This movie doesn't have any plot holes
I think that's just an excuse people give when they don't get it.
shareThe batsuit is knifeproof/bulletproof but a dog manages to bite through it.
shareThat was in the second film and he got bit in an area where the armor wasn't covering him.
shareIsn't the whole "teleportation" back to Gotham pretty hard to excuse as anything but a plothole? Also his back goes from being broken to fixed somehow.
shareBruce had a dislocated vertebrae, not necessarily a broken back. Prison Alfred popped it back into place and then Bruce had to sit in that sling for a while (notice how the amount of facial hair changed, he was in that sling at least for a matter of weeks).
When Bruce escaped the Bomb had 23 days until it went off, when Bruce showed up the Bomb went off in a day, it took him at least 3 weeks to get back to Gotham. Plus even before he received his LOS training he was able to travel from place to place without drawing any attention to himself. Being able to get back to Gotham is perfectly within his already established character.
So no those aren't plot holes.
Such an injury still would have really required delicate surgery to fix, not a sloppy chiropractic adjustment in jail.
shareConsidering you don’t know the severity of the injury you are in no position to make that claim
shareIt's not my claim. Here's an analysis of the scene in question, by an actual chiropractor:
http://www.vulture.com/2012/07/ask-a-doctor-is-batmans-healing-method-sound.html
And an orthopedic spine surgeon:
http://www.thegeektwins.com/2012/08/is-dark-knight-rises-broken-back.html
That's fine and if the scene is overexaggerted then that's fine with me as pretty much every action movie has similar overexaggerations. Again the point still stands that if you don't know the extent of his injury then you cannot claim that its impossible for him to recover. Again Prison Alfred popped the vertebrae back in and then he rested for weeks without moving the injury which is what you are supposed to do.
shareOkay then.
shareAlso several other action heroes such as Indiana Jones, James Bond, Rambo, Sarah Connor, Martin Riggs, John McClane, etc. seemed to receive quite a lot of battle damage and I don't recall anyone complaining about that.
Also did you have a problem with Batman and Rachel falling out of a 30 some story building, landing on a car and not having a single broken bone or scratch?
But that was The Dark Knight, a movie you can´t critisise, Returns on the other hand...
shareIt might not be a plot hole in the conventional sense (i.e. it contradicts the established logic of the movie) but it's literally a hole in the plot in that one minute he's in fuckknowswhereistan without two pebbles to his name and the next minute he's in Gotham, in the Batsuit, setting fire to giant flaming bat symbols like he had never been away.
It's more atrocious editing than anything. Yes, he's Batman, travelling the globe in a few weeks is no problem for him, but the way it was shot was laughable.
He wasn't in Gotham the next minute, it took him 22 days to get to Gotham, pay attention.
sharethe next minute *in the movie*. As I said: Bad Editing.
It's not bad editing, in one scene Fox says the Bomb goes off in 23 days and then when Bruce arrives he says "that bomb goes off tomorrow". Anyone can put the pieces together and figure out that it took Bruce a while to get back to Gotham and that the two scenes take place over 3 weeks apart.
Next time pay attention.
It's not about whether or not the information is made available to the viewer, it's *how* that information is conveyed and how the film flows. Remember the famous red dot scenes in Indiana Jones? That's a way of conveying Indy travelling great distances and the passage of time to the viewer. It's so simple but it works. Imagine instead that one minute Indy is in New York and the next he's in Cairo. Yes, we all know he *can* get there but if the film fails to convey a sense of how he gets there it can be jarring and take the audience out of the film. And that is just a scene of a guy travelling commercially, with money, not someone who's just crawled out of a hole in what is presumably hostile territory.
This sense of flow is a key part of the language of cinema and it's a mystery why Nolan (who's a great film maker) dropped the ball so badly here.
And here's a pro tip - if you're trying to change somebody's mind don't insult them with condescending bullshit like 'pay attention'. The scene isn't bad because I wasn't paying attention - it's bad because it's a terribly disjointed scene that fails at basic film making.
Oh very funny you should bring up Indiana Jones because I remember him mysteriously travelling clear across Europe with no money, supplies, or transportation while managing to not be seen by the Nazis who were on full alert to intercept him. And his journey took about a minute and a half of screen time.
Bad argument, try again.
That's exactly my point. You can convey that kind of thing in just a minute and a half of screen time. If you do it the right way. Like Indiana Jones. And not the wrong way. Like TDKR.
shareHow was it done the "right way" in Indiana Jones???
Scene 1: Indy and Henry are stranded without any food, money or transportation in enemy territory
Scene 2: Julian Glover bribes the Sultan of Hatay (about a minute and a half of screen time)
Scene 3: Indy and Henry have now made it clear across Europe and are with Sallah and there is no explanation as to how they escaped hostile territory or acquired the resources to get them to their destination which was over a thousand miles away. They didn't have cell phones back then so it's not like they called Sallah to come pick them up. There was also no "red line map travel" so you can't use that excuse.
How is that done the right way? Their journey is far less plausible and occurs much more quickly than it does in TDKR. If you're trying to troll just tell me and I'll laugh it off.
By the way TDKR is a LOT better than Last Crusade.
It's unclear where they get shot down. By the look of the terrain and the old man's clothes it's possibly either Greece or Turkey and Hatay is in Turkey... So they were already in neutral territory or in the neighbouring country. Plus we've already seen them make it so far... there's been the zepplin scene, the biplane and then the car... this is all a part of them making their way - in a dramatic fashion - to their destination.
If Nolan had directed the Last Crusade it would have cut from them being in Berlin straight to them being in Hatay.
The blimp began in Germany, they had one conversation that lasted maybe about 3 minutes and then the blimp turned around, they did not make it all the way to Greece, that would be a plot hole. Plus when the Blimp took off Vogol woke up and he would have immediately radioed for the blimp to turn around. Also if they didn’t get off the blimp in Germany like you I’m really going to need some kind of confirmation
Let's say that they did make it all the way to Greece all you did was just introduce another plot hole by your logic. They also somehow caught up to Julian Glover which would just be another plot hole. If you think that Bruce making it back to Gotham is a plot hole then go on the Last Crusade board and attack that film with the same enthusiasm and then I'll consider taking you seriously.
That is a FAR bigger problem than Bruce making it back to Gotham, as it was established that it took him over 3 weeks and it was also established in the first film that he is an expert of moving around the world without being noticed. In all honesty I think you are just looking for things to complain about which is really sad and pathetic. I'm guessing you were also a fan of the Mickey Mouse joke.
Let me break it down for you. Real simple.
Journey from Berlin to Hatay (1500 miles) as seen in TLC:
An exciting roller-coaster ride involving travel by airship, biplane, and car that lasts around 20 minutes. We see our hero's evade the enemy, we get the danger they are in, we see them take at least 3 different forms of travel and we know they've travelled a great distance.
Journey from fuckknowswhere but middle east/india by the looks of it to Gotham (6,000 + miles) as seen in TDKR
Nothing. Ingenting. Nada. Zip.
And seeing as you love quick travel so much presumably you'd have no problem with the 'Nolan' cut of TLJ in which the Jones's simply teleport from Berlin to Turkey? Well, just so long as one of them says:
"Phew, those 22 days that have just elapsed sure gave us a lot of time to travel across the globe."
?
LOL you think that Last Crusade was exciting??? Your standards are hilariously low. Last Crusade is one of the most painfully boring movie's I have ever seen. It's a damn shame because the first two are amazing.
Also you don't have a problem with a college professor and his 60 some year old father travelling 1500 miles in one day but you do have a problem with a master of theatricality and deception travelling 6000 miles in 23 days?
TDKR also is about what's going on in Gotham City, it's not about Bruce's tedious journey across Asia, the viewer didn't need to see it. A complaint about TDKR is that it's "too long" so you're telling me you'd want it to be even longer?
So which is it? Is it OK to just gloss over a hero making a long journey or isn't it? Because if it's a problem in TDKR it's a FAR BIGGER problem in Last Crusade. I'd be willing to just forgive the plot holes in Last Crusade if you'll do the same for TDKR. Come on, Last Crusade has far bigger problems than TDKR so I'm giving you a pretty good deal.
And PS - not sure why you're bothering to stealth edit your posts when they're bullshit both before and after.
shareIt's because I thought of other things to say, would you rather I just make each alteration in a separate post and flood this board? Plus I made the edits before you responded so your argument is nonsense.
shareAlso I only brought this up because you injected Indiana Jones into this discussion. You dug yourself this hole your stuck in, don't expect me to pull you out.
share