Yeah, some of these things might present themselves "if you slow the film down and really examine it" - but you don't watch entire movies like that. There will be countless films out there that break rules during quick edits - but the point is you don't notice them without slowing it right down and going over it with a fine tooth comb, and the almost nobody is going to bother doing that.
So really, what's the point? It's not some "dun dun duuuuuuuuuun!" moment of realisation, or discovering some Holy Grail secret, or finding a strange goofy moment (like Han Solo grabbing Leia's boob in Return of the Jedi, or a horse kicking an extra in the nuts during The Last Samurai, or that creepy kid from the end of Back To The Future 3) ... so I wonder what is the actual point in the video?
I've seen The Dark Knight several times, and not once would I ever call that sequence "incoherent" ... maybe it is when you slow it down and examine it with a microscope, but viewing a movie like that, and viewing a movie in real time as-is, are entirely different experiences and play in entirely different ways. It's kind of like when you're editing a video together and you've been through it so closely that you totally lose sight of what it's like to view it from beginning-to-end, in its finished form, from the perspective of someone who is viewing it as such for the very first time.
...
Alright, let's do some 'fisking' of this video... 
Some things about this video - the quotes seem a bit 'poncy' to me, particularly the quote from Martin Scorsese (as if a film he's made has never had an error of visual geography, or any kind of error, in it  ) - the way he says "a proper filmmaker" suggests that the guy has a beef with Nolan and doesn't consider him a proper filmmaker (which is just daft in and of itself).
Complaining about the interior of the van to begin with - clearly Dent and his guard on sitting on the sides of the van - when, you know, the friggin' benches to sit on are - they've not got their backs against the front or back of the rear cabin.
Then moaning about the inclusion of the sound drop prior to the truck (which comes into play in a big way later on - aka foreshadowing) is just silly - it's nothing more than personal preference over how the scene is cut, but the clear reason for that moment is foreshadowing. We know that a threat is coming, but it's a case of waiting for when and how it'll come.
A "POV" shot of looking at the flames - no, it doesn't have to be a POV shot, we just need to know that the car is passing by - the guy is looking at something (clearly fire as his face is being illuminated by the flames) - and then we cut to another view that shows what he was looking at, but it isn't necessary to actually do so from that man's POV. What's more, the chosen shot provides a better understanding - from ground level - of how the truck is blocking their route.
As for the close ups of police officers and the cars - yes, sure we don't know which man is in which car, but that is part problem and part excuse. We're not told which man is in which car - so really, does it actually matter? A man responding to the truck, and then a car getting picked off - then another car getting picked off - the support team is getting taken out in advance of the strike on the security truck. Simple.
The truck hitting the security vehicle - the only problem I have there is Dent's motion to being hit. Really he should have pitched to his side (his right side) rather than backwards ... the 180 degree rule doesn't particularly apply here ... if we were on the other side of the cab in the shot following Dent's bumpy ride, that would make no sense.
There's also an awful lot of personal - rather than technical - moaning going on. Derisive comments about 'expendable' policemen, the 'useless' SWAT van etc ... which are totally unnecessary to the supposed purpose of this video. These sort of arsey comments suggest he has a beef with the movie in general - or at the very least, as I've said, they're not needed at all in the video ... what's more, his complaints about 'expendable' policemen aren't exactly unique to The Dark Knight - in fact they're not unique to TDK, not in the slightest.
Yes - there is a problem with the SWAT van being hit on the very technical side of things. However, the viewing still totally understands what actually happened - i.e. the SWAT van was hit by a semi, and taken out of the game. Now, on a practical side - how would you get that van to launch into the river? You'd use a compressed air cannon or something like that - so you have to mount the van forward ... perhaps if the van had launched as if coming down the road towards the camera, that would solve one minor issue (that doesn't confuse the actual fact that the van was taken out by the semi anyway).
Yes - there are some cheats (as if Nolan is the first to do such a thing in 120 years of cinema) when the semi is driving on the opposite lane to the security truck, however, we've established that they're positioned as such, so we know who everyone is looking at, why they're looking, and where they're looking ... cheats in direction or not, we understand the action. It's unfair to complain about 'fast action' as you play the clip in fast-motion too. What's more, it's confirmed that yes - the entire time - Dent was on the same side of the van the entire time. Complaining that the interior of the van all looks the same is, generally speaking, a redundant point.
The Joker didn't "miss" the SWAT van - he wants to take out the cop car ahead of it - so he's got less force opposing him. How is that not blatantly obvious to this guy who made the video?
Yes, there is a slight problem with the Joker looking - far ahead - as it might make you think Batman is coming at Joker's truck. However, the distance is so far, you wouldn't notice if the Joker switched to looking at the other lane, which - at that distance - isn't far for your eyes to move.
The Tumbler blocking the RPG - the SWAT van can't be there as you need, practically speaking (as in for pulling off the stunt), enough space for the Tumbler to land ... and it could very well weave to it's right upon landing, thus it would hit a SWAT van that doesn't necessarily need to be there, causing unnecessary damage and no doubt lost production time - the action still makes sense, but it's nitpicking over that moment.
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. [click for more]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by bassman
Bookmarks