I really love the

"You are reading into the plot too much because you didn't read into the plot enough" argument though, I just wanted to repeat that.

It is a webdip classic up their with Ora's "A racial epithet could be interpreted as disrespectful, but I doubt it"

And it's impossible, I suppose, that the intervening injustices or perceived injustices would have changed their point of view, made them thirst for revenge, made them angry? It's impossible that sometimes bad guys DO act as, well, stock bad guys? I guess acting as a "complex human being" means acting as a GOOD human being, but acting the way you've always acted (i.e., as a bad guy) can't be part of being a "complex human being"?

To you, seeing murderers act with mercy seems right and like a true portrayal. Seeing murderers act as thugs seems unbelievable and a clear political hack job.

What about the Count of Monte Cristo? I suppose that Dumas is really showing a lack of subtlety in having a character who started out cool and normal end up a schemer bent only on murder and revenge?

Unfortunately, I forgot the most glaring lesson of arguing with my friend: when somebody is determined to take offense at perceived political slights in a film, there is no point arguing with him. Mea culpa.

"I really love the

"You are reading into the plot too much because you didn't read into the plot enough" argument though, I just wanted to repeat that. "

It's more, "You are reading into the plot too much because you're not paying attention to what's going on and are oversensitive as crap."

Does the fact that Nolan says the book was inspired by Tale of Two Cities and meant to be apolitical matter?

That doesn't happen in the movie Semck, it isn't alluded to, it isn't suggested. Prisoners are broken out of jail, nothing is implied in that scene about the dent act. You want to make shit up to portray me as paranoid, go ahead but it just isn't true. If I was oversensitive it would have bothered me, I have said several times it did not. What bothers me is you using this as an opportunity to portray me as oversensitive when I just wanted to have a discussion. I have attacked NO ONE this thread and admitted my mistake with the scarecrow business.

tale of two cities is apparent throughout, and tale of two cities had an unmistakable political message.

and again smart guy, if I am oversensitive why was I able to find 3 writers for respected news organizations who saw it as I did with one cursory google search?

Shockingly, I completely agree with Putin33 here. If it's against Occupy it's only in the sense that remaking society like that is too easily taken advantage of by people with completely different interests.

"To you, seeing murderers act with mercy seems right and like a true portrayal. Seeing murderers act as thugs seems unbelievable and a clear political hack job."

That is completely wrong. Honestly if you started a revolution, fake or not and broke genpop out onto the streets and gave them guns I think alot would follow whoever did so. It has nothing to do with believability, it has to do with the message.

I said in a previous thread that my one problem with the movie was that the cops didn't have beards when thye came out of the sewers after having lived there for months. But now I thought of another. Why was Morgan Freeman fine with building a nuclear reactor in secret that could easily be turned into a neutron bomb but not fine with using cell phones to catch the Joker? I know the answer is because the plot needs him to, but it bugs me.

"It has nothing to do with believability, it has to do with the message. "

Wait, so.... portraying human nature accurately now constitutes a slanted political message?

....

And that doesn't seem problematic to you?

"and again smart guy, if I am oversensitive why was I able to find 3 writers for respected news organizations who saw it as I did with one cursory google search?"

I guess they're oversensitive too?

To show I was paying attention to the movie unlike what some people think

1. The cops were dropped supplies by bane which could easily have included shaving supplies

2. The knowledge that the reactor could be used as a bomb was only discovered later when that Russian guy wrote the paper.

Nolan is a known hater of cell phones. One of the reasons why I like him.

"Wait, so.... portraying human nature accurately now constitutes a slanted political message?"

How the fuck is using prisoners as stock henchmen portraying human nature? Jesus Christ, you talked yourself into this whole human nature bull shit and now oyu are treating it as fact.

"I guess they're oversensitive too? "

Or its a valid point of view and you are just being an ass hole. Yet again an opinion AT LEAST as valid as yours.

It's still a nuclear reactor in the middle of Gotham in secret. As for the supplies, were there barbers too? Their hair looked well groomed too. Again, not a big deal but it bugs me.

one thing i don't understand is how the orphan kid figured out Wayne was batman from seeing him once but a very select few others could.

"Jesus Christ, you talked yourself into this whole human nature bull shit and now oyu are treating it as fact."

*sigh* I'm sorry, I must be misreading.

I could have sworn that you JUST SAID that you admitted that the prisoners' behavior was realistic. I mean, right here:

"Honestly if you started a revolution, fake or not and broke genpop out onto the streets and gave them guns I think alot would follow whoever did so. It has nothing to do with believability, it has to do with the message."

Is that not what you were saying?

"Yet again an opinion AT LEAST as valid as yours. "

An opinion is not at least as valid as mine just because some people managed to get it into print.

forget all that, why the fuck would you charge machine guns in formation, and why would the revolution give them the opportunity to walk up to stones throw distance before opening fire. nolan wasn't necessarily going for realism

Yeah, that part actually was really stupid.

SantaClausowitz, the prisoners were supposed to be the real dregs of society put in jail by the Dent Act. As in, the mafia types who met with Joker in the last movie. That's why they're treated as simple villains in the last movie. All they are are simple villains, rather than the run-of-the-mill criminals on the boat.

However, strategic realism and realism in overall human behavior and motivation are quite different things. I absolutely think he was going for realism in the latter.

"*sigh* I'm sorry, I must be misreading.

I could have sworn that you JUST SAID that you admitted that the prisoners' behavior was realistic. I mean, right here:"

*sigh* and I think both boats behavior in the second movie is unrealistic. I am not saying one is wrong and one is right, I am saying they are different, and when you make a movie you have the opportunity to make those decisions, and in these cases those decisions were made giving a very different message.

But keep on portraying me as some liberal bashing the movie I said I liked because of a paranoid need to see it as propaganda.

"An opinion is not at least as valid as mine just because some people managed to get it into print. "

An opinion in the guardian, telegraph and NY times systems is not seen as paranoid ramblings.

Sorry Semck, I may be wrong about the movie, which I admitted, now i think its time you admit you were wrong about me.

I doubt I'll see that though.

"SantaClausowitz, the prisoners were supposed to be the real dregs of society put in jail by the Dent Act. As in, the mafia types who met with Joker in the last movie. That's why they're treated as simple villains in the last movie. All they are are simple villains, rather than the run-of-the-mill criminals on the boat. "

WHERE DOE IT SAY THAT. The scene is a a bunch of prisoners running out of prison with guns, if someone can make the connection go ahead, I certainly did not see it.

It's a major plot point that all the bad guys are in prison because of the Dent Act. Bane is releasing them. It's not made explicitly, but it's an internally consistent explanation.

or you are reading meaning into it for the purposes our argument, and the scene was really meant to be a general prison break out to give bane his army, as was stated in the movie.

They were his army because they were stock villains instead of pickpockets who needed money for mother and baby. That's explained by the Dent Act throwaway mention.

Draug, you are seeing this tonight, bring us back any evidence.

The script was finished by the time they started filming in May 2011. The Occupy protests began in November 2011.

*protests began in September 2011

this was already pointed out