Of course. 9/11, the moon landing, and Pearl Harbor were all staged as well.

I've never heard of people saying Pearl Harbor was staged before, that's interesting. I don't necessarily believe any of that, but it is interesting to read these theories. Though you have to admit it is a bit strange that the shooter surrendered to police so quickly, you'd think with him being so heavily armed he would've tried to shoot it out with them.

I don't think his surrender should be expected to be any more logical than the rest of his crime was.

Sorry for being kinda (in fact really) off topic.

As many people, I did a lot of research and thinking regarding the above. Of course I can be wrong.

I think 9/11 was real. Perhaps not all of it happened exactly as the official version tells us, but these are details. I firmly believe that terrorists managed to run commercial airliners into the twin towers. Just like the horrible massacre of the 1972 olympic games in Munich really happened. Both events are about evil people spotting weak spots in the security system and use that knowledge to gain advantage.

I firmly believe that the moon landings were 100% real. I guess I know a thing or two about the Hasselblad stills photography cameras and the 16mm military film cameras used for all the official images and footage (to say nothing about video footage) - it all fits 100% IMHO.

Pearl Harbor: O.K. some say it was "let the enemy do damage to convince the Americans to join the UK during WWII" just like the sinking caused by a german U-Boat of the Lusitania during WWI. I think the truth is rather complex in these cases, but "staging" might not be the correct and true interpretation.

On topic: I don't believe that the Colorado shooting was staged. Why should it be? "Bowling for Colombine" anyone? Not to mention very similar recent events in Germany (2009) and Norway (2011).

Just my humble opinion on "hot" debatable topics.

Re. Pearl Harbor, at the risk of going off-topic: I believe the intelligence reports from that time period were revisited somewhat recently, mainly to investigate the claims that FDR knew it was coming and allowed it to happen. The verdict was that while the intelligence community knew the Japanese were up to something, the intel contained no actionable information. In other words, there was nothing to warn them of where or when the move against the United States would occur.

It's actually similar to the situation with the modern intelligence community and al-Qaeda's planning of 9/11.

Well, if you look back to the first page of this thread, I mentioned that I was afraid something might happen at noon on Tuesday. And I still can't honestly say that this isn't connected, on some level, to the death and rape threats Christy Lemiere and Marshall Fine received repeatedly earlier this week. I'm not saying this shooting is a direct result of that, but I don't think anyone can argue that violence wasn't already associated with The Dark Knight Rises before this horrible incident. Written proof exists in the comments section of rottentomatoes.

Nobody got threatened when The Avengers came out.

There's a difference between being an Internet tough guy and actually carrying out an act of violence. People make idiotic threats all the time on forums- check out YouTube or the IMDB if you want quick examples. Your comment from Tuesday also implied that any violence could be a result of the film even if indirectly. To me, that is pure horseshit even if the shooter were to come out and explicitly say that he was inspired by Nolan's Batman films (it was reported that he dyed his hair red and called himself "The Joker" when being arrested). The fact is, the shooter made the choice to kill, and any attempt to point the finger at a film made for the purpose of entertainment is simply an attempt to deflect responsibility.

We get it: you don't like Nolan's films.

Well I never thought I'd say that in the near future, but I agree with you 100%. My post above just states that (with different phrasing, but still in total agreement).

Good for a laugh (only about 2.5 minutes):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFYrrCWVqWo

I get it: you're a Nolan fan.

Neither statement is righter or wronger than the other, and from my point of view a deflection of responsibility is the exact opposite. Any attempt to say the film had nothing to do with what the guy did, and that he would have done it anyway, deflects from the complete truth about what he actually did, and ultimately, it over-simplifies what happened.

Calvero posted an article about Boyz n the Hood, which also provoked violence. So did A Clockwork Orange and The Warriors, to name a few, though of course nothing as bad as this. The Dark Knight Rises is exempt from comparisons to those incidents....why, because the perpetrator was crazier this time? He still dressed up like Bane, dropped gas like a Batman villain, and called himself the Joker. Those are hard facts, and you can't just shove them under the rug.

And just for the record: I didn't dislike this film. I consider it far superior to both The Dark Knight and The Avengers. Nolan showed much more humanism (with the Levitt character) this time than I had come to expect from him. Even so, the violence is excessive; Bane's brutality got audible cringes from my audience. I mean, if you really want to argue against the point I'm making, name another big movie recently that was as violent as the Dark Knight films.

What about The Last Temptation of Christ? It caused huge amounts of controversy on release. Banned in a number of countries, protests by Christian lobbies. A fundamentalist group launched Molotov cocktails inside a cinema leaving many severely burned. Horrible stuff that you could argue is much more related to the film than the whole Dark Knight Rises stuff. But it certainly didn't affect Scorsese's career. Hell, his next film was Goodfellas. Nolan will be fine, whatever he chooses to do next.

The fact is, people move on. Eventually a tragedy subsides and people get on with living. Aside from 9/11, as a whole we tend to have a short memory for these kinds of things. The Dark Knight Rises will be no more marked that any of the films you mentioned, especially since the text and subtext of the film are not particularly controversial. And how is it excessively violent for a PG-13 movie? It's intense sure, but it's action heavy, not violent. The Indiana Jones films, Lord of the Rings, Taken, Max Payne even The Dark Knight were far more violent than this.

And the rape/death threats are in no way specifically tied to The Dark Knight Rises. This has been going on for years. Welcome to the Internet. JB can attest that he's been getting abuse and threats for years. People do strange things under the guise of anonymity. Not trying to excuse it by any means, but this has become a culture deeply rooted in hate. And I fear there's nothing that can really be done about. The Internet is too big, too uncontrollable. But luckily, at least I hope, online behavior doesn't often transfer into real life.

Kick-Ass

Kick-Ass didn't do massive box-office numbers, especially compared to the Dark Knight movies. And I think he's referring to mainstream PG-13 movies.

You can make a case for The Dark Knight if you want (although I think it's ridiculous; psychos always find a way. Who knows, if he felt like it last year he may come into HP7.2 midnight premier, did the same thing (the wizard robe was even better for hiding stuff), and exclaimed "I'm Voldemort" or such thing), but to make the contents of TDKR related to the this event is kind of baffling. He prepared this way before the movie day, where his only exposure to the contents of the film was the promo. And when he came in he executed his plan (went out the door, propped it open, get stuff from his car, came back, etc.), so how could he be inspired by it?

This is what I would have said. Valid example though, very violent movie.



Movie violence can be defined in different ways. For a related, more controversial example, take Passion of the Christ. I haven't seen it, but I remember a lot of people said it was the most violent film they had ever seen. What I expect they meant was, the most graphic and brutal movie they had seen. Violence and brutality perpetuated against one man. Nolan's movies are never graphic, but the body count is always much higher than either of the Christ movies. That's one thing I really disliked about Inception. The violence itself was a cheat, since the gunmen were just figments of a dream. But they weren't stylized and neither was the gunplay, so they seemed pretty real to me.

I think body count is what really defines a violent movie, measured against the amount of violence per average minute or second or what have you. The most violent Bond movies are easily the Brosnans, of course. I've always disliked the Goldeneye scene where Xenia Onotopp machine guns everybody; Bond doesn't need that kind of violence. I'm less offended by the Quantum of Solace rape scene than I used to be, since it really does just last for a second. Still, I think that's another thing that just doesn't belong in Bond.

But honestly, forget the PG-13; I'm struggling to think of movies of any rating that feel more violent than Dark Knight. Lord of the Rings...you could make an argument. Indiana Jones, nah. Max Payne, yeah. Taken is violent; but the subject matter is very dark and not unrealistic. Taken 2 seems like it will deal less with the prostitution, more with a pulpy revenge plot; I expect it will be much less violent than the first, also going off the very non-violent Transporter 3, which is from the same director.

HP8 could have afforded a similar opportunity, which is again why I think these fan-based event movies are going to take a hit. But then, how much farther was this trend going to go anyway?



The promos.

So now a movie's promo, without the said movie's context, can help inspire people to kill? Nice.

MGamesF*ckWit -



This is the most pathetic and childish comment I've ever read on the internet in my entire life.

I seriously suggest you dump film, and film studies. You do not have the intellectual or emotional maturity to deal with any kind of artistic expression. You should start by living in the real world. Then when you hit puberty you should study a bit of history to begin with. You could start by reading about the scores of people who died fighting for the freedoms you piss in the face of with your implied call to some kind of totalitarian censorship of a director you don't like, just because his Lord of vapid, pseudo-intellectualism Armond White told you not to. Only a pre-pubecent child or mentally challenged adolescent could mistake the creating of a PG-13 Batman film with a someone taking a gun into a public arena and unloading it at the folk in there.

In short - GROW...THE....FUCK....UP!!

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

The best of the 3. This film did the business for me. Bane was a better, more menacing villain than the Joker in the last film. I was pleasantly surprised with Anne Hathaway who did a very good job as Kyle, providing an effective and empowering muse for Batman. The entire supporting cast were on form. Great to see Matthew Modine again. The plot had some poignant historic and cultural references. The comment early on that Gordon would be booted out of office because he was a great leader for times of war, but not times of peace was almost certainly a historical nod to Winston Churchill who was cannonised then dumped in this exact way, and for this exact reason.

I thought the film was very rousing. Bale has handled Batman throughout this series with real dignity. His Bruce Wayne is a believable wreck when this film begins. Crippled from his injuries. Emotionally stunted from his years in isolation. Without giving anything away, his character arc and rehabilitation are handled well.

For the ultimate proof of how good this film is look to the single reviewer you knew would give it a bad review regardless, Armond White. Because Armond can't really find anything bad to say about the film in any kind of specific way, he instead resorts to soundbites, stupid comparisons with Tim Burton's awfully misjudged Batman Returns, and implied accusations of nihilism...despite the fact that the entire series is about a handsome, wealthy billionaire who gives everything to help and save the less forunate. Doesn't sound very nihilistic to me! Perhaps he should by a dictionary.

This film, even for its few faults, ends the series in a brave, powerful and creative fashion. The best comic book film ever? Yes, undoubtedly! Better than the Dark Knight and even better than Batman Begins.

9/10

I may not agree with Cook's views on the situation, but resorting to childish name-calling dosen't makes you look any better, it just makes you sound petty and immature, and why did you bother bringing up Armond White? I think if anybody needs to grow up, it's you.

Oh and Batman paraphernelia was found in Holmes apartment, so Cook's views aren't entirely unfounded even if I don't agree with them.

So what? Corrolation does not imply causation. If Holmes was the world's biggest Spider-Man freak and went on a bender for that movie, or The Avengers, or The Smurfs, would we then blame those directors?

These themes are not new. Look at A Clockwork Orange; that was 40 years ago. People will continue to look for easy answers rather than a complex truth. We may never know what set this guy off. It would be a bit simplistic to say it was these movies. I would blame the movie only insofar as he was guarenteed a packed house when he decided to go ballistic.