Two Simple questions though, how many of these faults did you really notice at the time, and not 3 years later when some journo dissects it?

And in the unlikely event you did notice them, how did they spoil the film for you?

If you can't answer these points your evidence is irrelevant and mine, and Jeremy's point, stands.

This as f*ck all to do with intellectualism and everything to do with trying to hitch a ride on another man's career.

If you're asking if people were spotting each specific blunder during the first sitting, I strongly doubt that. It's not something you can fully dig into unless you do the sort of shot-by-shot analysis that takes place in the video.

If you're asking if people noticed the cluttered and unwieldy feel of the visuals, of course people were noticing. People were noticing it way back in Batman Begins. I realize you haven't been here for very long and might not know, but many of the users here have been raising their misgivings about these movies on this site over these past few years.

Speaking only for myself, they did not spoil the film, because in the final analysis, I still liked it. On balance, the good qualities outweigh the flaws. But, being a Batman fan going in, I did see it multiple times, and I liked it significantly less each time. That initial excitement--part zeitgeist, I'm sure--faded quickly, and those slipshod elements in the craftsmanship stood out more and more. The Dark Knight depreciated greatly. I have not made any return visits since its theatrical run and I don't feel any compelling urge to do so.

You seem to have low expectations of everyone here. I will be charitable and not point out that this makes you look like a giant asshole.

Well, thank you for not pointing that out, Kenneth. How can I ever repay your charity?

I absolutely was not speaking in absolutes.

I wanted him to defend his postion, not simply state over and over again that he didn't care and dress it up with words like "values" and "significance". I want to know why technical mistakes don't matter. That's real discussion and something worth digging into. Saying "I don't care about that" or "it doesn't really bother me" doesn't lend itself to much of anything. How can someone respond? Either ask why or just say "ok" and move on. I was attempting to point that out. I guess it qualifies as a defense of his position, but I personally don't put much stock in what someone thinks if, when pressed, the best they can come up with is "it just doesn't bother me". They might as well be saying, "leave me alone now, I don't want to discuss this."



I don't think that's true in the slightest. Technical flaws are a part of the movie just as technical prowess is a part of the movie. If technical mastery is important, which I don't think anyone is willing to argue against, then technical flaws are important. It isn't a one-way street. If you can praise a director for a well shot or planned out a scene, which happens all the time, then you can criticize a director for doing the opposite. It's a part of criticism that's equally as important as things like plot and character development. The problem is many people don't know much about the technical aspects of filmmaking, so plot and characters are discussed more frequently. People see it as nitpicking, when it's an essential part of the filmmaking process. The technical aspects of a film are what makes film, film. The importance of how a film is presented cannot be overstated.



My initial reaction to those scenes was something along the lines of, "wow, that's shot really weird." So, yes, I think it's fair to say I noticed something. Did I necessarily break it down, shot-by-shot? No. I didn't. I've seen the movie probably 5 times (a whopping 4 times theatrically). I really like it. That said, I recognize it's faults. Personally, when I watch movies, I can't take everything in one one viewing. I usually appreciate it on a story/character level on an initial viewing, a thematic level on a second, and a technical level on subsequent viewings. That's an oversimplification because those things overlap in different viewings, but if I see a movie 3 times, I think I have a pretty good feel for what it did right and what it did wrong. Nolan's film has faults technically. Some would argue it has faults in it's plot. I still really enjoy the movie.



Instead of trying to "defeat" my opinion, why not actually read it and try to understand what I'm saying?

I'll say it again since you apparently missed it. What I see as anti-intellectual is coming in to a thread, stating you don't care about something (or stating any opinion, really), not being open to discussing why you don't care about it (or why you have that opinion), and simply stating over and over again that you don't care, albeit with different words. You and Jeremy seem intent on maintaining a hardline stance that you do not care about technical mistakes. You can think that, it's a perfectly valid thing to think. I disagree and would like to know why you think that. Getting offended that someone is pressing you to defend the opinion you willingly served up seems a tad reactionary and silly, no?

I'm not in the slightest bit offended by anyone, so that was a bit of an odd thing to say. And it's not that I don't care, I just question the validity of criticism when it points to things that most people would admit to never having noticed. To watch another man go through a film bit-by-bit, piece-by-piece 3 years after its release and then turn your opinion around on what he has said on the basis of acute observations about admittedly careless, but still largely inconsequential, errors seems....well.....twatty in my view. But then again I'm not American (JOKE

If someone wants to pick the plot holes then, hey, I'm all for it!!

I think this argument is getting silly, so I have nothing more to add.

Peace!!

Who's turned their opinion around? I sure haven't. I thought the film had technical flaws before I saw any of the videos posted in this thread, and I still think that. I greatly enjoyed the film before the existence of this thread, and my guess is I'd still greatly enjoy it if I watched it this evening.

What I see as twatty is being presented with factual evidence and deciding to attack those who bring the evidence to you instead of the evidence itself. Emerson, MGames, and Ken have all gone to great lengths to explain exactly what they see as mistakes in the film, and they've explained why they think that way. Phil and Ed have gone to great lengths to defend their opposite takes with equally well reasoned and thought out responses. There's been some good discussion with people going back and forth as to why they think what they think. Your defense of your stance? The points made are inconsequential/don't matter and the people bringing up those points are being twatty. I mean, you haven't really defended your position other than to lob insults to insist that the facts being presented to you don't matter. Can you see how this is a lame way to defend your opinion?

You seem to be stuck on people changing their opinion on a film (which, 1. didn't happen aside from possibly MGames and 2. is a perfectly valid thing to do anyway) rather than looking at what is being presented to you. I guess it's easy to write the facts off as inconsequential when you discredit the messenger. I don't know. I find it a bit odd.

The Dark Knight and Green Lantern are recent contemporaries in the same genre. Yngwie and Mozart, apart from being completely concerned with different elements of music (composition as opposed to essentially high-end 'noodling'), lived in different time periods and Mozart, to put it mildly, had wildly impressive musical ability and theory, so it's fair to postulate that he would be able to ring quite some music out of the electric guitar, even just compositionally. The Dark Knight is almost universally praised as classic, and definitely the token choice for best super hero film; The Green Lantern will have to strive to reach 'footnote' status. If you compared Mozart with a recent like Steinman, or better yet, tried to compare him in terms of quality to his ill-fated contemporary Salieri and deduced that people should not be dismissed out of hand for trumpeting the compositonal qualities of the latter, then I see your point. As is, it's kind of just a random barb.





I completely agree. My posts are always very well reasoned. Especially the ones about James B's visual similarities to the evil Lord of the Rings mouse. Masterpieces of logical analysis. Sheryl would agree, too.


P.S. Do people want to continue this thread or lock it in a page or two? I see value if this is the end-game for those who disagree on Nolan and TDK, but this thread has otherwise gone off the rails. I wouldn't blame anyone for being confused about the objective of the thread if they started reading anywhere past page one. Just an honest question.

Insanity: Repeating the same action over and over and expecting different results.

Some people just can't be moved, no matter how many different ways something is explained. We can drive ourselves crazy trying.

That said, I find this thread to be very informative, even if some of the information doesn't change my overall view of the film. I admit to thinking at first that a lot of the hatred for this film, and Nolan films in general, was due to their critical and commercial success. Maybe some of it is. I figured that how could so many critics, many of whom are well versed in cinema and understand the technical aspects of film making, be so wrong? I now have to admit to some of the serious flaws with Nolan's work.

I have considered myself a film buff, but I now think I may be no more than a fan boy. I love movies, I love (well made) blockbusters and I love (well made) Indie's and foreign films. I love great dialog and cinematography, although the technical aspects of cinematography are unknown to me, I just know some shots "look good" and some look bad or plain.

I do think sometimes there are attacks on those of us who don't have the knowledge of film that others do. That our opinions are unequal. I've hated stupid commercial blockbusters, but I've enjoyed some of them too. I've loved some indie and foreign films, and thought some were pretentious or just boring. I don't think that my opinion is lesser, but I guess I'm asking: is it?

I've liked Nolan since seeing Memento. I enjoyed The Prestige, both Batman films, and Inception (eek!). I went back and watched Following. I look forward to his films. With so many blockbusters that are beyond stupid, shouldn't his films be a success for being blockbusters, but with some sort of a brain? I enjoy talking about the themes of his films and arguing one way or the other. Some have pointed to flaws in the theme itself, the presentation of the theme, to Nolan being a pretentious hack, and now to very clear proof of his lack of technical prowess or just laziness. Is this that much different to most films that come out? Is the pointing out of these flaws because of the flaws, or because so many loved the film? I felt the film was tense and it made me think. I still enjoy watching it, although I wouldn't say I don't care about the flaws that have been pointed out.

I feel like my head is going to explode going back and forth about this. I keep coming back to the fact that I love Nolan's movies. Maybe I'm crazy.

Thoughts?

Okay. You're position here is technically a straw man argument (I never said, or meant to imply, that all technical errors are irrelevant, or that the technical elements are irrelevant in general).

Also, you seem to imply because I have an opinion on the matter being discussed (and also wished to point out Ken's flawed reasoning in asserting that it is anti-intellectual to dismiss evidence as irrelevant) that in general, that I should keep my mouth shut. Your reason being due to the fact that I indeed found the evidence under discussion (technical errors in TDK) to be irrelevant due to apathy towards said evidence on my part. Is that what you are saying? That I can't express an opinion if I am apathetic to the evidence (but just so we're clear, not the whole issue) being discussed?

Other then that, I'm not sure what I have to defend.
-Jeremy

How so? A straw man argument is proving something wrong that is a misrepresentation of the original point. You've maintained throughout that you do not care about the technical mistakes in The Dark Knight. I'm trying to get you to explain why you don't care about them. Maybe I should have explicitly said "I want to know why technical mistakes in TDK don't matter", but I figured since that is what we've been discussing, and that is what the purpose of this thread is, it could be inferred. I'll tell you what a straw man is:



I'm not telling you to keep your mouth shut, at all. In fact, I want you to do the exact opposite - explain why the mistakes in the film don't matter. I've stated, repeatedly, that I don't have an inherent issue with the stance you've taken, I just want to know why you've taken it. Your reasoning of being apathetic towards the evidence is essentially a dressed up way of saying, "I just don't care." That's a lame defense, if you can even consider it a defense at all. Saying you don't care about something isn't a reason for not caring about it. It's just saying you don't care about it.

"Do you like oranges?"
"I don't care about oranges."
"Why don't you like oranges?"
"I don't care about oranges."

Does that make any more sense?

Ken:

What do you mean Clapton can't shred. He is considered one of the great musicians of the 20th century, and I believe he is the only person inducted into the Roak n' Roll hall of fame 3 different times. Clapton is in company with the likes of Page, Jeff Beck, SRV, Buddy Guy, Ry Cooder: all serious shredders. Watch Clapton cut loose on a 5 mi blues riff and tell me that's not soul shredding.

I would much rather take an accomplished expert's opinion such as Cameron's, then someone who has never been behind a camera. There is nothing about filming a movie that Cameron doesn't know about. If he says a film is technically well made, well then I would say it's well made.

You can like something in spite of its flaws you know. Inception is probably my favourite film of 2010 but I recognise some of the film's problems such as the way the action scenes in the snow were shot.

I'm still not 100% convinced about TDK. The disappearing car is a problem, but the entire film (and especially the scenes that piece is built around) are about the Joker and chaos. There's a lot of misdirection from the character so that he can be successful in carrying out his convoluted plan. I've not ruled out the probability that some of Nolan's cutting here is intentionally unconventional to confuse his audience just like the Joker is confusing his.

And, even if it's a mistake, I'd argue that Nolan's only technical weaknesses are in his direction of action set pieces. I still consider him a technique man. Check out those stills I posted on page 2. Or, better yet, read David Bordwell. I enjoy and read Emerson too, but Bordwell is a better writer and more knowledgeable about film.

Well at least I am learning that some (or most) of the old continuity rules still apply. I grew up with car chases and action scenes in general which were carefully planned and rather easy to follow. By today's standards the pace is too slow and many elements are so predictable that it is hard to sit through some action movies which are older than, say, 25 years.
I witnessed the speeding up of pace and - in good flicks - a better sense of real danger. I always thought this comes with the price of getting confused in places, especially when one grew up with a very different film language.
I still would love getting my hands on a book - or DVD set - with an in-depth analysis of today's action movie styles and what is considered "correct", "acceptable" and which rules have been broken sucessfully, etc. I will check it out some time. I still believe that rules of continuity change when editing is faster. One thing is what IS in the frame - another thing is what we think and feel what is in the frame. Because everything is influenced by what came before and (then by memory and comparing) what comes after. The exact same way we hear a melody with the timbric, harmonic and rhythmic texture that goes along with it.

I am a firm believer in rules and craftsmanship, and of course I would like to know which rules apply and why. I tried but I never found out by guessing or just using "common sense".
The shot-by-shot deconstruction of that particular sequence of TDK convinced me that there are some glaring errors. When I first saw the movie (I repeat I never though this was a masterpiece) I most likely was confused during many sequences and tried to re-construct what had happened after the fact - or accept the "succesful heist movie rule, Ocean's 11/12/13 - style, where everything depends on split second timing and everybody hitting their marks (to quote Ebert)".

I still would like to have some standard reference (if such a thing exists) to measure how badly Nolan really messed up in places.

Actually to me it feels more like:

Why do you like orange juice with extra pulp? It's anti-intellectual to claim that the pulp is irrelevant. After all, there is plenty of evidence that objectively shows that adding pulp to orange juice is bad because it creates an unpleasant texture.

Me: But I like orange juice with pulp because it tastes good and the pulp never bothered me.

But it has pulp! We have irrefutable evidence that this orange juice has pulp!

Me: I know it has pulp. I'm not denying it has pulp. The pulp just does not constitute a sufficient annoyance for me to not like orange juice with pulp.

But that's like saying that the texture of food does not matter.

Me: But I never said that texture never mattered, just that the pulp in orange juice never bothered me. There are plenty of other foods I dislike because of their textures. Raw peppers for instance.

Explain yourself in more depth.

Me: Errr... I don't mind pulp? Why do I have to explain why I don't notice or care if orange juice has pulp? I never noticed in the first place. Now you're telling me that due to irrefutable evidence that there is pulp in my beloved orange juice, that there is something objectively wrong with it, but yet it still tastes the same to me. I don't mind that others dislike orange juice with pulp, but I still do, and I felt like saying so.
-Jeremy

To further address Cook's post about Cameron: When someone who is not a film critic criticizes someone for not having the necessary credentials to review film, I find it at least mildly amusing. All I know is, if James Cameron ever gave me advice or feedback on one of my films, I would personally be quite attentive of this and study it. It's more than a little arrogant to claim that directors have no insight into the creation of great cinema. There are FAR more factors to creating cinema, I'm supposing, than simply having attended a film class or loving cinema. I think very few people actually consider how difficult it must be for Nolan to even pull off the films he does and to corral the consistent support of consistently acclaimed casts. He may not have a great film outside of Memento, but I have a feeling being a successful director requires some sociological and motivational strengths that aren't necessarily present in every person who can hold a camera. It's like when you visit an NFL training facility and realize; that back-up punter who makes $850,000 a year is literally better than almost 95% of the world who do what he does. I think that people occasionally, while rushing to criticize Nolan for obvious mistakes, can develop a skewed appreciation for the nuts and bolts of cinema. And, although I'm aware that a director's work ethic does NOT have to factor into the viewer's experience when viewing a film, it seems highly unlikely that someone could label Nolan a hack and 'lazy' with any actual authority. Calling him 'lazy' to me implicitly states that he is lacking in relation to his contemporaries in terms of attention to product quality, which seems suspect to say the least, and that his duties could be fulfilled by the person presenting the argument. I'm not saying criticism should be disallowed to anyone who has not made their field of criticism their avocation (like, say, Truffaut), but certainly when discussing a director's credibility there is much more than personal reaction to his films to create a notable judgment.

James Cameron's comments, which come from a director who has an excellent reputation in Hollywood that simultaneously juggles both critical and box office success, are absolutely relevant. Cameron displays a firm grasp of the craft of film, so why does he not inherently hold some greater intuition about the film process? Saying otherwise would seem to imply that his string of success has been a sustained accident devoid of any film-making insight - which, all in all, is pretty silly. It takes a leap of profound arrogance to claim that because he is not a critic that his opinions are not significant, or telling. Perhaps the main revelation is that while criticism is a democratic act with no solid limitations, nevertheless people who would say that Cameron has no credibility when discussing film are committing the critical sin of 'don't tell, show'. I get alot of what you're saying, Cook, but is it not a rational step in criticism to ideally to try your hand at film-making and/or to involve yourself with the cinematic process? Maybe film critics should write screenplays that turn into successful films, or better yet, direct them; there's certainly no precedent to state that it is impossible, or even uncommon in certain instances. I would say that is equally as open-minded, and revealing, as any flirtation with revision and film study. Otherwise, maybe criticism doesn't deserve a respected perch in society. Just ask Andrew Sarris.

I think you're really twisting my words and meaning here quite a bit. I've simply asked you to provide a reason for your opinion in the spirit of discussion. Backing up an opinion with reasoning is a pretty standard thing in life, and especially so on an internet forum of people spouting opinions all over the place. It's far from an unreasonable request, especially so considering you voluntarily offered up that opinion. That means it's fair to question. You can twist and turn that into whatever debate you'd like. All I'm asking is why do the technical errors in TDK not matter to you? If you aren't willing to answer that question, or if your answer is "because they don't", then there's really no point in going any further.

I didn't say he can't play. I said he can't shred. Shred is almost universally defined as very fast, technically adroit, often classically-tinged lead guitar playing. Jeff Beck, I could see being a progenitor of shred (particularly some of the faster passages on Blow By Blow), but I'd point a little closer to Ritchie Blackmore, Al Di Meola, and maybe Frank Zappa. But Clapton as shredder is nonsense. As far as SRV goes, he is known for being one of the few well-remembered guitarists of his generation who wasn't a shredder.

Here's your problem: you would rather take the say-so of someone who is famous for knowing what he's talking about than evidence from some who demonstrates that he knows what he's talking about.

I'm not saying that Cameron couldn't explain why he thinks what he thinks, but in your quote, he doesn't.

@ Evenflow8112:

Your last post (sorry I didn't make it through the entire post) addresses, among other things, exactly what I wanted to say: I would love to hear the opinion of someone who actually is a true authority. Problem: since I am just a fan, I am unable to pinpoint who exactly that would be. I suppose top (and competing) directors are not exactly always unbiased in their opinion about each other's work....

EDIT: re: shredding: For me the greatest guitar shredder is (was) Pete Townshend. Didn't he always smash his guitar to shreds? Just kidding' - I gave it up long ago trying to find out who is the "best" in any field. But O.K. I play the kays, so I won't get in the way of people discussing guitarists....

You keep saying that I need to explain why. Okay, but I'm not sure how I can keep saying the same thing over and over.

The technical errors aren't noticable to me when I watch the film. Therefore, they do nothing to detract from the experience for me. I'm not saying they are not there, just that they don't overwhelm me to the point where it causes me to have a negative experience.

Other people, who place a higher value on film grammar, obviously are having a negative experience. Our differing values in what constitutes good film cause us to have different emotional reactions.

To me, this is what happens: A person sees a movie and has an emotional reaction. If the emotional reaction is positive the person will have a positive opinion of that film. If that reaction is negative then the person will rate the film low. And by positive or negative, I am not limiting myself like sad or happy, angry or depressed. For example, a person who gets angry at George Bush after watching Fahrenheit 9/11 would probably still rate Moore's film rather highly. A Bush supporter who gets angry at the film, would rate it lower. So much depends on the emotional reaction the film makers intend, although this is not an absolute either.

In any case, people afterwards try to justify that opinion using things like "it had good technique" or "the acting was powerful" or "i liked the story". Critics will probably use more detailed or esoteric reasons, such as "the cinematography created an oppressive atmosphere that furthered the sublime metaphors".

However, I would argue that the actual causes would have more to do with the initial emotional reactions, than with any of the more esoteric justifications given in a detailed review. This is not to invalidate the opinions of anyone, merely to point out that our intellectual reasoning are, from my observations, more often shadows to disguise our more primitive emotional reactions to a particular movie or work of art.

Movies use techniques to manipulate peoples emotions. Some are more able to manipulate more people's emotions then others. Bad techniques could be said to be those that are more noticeable because they are less likely to be effective. I will accept that objectively speaking, Nolan makes mistakes with regards to film grammar thereby making his technique more noticable, but whether or not TDK's techniques are "bad" is subjective to whether or not they work for an individual.
-Jeremy

They have stated that there are errors within certain action sequences that Kenneth more-or-less admitted to not noticing himself when he watched it. I haven't seen any evidence as to why these errors have compromised enjoyment for anyone. That is all.

What Ken, or yourself, did mention is that some of the scenes are muddled (or words to that effect) and to an extent I agree with this. It seems to be a legacy from the first film but not because of the reasons specified on this thread. More to do with the action sequences being shot in a way to preserve Batman's mystery in an attempt to decamp him from the 90s nightmares. This pisses some people off and they don't like the films for it. Although I do like the films I actually get that POV though. And means I agree to a small extent with GamesCook on that one, which is pretty scary.

But technical errors are technical errors. Even Pulp Fiction, if I remember correctly, has a couple of ridiculous such errors. But hey ho.

Sorry for being so offensive and contradicting conventional forum wisdom on this one. Now, can we all be friends again and play ball nicely!?