible it has to be a blend of the two. It is modern myth making and that approach has to be grounded in the times it was created, while also having a foot in the extraordinary constantly straddling that line.
It now looks like TDKR will finish the weekend in the $165M range domestically.
Oh on the whole Gun Control thing, personally I don’t own a gun or would ever want to but I don’t have a problem with people wanting to.
Restrictive laws only hamper the law abiding citizens, criminals break the law so enforcing tighter laws doesn’t impede people breaking them, there are already somewhere close to 10,000 gun control laws in the books.
It is the same with the argument of using the Death Penalty as an argument for a deterrent for murder. I heard it described best in that people commit violent crimes for 3 reasons. Profit, these are people who have worked into their plans the possibility of violence so they have already considered the repercussions. High Emotion, when people react strongly to X and lash out, there is no preventing this because it is spur of the moment. Finally, compulsion which obviously can’t be stopped by deterrents by definition.
Choosing what entertainment to show, and blaming the fantasy in any way shape or form to me is showcasing media on a “What If” basis and trying to spot insane actions by doing insane actions is also insane.
I really hope that the event (while a terrible tragedy) does blow over (which I know is impossible) because the more coverage it is given the more hyperbolic the discussion will become, and I think the people of that city would do better without the spotlights.
Was a really weird feeling living in an Aurora, but strangely seeing the movie 4 hours after the event I wasn’t thinking about it at all while watching.
I thought about it twice during the screening.
once when it got to the shootout scene that I suppose was when things went down in Aurora.
And one when a latecomer in a long black jacket (dude, it’s July) showed up with a massive gym bag. :S
The shooting was done by a mentally disturbed man who bought weapons legally. He bought an AK15 and 6000 rounds of ammunition legally.
Note that AK15 and other assault weapons were banned in 1994:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Unfortunately, the ban had an sunset provision in it and expired after 10 years in 2004. Looks like the Democrats tried to renew the ban, but never got anywhere.
Many people make the argument of needing guns for protection or hunting, but I don’t understand why anyone would need a semi-automatic assault riffle. It wouldn’t have stopped the event from happening, he would have likely used a different gun, but the number of people injured and killed would have likely been a lot, lot less.
However, I live near Toronto, where the biggest problem with guns is stopping the smuggling of guns from the US. As according to the Toronto Police Chief approximately 70% of weapons that the Toronto police seize that have been used in criminal activities has been smuggled in from America.
I don’t like the idea of law making for all citizens around the dramatic tragic outcroppings of a few off center people.
I also don’t like blaming inanimate objects for acts committed by people (Be it the film, or the weapon).
Well how about this for a compromise
If there’s going to be such easy access to deadly weapons, there should be even easier access to mental health care that might prevent the desire to access deadly weapons.
Not gonna disagree with that in the slightest.
My biggest problems with gun ownership is how much some people ENJOY their guns.
I can get a hunter feeling at one with the earth and genuinely showing respect to the animals they kill, but you can go to an Outdoorworld and purchase some crazy tacky shit involved with hunting, purchase DVDs of other people shooting dead animals. I have seen some of these discs sadly (relatives) and they are almost all presented not as pure instruction. They’re presented as entertainment. Whooping and being jackasses around a carcass. It’s disgusting.
If it’s about protecting your family, or some government paranoia, or some other solemn or serious reason, I can be soft of guns. When you’re enjoying deadly weapons, going to shows to go “Oh cool” over these gadgets, showing them off to friends, and acting like a jackass, that’s when I get into “Gun owners are ridiculous idiots” mode. Guns are serious business. Treat them seriously, like an adult, all the time. NOT just when something bad happens and you need to justify their ownership.
Have you ever fired a weapon Goon? Just curious as I was shocked to find out Kurt just fired one for the first time last year (at a bachelor party) and if I remember clearly he really enjoyed it. If you’ve fired a weapon you might not make such broad generalizations about people who “enjoy” guns.
If you’ve ever fired a weapon, it IS pretty fun and exhilarating. I’ve shot some gophers when I was a kid with my dad because they were ruining our pastures, but I’ve never been much of a hunter – actually, never hunted once in my life. Don’t really want to. I think I shot a snake once.
Basically, I mostly shot at targets, trees, tin cans etc; all in a controlled environment to show me how to operate, clean and respect a firearm.
To the people whooping it up, all I can say is, guns don’t kill things anymore than pencils misspell words. Which can open up any number of discussions on society, human psyche and training.
“Have you ever fired a weapon Goon?”
No, but I’ve had a gun pointed at my face. It kind of helps one not exactly want to play with weapons.
“If you’ve fired a weapon you might not make such broad generalizations about people who “enjoy” guns.”"
You’re talking about target practice, and I’m showing you a guy shooting a deer and then pumping in sleazy rock music and going “Wicked, dude”. That’s tacky, and I’ll judge away at Tacky McTackerson.
If someone’s going to target practice for the rush of the pushback of a weapon, or for the skill of marksmanship, or whatever, I can get that. if they are doing it so they can kill animals better and pipe in some Buckcherry later, like the douche in the video I posted, of they are doing it so they can possibly fantasize better about what it would be like to kill someone – and there are absolutely some people out there like that, and you know there are, then I’ll judge away on those assholes as well.
If you had fun shooting tin cans, we’re cool. if you had fun shooting gophers, enen if they were a nuisance, if that’s “FUN”, then I think that’s lame.
“clean and respect a firearm”
This is key and I posted that already. Guns are serious, and should be treated with respect, like an adult, at all times.
The guy shooting deer and pumping in Buckcherry is a child, and I don’t respect him. There’s plenty of soldiers out there who have been taught to respect a firearm and can operate one responsibly, but we have seen will pump up some “Let the Bodies hit the Floor” to get pumped up. I suppose you’d argue anything goes in war, but I look at that shit and I see children who I am terrified to see with weapons.
And this was one of the main reasons I don’t like “Iron Giant.” I think the lame, hit you over the head quote is:
“guns… bad.”
or maybe it was
“guns… kill”
Instantly made me roll my eyes with the “beat you over the head”, indignant horse shit on display and pretty much hated the movie from that moment on.
This was genuinely the first video I found on youtube to make my point. actually takes place in Saskatchewan.
(scrub to 6:00)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBnDWe3JS_4
Deer gets shot.
Then they blast Buckcherry’s “All Lit Up”
Turns to camera “Aw… that was wicked”
Video description: “I rattled this Saskatchewan whitetail in and harvested him on video with my muzzleloader…6:09 KABOOM!!!…Enjoy!!”
This is hunter culture, and it’s retarded. I’m not advocating eating a pile of veggies every night. I’m advocating taking deadly weapons seriously.
I just don’t understand the need for anyone owning an semi-automatic or automatic weapon. I mean the line needs to be drawn of what kind of weapon anyone can own. There are particular weapons that are considered off limits for regular people. Can’t the line be drawn at semi-automatic weapons? Once again, in hunting and defense the common arguments for owning a gun, a semi-automatic weapon is not needed. If an reasonable and legal reason was found, then perhaps I would understand that point of view (might not 100% agree with it but understand it better at least).
Escalation.
The genie is out of the bottle, like it or not those weapons exist in a public space. If you regulate them now the only people who will have access are those above those regulations or who are willing to break them. That is of course assuming you could get the entire world to agree with that.
At that point all you are doing is impeding the decent people who want to own something for protection and equal footing their right too it. That is the other big part of it the 2nd Amendment is important, there is a reason it is number two. All the other rights on that list are invalid if the people do not have the means to protect them.
Also I tend to think that generally in North America there are more reasonable / sane / ‘good’ people than not. So more people with guns technically means more ‘good’ people with guns and that doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
Should also be pointed out that Violent Crime and Homicides have been steadily declining for over 10 years at this point.
“The genie is out of the bottle, like it or not those weapons exist in a public space.”
Fine, they exist out in the public, just put a ban in selling new units. Eventually there will be fewer and fewer semi-automatic weapons out there.
“At that point all you are doing is impeding the decent people who want to own something for protection and equal footing their right too it.”
Sorry, but you don’t need a semi-automatic weapon for protection. That is complete overkill and unnecessary. Should people allowed to own small missile launchers? Or any other weapon as you scale upwards all in the name of protection? No, these weapons are not allowed as a line is drawn at what is acceptable. With no reasonable legal reasons to own such a weapon, then why should these kind of weapons be allowed?
“That is the other big part of it the 2nd Amendment is important, there is a reason it is number two. All the other rights on that list are invalid if the people do not have the means to protect them.”
If anyone uses a gun to try to protect any of those other rights they would be arrested and thrown into jail. That is not how you protect your rights, you do so through the court system. Canada has no 2nd amendment and Canadians have no problem using the court systems to protect their rights.
That said, I understand Americans can be completely blind to that kind of reasoning. So we could leave that at the agree to disagree area.
The idea that semi-automatic weapons should be banned in the US sounds reasonable to me and something I think that most might see eye to eye on, as once again I’ve yet to hear a reason why anyone should reasonably own such weapon.
I should point out at some point that I do live in the GTA.
I don’t think you are understanding my meaning of protecting those rights. Self Defense is a very real thing and I do not feel comfortable denying people their right to feel safe.
“Also I tend to think that generally in North America there are more reasonable / sane / ‘good’ people than not.”
This. I remember my dad telling about how the kids in his elementary school would actually bring guns to class for show and tell and no one ever DREAMED that someone might get hurt/killed. It was just another piece to the manhood pie that was to be shared.
Of course, society has veered off that course. I think part of the problem is teaching kids that guns are to be feared rather than respected. There is a difference.
Do you fear or respect a swimming pool? Do you fear or respect a carving knife? Do you fear or respect a horse? Do you fear or respect a car? How about a fire? A cliff? Alcohol?
All of these things kill people on a daily basis in the U.S. We should probably ban them eh?
Here’s an interesting article (it’s on the internet so it must be true):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1122282/Knives-weapon-choice-violent-criminals-new-figures-reveal.html
“The Metropolitan Police said there were 83 knife killings in 2008, compared with 74 the previous year. Meanwhile the number of gun murders fell from 30 to 17.”
Interesting stat. UK has far stricter gun laws than the US – so you might infer one of two things (or both):
Strict gun control laws have drastically reduced the number of homicides. OR. Strict gun control laws have poised people to use other methods of deadly force.
Then of course Wikipedia comes along and totally refutes this anecdotal evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
Also, Reddit usually has some pretty smart people debating the issue:
http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/wyto6/gun_control_debate_back_on_the_front_page_here/
Wondering what kind of turn,if any, was there after Bush let the Assault Weapons Ban lapse. not just overall numbers because it may just be a tiny driip, but I mean if there was an increase of incidents of mass shootings.
“I don’t think you are understanding my meaning of protecting those rights. Self Defense is a very real thing and I do not feel comfortable denying people their right to feel safe.”
So taking assault riffles off the table and still allowing them other guns means “denying people the right to feel safe”? My understanding is that new machine guns and fully automatic guns cannot be sold to the public in the US. Also my understanding between semi-automatic and automatic guns means having to hold your finger down and it fire repeatedly, versus having to repeatedly pull the trigger to fire each time. Still semi-automatic weapons you can still shoot a large number of rounds in a small amount of time.
Once again, it seems very reasonable to me to group semi-automatic weapons with automatic weapons. That the Federal Assault Weapons Ban shouldn’t have had a sunset clause to it.
Again I don’t think you can define for other people what makes them feel safe. Also sure a handgun is a gun but when larger guns are available to people who can work the system or bypass it.
I can feel safe at home without a gun, I don’t want to generalize that my living conditions or neighborhood are in any way equal to anyone else’s.
“feel safe”
if the stats which show what actually makes people safe are in conflict with what makes people “feel” safe, then we shouldn’t be pandering to unsubstantiated “feelings”. Especially when those feelings are rooted in as much government paranoia and well, straight up racism, as has infected the most devoted gun rights lobby. People talk about liberals being bleeding hearts, but pssh, that stand your ground law… Trayvon Martin is dead because of George Zimmerman’s “feelings”
That’s some straight up Colbert Truthiness bullshit.
I don’t think sensational examples help the discussion in either way when it comes to important issues. These situations fuel irrational behavior from everyone that blows everything out of proportion to a point where the discussion becomes irrelevant. Besides at this point I have stated my case, if it doesn’t work for you so be it.
What do people think of this:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/alex-jones-is-nuts/
Yes, it’s Alex Jones, that guy from a few Linklater movies who yells. When you see stuff this paranoid and nuts… I’m sorry, but I don’t “feel safe” that this guy probably has a shitload of guns.
But again, that’s “feel”. Feel safe with guns, feel safe keeping guns away from people that seem nutty. “Feel” is irrelevant when there’s facts.
Have you ever noticed how many people who say gun laws won’t stop gun crimes, also believe outlawing abortion will stop abortions?
Anyways, I found DKR terrorizing and disturbing. I thought it was a great film, but to my surprise I left the theater more ready to more openly embrace what the Avengers did earlier this year.
Note, I saw DKR on Friday and I had been so busy with work that I really didn’t know much about the event beyond the fact that there was a shooting in a theatre in the US. So it didn’t enter my mind at all during the screening.
On gun control: the Jason Alexander piece is mandatory reading this weekend:
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht
Same subject: Andrew O’Hehir’s piece in Salon on Friday sets the stage for the media debate quite nicely (despite a stupid, self-aggrandizing title):
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/20/does_batman_have_blood_on_his_hands/
(O’Hehir also wrote one of the best TDKR reviews I’ve read: http://www.salon.com/2012/07/18/the_dark_knight_rises_christopher_nolans_evil_masterpiece/)
I’m obviously pro gun control, so the pieces above resonate with me strongly. If you are anti, however, I’d appreciate some insight into your stance – it’s difficult to sort through the bile spewed at both Alexander and O’Hehir in the wake of their pieces, but I’m sure there are intelligent arguments out there.
At the end of the day some things are pretty simple and black and white:
England/Wales (restrictive gun laws) – 0.7 homicides per million
United States (gun freedom hullabaloo) – 41.4 homicides per million citizens with gun freedom
Canada (somewhat restricted, some hullabaloo, mostly sporting) – 0.16 homicides per million
If anyone reading that can’t argue against that with anything more than platitudes, they shouldn’t argue. And any real argument is looking at these stats and silently saying “I don’t care.”
Like.. has anyone seen any argument from pro-gun groups on how to prevent more deaths other than “more people should get guns”? People like this clown are arguing that the answer is less concealment laws, that this would have caused an audience member to pack heat and kill James Holmes:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ike-awgu/batman-shooting_b_1692359.html?utm_hp_ref=canada#comments
So in other words, looking at the stats above, their answer to getting oneself out of a hole you’ve dug, is to keep digging.
Are these statistics ALL homicides with guns? Or just homicides in general?
Also, last I checked, the violent crimes committed in Canada (on a per capita basis) was almost exactly the same as USA.
Those were the last numbers I had tucked away in some cut paste thing from the Canada Firearms Centre. Last I checked, double the percentage of gun deaths in the US were gun-related, like 65 to 32 percent.
I`m not so sure about the overall violent crime rate. All this doesn`t take into account cultural differences, population density, classification of violent crime, stuff nobody can seem to discuss responsibly like race. If you go into right wing gun forums you will actually get a whole lot of stuff about classifciation of hispanics and blabbity blah black people, etc.
But at the end of the day, it`s a smokescreen, and Americans have far less gun restrictions, and have far more gun deaths. Maybe the same amount of crimes are happening, US vs. Canada, but it just so happens that easy access to guns means the US ones are resulting in a whole mess o`people getting shot instead of stabbed or beaten to a pulp.
Which.. given the choice. I`d take the violent beating and wheelchair, sir. I only know so much, but I know enough that the gun lobby enjoys obscuring the bottom line with enough complexities in the hopes that it becomes too confusing to bother addressing, that there`s just enough grey area to give yourself the excuse to keep your head in the sand if that`s where people choose to keep it.
Again, to me it circles back to the silent “I don’t care”. The gun lobby isn’t honest enough to acknowledge that they also just plain love having guns, that they just plain love their toys, so until that happens, there’s never going to be an honest dialogue with them, or an answer to how to prevent more gun deaths other than “Buy more guns”.
If you want a drink, someone’s got to hand you the bottle at some point. If the bartender is lax, people are gonna get drunk. If the bartender is difficult, people are still gonna get drunk. And drunk people will do some shitty things.
But a responsible bartender is gonna cut you off, deny certain people in the first place, check your ID, do all the right things to make sure that people have their fun and still get home safe. Most countries seem to have a responsible bartender, but to us you don’t even have a bartender, you’ve got an 18 year old with a keg who is also drunk, just hoping his friends will help clean up, and that people will cut him some slack when things get out of hand, because hey – that party was rad, dude.
That kegger is “freedom”, that bartender – what a dick narc, man.
I’m gonna pop some smiley faces in here now, because despite the heavy polemic and some serious points I’m trying to have some fun with the conversation and show that I’m not trying to be full on America Bad Dog
Google searched “does banning guns reduce violent crime”
First result: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Some law student’s paper I guess. But interesting with fact and figures.
It’s been a while since I did my studying up on gun control (as I am NOT a supporter), but I remember readin that statistically speaking, gun bans resulted in higher reports of robberies and deaths.
Goon’s stats above seem to refute that.
more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Some very out of date numbers in here, but for whatever purposes/discussion:
Total firearm-related death rate:
US 10.27 per 100,000 people
Canada 4.78 per 100,000 people
Homicides:
US 4.14 per 100,000 people
Canada 0.76 per 100,000 people
France, Austrlia, a little more than half that..
Unintentional deaths are about the same number. I don’t really get where the other deaths are being made up then… people dying from self defence, or manslaughter, different definitions. I’m not gonna pretend I can fill in the blanks here.
Other than that chart being a crock of shit because all the years aren’t the same?
Are you suggesting the chart is cherry picking data rather than just using what is available, because that would be BS.
or are you suggesting that in some years these rates take vast swings rather than there being a general trend of one country vs. another.
Not at all you are reading too deep into snarky comments.
How was the Real Imax? I am still undecided if should check it out on Real Imax.
Definitely worthwhile. I saw a digital projection in the AVX theatre yesterday, which should be the top-line non-IMAX version of the film, and compared against the IMAX print it was basically a working demonstration of how far digital projection has to go before it catches up with what film can actually do.
Lastly, before I go to bed and dream about spider masks and giant bats (shiver), I’d say that while I am not a supporter of gun control, I do think it pretty ridiculous that anyone needs an AK-47 or the like.
Though I’d love to fire one someday to see what its like.
So does that mean you support the Assault Weapons Ban that Bush let lapse, or does being opposed to gun control mean that the freedom to access assault weapons > the severe downside of their availability.
James Holmes had a legally obtained AR-15 assault rifle with a high capacity magazine that could have let off 50-60 rounds within one minute. Among other weapons. And tear gas. And gun groups are arguing that someone in the audience with a handgun would have stopped him but THOSE DAMN LIBERALS. Let’s be realistic here.
So. Let’s say there’s still an assault weapons ban and James Holmes cant acquire this rifle legally. Does the same thing still happen? I don’t know. He’s being described as “mentally ill” which seems to me like a white privilege label given what things would be called if he was any other race. Maybe he still is committed to getting a weapon which does more damage illegally. Maybe he does the same act with less and a few less people die. Maybe without that rifle he recalculates his odds and doesn’t bother. Maybe the amount of work to get an illegal weapon makes him reconsider his mental health. Maybe not owning the gun doesn’t make him itchy to use it and some sickness bubbles under the surface for years. Maybe he kills himself.
However the gun was no longer banned, it was, and then it wasn’t. It made a difference. What difference, we don’t know, but a difference.
I can’t pretend to know what “would have” happened if someone had a gun. There was gas in the theater and hard to see. An extra gun might’ve ended the senselessness on the spot or it might’ve exacerbated it further. No one can fortune tell that.
From wikipedia about the shooter:
“He was wearing a gas mask, a load-bearing vest, and body armor, including a ballistic helmet, bulletproof leggings, a throat protector, a groin protector, and tactical gloves.”
Sounds like he was prepared for the possibly of someone in the audience having a gun and that it wouldn’t have been very easy to have taken him down.
I don’t know whether I support a ban or not. I just think the need for a rifle that fires off 60 rounds a minute like that is silly. But again, I’d like to fire one day just to see what it’s like.
Sure, and I’d like to fly a helicopter someday just to see what it’s like, but I’m under no illusions that it would, or should, be legal for me to walk into a Wal Mart and buy a helicopter.
Agreed. You should have training, respect for the helicopter, a clean back history and a license. Then you can buy a helicopter.
I’m guessing you own or have driven a motor vehicle.
Where exactly does one prove training and respect for buying a weapon when buying a weapon?
That’s not snark by the way. I’m asking what degree of safety tests and requirements are in place before anyone can buy a weapon or ammunition, and if there are different tests for different weapons.
The truth is the guy is a nut and who’s to say even if didn’t have all those weapons he still wouldn’t have hurt someone eventually. If could have made a bomb or resorted kidnapping, nobody knows. Its stupid to blame gun laws, blame the person. Last time I checked Gein and Dahmer did plenty of damaged without semiautomatic weapons.
Yes, I believe that’s true. And in like kind, if hadn’t fixated on the Joker as an outlet for his dark fantasies, he would have found something else.
However, we might be safe in assuming that without the assault rifle his scale of destruction might have been lessened. Unprovable of course.
Maybe he would have just followed Slipknot on tour.
But as for not blaming gun laws, I mean jeez:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/us/online-ammunition-sales-highlighted-by-aurora-shootings.html?_r=1&hp
It’s a pretty simple question: Why should any individual be able to buy 6000 rounds of ammunition, unsupervised, unreported. Jeffrey Dahmer killed 17 people over the course of 13 years. James Holmes shot 70 people in a matter of minutes. Some of the people shot were NOT EVEN IN THE SAME THEATER.
One innocent person being murdered is too many.
An article on the anger around Nikki Finke’s coverage:
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlla/nikki-finke-aurora-colorado-coverage-twitter-outrage_b67631
Nitpick much?
http://www.slashfilm.com/15-bothered-the-dark-knight-rises/
I really don’t mind this article that much because I guess it helps pass the time. And I think (I at least hope) that even the authors realize how silly a lot of this stuff is. A lot of it just seems weird to me.
I mean a lot of the nitpicking this year doesn’t take into account the standard language of movies, the “cheats” that even the most realistic movies have in order to move the plot along and condense time.
I had problems with this movie the first time I saw it, and none of them are really even touched in this article. Oh well.
He doesn’t even address my three biggest nitpicks:
1) Why is the rope not pulled taut as Wayne climbs the prison wall? Ya know, so he only falls a foot or two if he lets go, rather than 50 feet. And then the rop at the top is there so everyone can climb out? Wtf?
2) JG-L: “It’s hydrochloroflorissican. And motor oil! They’ve clearly set up explosives all around the stadium and on all the bridges!” Wait, what?
3) The one bus of kids leaving the island. Who gives a shit? I thought Robin was evacuating the city. But it’s one bus full of about 30 people. Like that matters.
And yeah, not going for the mask immediately is annoying a little bit.
1. The rope and the pit was part of the trap, if was irrelevant how you did it because the rope was never going to be long enough to make the jump tied to it.
2. He was investigating sites that the business guy worked on, that one came later so he saw the explosives at one place and through hmmm it would probably be a good idea to warn people that they may be doing this at all the other places too.
3. Number of people is irrelevant.
I had the same problem with that bus full of kids on the first viewing. I thought it was stupid and completely unnecessary. But the reason for the scene – and you can determine whether the reason is worth the time spent on it – is to show Blake’s disillusionment with authority. To show that following orders (like the soldiers did in blowing up the bridge) and working within the system isn’t good enough. And that what inspires him to quit and take up the mantle of the bat.
The concrete/explosives deal is done by Daggett – the guy who wants to take over Wayne Ent. – who owns a construction business. He’s letting Bane’s people work with his company in exchange for Bane bankrupting Wayne. That’s why Daggett gets so pissed when Miranda takes over the company – he (daggett) was supposed to take over.
But yeah, this movie – just like every hero movie and blockbuster action movie – is infinitely nitpickable.
I don’t mind the idea of the explosives. It was just weird how fast JG-L put it together in his head. I think there was a scene with blue prints and there is something about the dump truck, but still… I just felt like JG-L figuring out that there were “explosives in a ring around the stadium and it’s going to trap all the officers inside” was a bit of a stretch.
Also I don’t think the post-Bane world is “fake” exactly. But it sure didn’t feel very realistic or lived in. There was nobody around. No one. Except Gordon and a bunch of people so CLEARLY up to no good. These trucks just drive around randomly for absolutely no purpose and do nothing to anybody. I feel like it should’ve been a lot more like the Polish ghettos in WWII or something.
Basically it comes down to this for me (and then I’m done until the Cinecast): I liked the movie as a whole because I was entertained. But there was not one thing in this movie that really wow’d me or got me excited. All of these hundreds of nitpicks do add up to just not very good storytelling or just trying to tackle too much. It felt like there were things trying to be said but weren’t said very well. There was nothing in here that was really new or refreshing. All in all it just adds up to nothing special in my mind. Maybe a rewatch will fix all this, but honestly, I can’t really see myself ever feeling the need to watch this movie ever again.
I think they’re serious about it. Peter Sciretta (@slashfilm), Brandon Lee Tenney (@Brotodeau) and Alex Billington (@firstshowing), among others, are having a pretty epic discussion of the post right now on Twitter.
SPOILERS
The 2 that stuck out for me while watching it was:
“Why Wouldn’t the SEC Just Overturn Bane’s Fraudulent Trades”
I’ve done development work for a stock trading company, so I know how much every little bit it traced. This I chalk up to being one of those things where anytime you know enough about something and it is used in a Hollywood movie, you can see fakeness of it and how they have no idea what they are talking about.
Also I know that you don’t exactly need finger prints to make trades. User name and password is generally enough. Perhaps someone like Bruce Wayne might have a security token with changing digits that need to be imputed. If Bane or the other villains stole his password and security token, then it would be much harder for Bruce Wayne to prove his innocence rather than than Bane killing people on the trading floor.
While it bugged me, it’s impossible to get away from these kind of things in tv and movies when you know too much about any one subject.
“The Post-Bane Gotham Feels Totally Fake”
This is a bit more than nitpicking, the tone of the last 3rd of the movie feels very cartoonish. Especially later on with the police running down the street and the gang of criminals with automatic weapons are unable to hit but one or two of them aiming more at the street and sidewalk. It might have worked better in say a Schumacher Batman movie, but when Nolan works so hard to make everything feel realistic, it feels so very off.
Anyways, enough bitching and complaining from me about a movie that I have problems with. Normally, I would never spend so much time talking/typing about a movie that I have this many issues about. Especially with other people liking it, just let them enjoy it and move on (like say the Star Wars prequel). I guess that unlike Star Wars prequels or even Indiana Jones 4, I was expecting so much more from this movie and Christopher Nolan.
I’m pretty sure a lot of my enjoyment of the movie is that I’m really not a big fan of The Dark Knight. I liked it pretty well in theatres, but every viewing since then I’ve liked it less, and I was pretty bored/frustrated rewatching it Friday night before going to see DKR on Saturday. So I guess I didn’t expect that much from the movie, and I was pleased with what I got.
these nitpicks are really the tip of the iceberg, to go into spoilers here… so much of what happens in the prison doesn’t make sense, you have the Liam Neeson hallucination that informs Bruce of information he would not know, you have months of sitting around in a prison with people who knew Bane and knew this “child” but never once did a conversation happen where the sex of the child came up, and maybe try and correct Bruce in his theories. How do you talk about it for months completely avoiding pronouns? And if the idea is everyone in the prison are sworn to secrecy, and we are told this is the worst place to exist, worse than death, than what really do they have to lose in telling?
This is pretty great from a while ago but still required reading in light of the events:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/09/us/they-threaten-seethe-and-unhinge-then-kill-in-quantity.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
http://www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/pirating-movies-saves-lives/
The world is a wonderful place, and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part.
and if you weren’t entirely sure, the people on their Facebook page offended by this shirt are being attacked as PC tree-hugging hippies.
That is seriously messed up.
Crap like this isn’t even worth paying attention to. They do it so people will pay it attention and complain. Don’t give ‘em the satisfaction.
The rest of their shirts are pretty stupid too. Not even offensive, just dumb. There are one or two that are kind of funny. But what’s even funnier, is I can picture EXACTLY what the clowns that run that site and create those shirts look like.
Sort of relevant: this is the best shirt I ever got. Lots of photo ops and conversations started with this shirt.
I absolutely agree that DKR and Watchman are forward thinking. I think they had their finger on the pulse of times and the times were tumultuous. Reagan, Thatcher, the last breaths of the Cold War, and HIV were all present.
I would say DKR and Watchman have hopeful aspects. Batman feeling reinvigorated and training kids at the end of DKR. Silk Spectre and Nite Owl finding meaning in their lives together. The beautiful prose about the miracle of life with Dr. Manhattan.
But there is a lot of dark parts to the stories as well. In DKR Batman kills or incapacitates the mutant leader by suffocating his face in mud. Superman is blown up by an A-bomb and is kicked in the face by Batman’s spiked boots. In Watchman Rorschach is brutally violent. Ozymandias kills a large part of a city. The Comedian, who wears the ironic symbol of the story, is a serial rapist.
So while yes there are some hopeful pieces in there, I think Moore and Miller forever changed mainstream comics to include darker subject matter. It is now more acceptable to include sex, physical and sexual violence in mainstream comics as a result of the success of these books.
I view Nolans movies as existing in a more real and threatening world. A world that has been in part introduced to comics by the books above. Nolan realized his vision very well.
Its not the stylized vision that Burton portrayed. Or the campy delightful version of the 60s. Or the colorful rogues gallery of the Long Halloween or TAS.
Nolan has made his films reflective of the time they were made in and they resonate with people.
While I like and respect Nolan’s Batman, I happen prefer other versions of Batman. Like Ang Lee’s Hulk, I feel Nolan’s Batman is too serious and too grounded for me.
For the upcoming Mamo, can you guys talk about the future of Batman and DC films?
More Batman! We did a second show on The Dark Knight Rises to discuss the legacy of the trilogy, the Man of Steel trailer, and the future of the franchise:
http://www.rowthree.com/2012/07/25/mamo-263-up-up-and-away/
I’m posting this just to see if it pushes Goon over the edge, and because 3-D printers really do borderline on magical for me. But yeah, guy has built both a working handgun and an assault rifle with his 3-D printer.
https://bpb.opendns.com/a/www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-07/working-assault-rifle-made-3-d-printer
I think the link you meant was this:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-07/working-assault-rifle-made-3-d-printer?wc=EWJvHQ1mDRpfAhJuBA0D
Meanwhile, damn, I had no idea that 3D printers were good enough already to print weapons. However, there seems to be some metal parts in that picture. Did he have some metal pieces and only printed the casing to it? No matter, this really blows me away.
Jerky questions list (Again, I like the movie, this is just for shits and gigs)
Why don’t they call in the National Guard instead of sending 3000 cops underground?
When those cops are underground, if Bane and his goons are going to feed the cops by lowering supplies, why aren’t they also collecting guns in exchange for keeping them alive? it would have worked, and without the cops being (somewhat) armed at the end Bane’s plan probably ends up working.
Batman knows exactly how many hours he has left. Less than a day. So why does he spend all that time setting up a Bat signal in fire that hinges upon Gordon being captured and stumbling upon a flare? In one of the following scenes, Batman says there are 45 minutes left to resolve everything. I think you can let the ego-stroking flare fireworks show go when everyone’s about to die, Batman.
How low is the president’s approval rating for letting a major city be overtaken by terrorists for 6 months? Even if he can’t do anything, he’d be fucked… and possibly pushed to send some Seal Team 6 kinda people in there at some point, yes?
Any Libertopians or wannabe anarchists possibly sneaking into Gotham?
Speaking of which, how the fuck does Batman get back into Gotham with all the bridges and tunnels out and Bane’s goons guarding everything? How does Bane leave and get back? Is there any Air Traffic Control outside of Gotham that would notice a single plane leaving a city just hit by terrorism from within that small urban area?
Does Batman not get to know anyone in the prison enough to want to help them out after he escapes? Goodbye, good luck? “I don’t remember saying good luck.”
Catwoman, you really backflip out of someone’s window while wearing high heels? How does that work out for you, exactly?
In all those months where everyone knows there’s a neutron bomb, only now does someone try to cross the forbidden bridge? It seems like the cops were very quick to blow it up over a small attempt to cross. This didn’t happen yet?
Speaking of which, if everyone knows there’s only minutes to spare, the cops there haven’t abandoned their post to save their lives, or given up attempting to stop people?
How bad is the media in Gotham that they still can’t keep their cameras on Batman’s toys to follow him home? how has nobody taken stock of who can afford all this shit and started pointing fingers?
How does Bane know where the artillery room and the reactor/neutron bomb is? We see Tate being shown some secret areas at one point and she’s in cahoots, but Bane picked up the key dude to arm that bomb a lot earlier than that? I am confuse.
Okay I may as well indulge your insanity a bit.
1. Calling in the National Guard shows weakness as a native of the GTA you should be aware of this.
2. Bane explains it in his hole I will poison them with the false sense of hope.
3. Because he is BATMAN
4. Probably plummeting
5. Probably but we don’t see the whole city during that.
6. He is BATMAN
7. He does kick the rope off the side at the top.
8. Pretty well it looks like.
9. Because people were told for that time that the bomb wouldn’t go off because of the trigger man as long as everyone stayed in the city. Mass people didn’t know about that hoax till right at the end.
10. Keeping Bane’s mob occupied is probably better for the other citizens in the long run.
11. He is BATMAN
12. 1. Bruce funds / builds device for Tate 2. Russian guy writes paper about possible problems with it. 3. Bane fakes his death. 4. Bane forces Bruce into a corner so he will show Tate the device to keep the much more outwardly diabolical looking Daggard from getting it. 5. Talia knows where it is so she has obviously by that point told Bane.
re: #7 – that’s one I do not get.
After thinking about it, I think the rope is just the one that was tied around his waist and he kicked it back down the hole after he untied it from himself.
But while watching the movie, I thought it was just a random coiled up rope at the top of the well for God knows why, and he threw it down so everyone could climb out – but that doesn’t make much sense.
Still, the sequence itself is baffling. Why show it at all? It felt like a humor gag but I don’t know why it’s funny. There are all sorts of this, weird, “why the hell was that in there?” moments all throughout this train wreck.
It’s not the rope tied around his waist, it’s the rope that they use to lower prisoners into the prison.
Throwing the rope back down was symbolic (plus probably the right thing to do since the prisoners were all Bane’s captives). Bane said he wanted to give Gotham false hope just like the ray of light gives the prisoners false hope, and Batman’s rise saves both sets of prisoners.
So this rope sits atop the hole in the middle of the desert? It’s never fallen in by the wind? It’s a total Bond villain thing to do. I’m going to leave you all here to rot and die, but I’m going to leave you all alone with this rope dangling from the top of the hole and bunch of protrusions that you may or may not be able to climb out of.
Again, the entire prison sequence should’ve been done away with.
It’s a metaphor.
Are you aware how heavy coiled rope can be?
The rope is a metaphor? Or the heaviness of the rope is a metaphor?
The Heaviness of Rope would make a fine Oprah book club selection.
The prison sequence is a metaphorical representation of Wayne’s redemption and return of his soul. Cutting it out is basically cutting out the moral of the story.
I know you don’t listen to the show Matt, but my complaint isn’t that the theme or exposition shouldn’t happen or that all of the revelations and “really complicated metaphors” should be done away with. My complaint is that I don’t like how it’s done. I think the prison is boring and stupid. The rest of my feelings on the location/exposition choice for that sequence is in audio form over on the Cinecast.
Exactly. Descent into hell – like so many characters in myths and religions around the world. I can understand not liking the prison sequence, but doing away with it wouldn’t make sense.
You need some way for Bruce to recover both spiritually and physically – which is what happens in the prison.
I’m not going to explain it all again. My thoughts on the subject are in the other thread.
There’s a fine line between “the moral of the story” and a hackneyed location to dish out exposition from characters of whom we know nothing and couldn’t care less about.
In terms you can understand Andrew: It would be like Rocky not going to Siberia (or wherever) to train in Rocky 4.
Is it east vs west, or is it man against man?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZA6mvMXxBQ&feature=fvwrel
I still love that fucking movie!!
Hey I love Rock IV. But if you’re comparing Bruce Wayne going to prison in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises to the simplicity of Rocky training in the snow, then I rest my case.
It’s MAN vs. MACHINE!
“He is like a piece of iron.”
Wow that montage goes on a lot longer than I remember and the analogies are hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL3lJfpenAc
Your claims in the other thread are wrong. It isn’t merely an attempt to remove Batman and interject exposition, it houses the theme of the film and the entire trilogy. The redemption of Wayne, and his realization of his happiness without Batman is what the whole trilogy is driving too. Dropping it is cutting out the heart of the entire endeavor.
I’m with Jericho, if their is a complaint on it it is that it should be extended, as it really is the defining moment of Wayne as it is the pinnacle moment of his character arc. It is plenty deserving of being showcased.
*there. *to.
And as I said I agree. It should be extended. It would make it seem a lot less simplistic and lazy.
At least Bane’s prison had a really good chiropractor to help Bruce with his messed up spine.
No cartilage in his knees anymore, no problem! He doesn’t need the device on his leg to help him anymore, he can make it with sheer will power.
It can’t be the one tied around his waist – he didn’t have it tied around his waist when he got out, because he didn’t use the rope.
And also, why not kick it down to the other prisoners? It’s Bane’s prison, why would anybody in there be there for a good reason? They’re probably all down there because they’ve crossed Bane in some way, and Bruce probably wouldn’t see any need to keep them down there; in fact, he’d probably consider helping them out the best thing to do.
Also, what Jericho said while I was busy typing. :p