Clarifying my previous comment.
It really has been years since I’ve been in complete awe sitting in a movie theater like that. I could barely sleep last night. Amazing.
Only found a handful of people so far who felt the same way. Tons at Flagship tonight couldn’t stand it.
I have a ton of thoughts about this film, but I can’t seem to get all of them across efficiency enough to post yet. Still working on it.
The gang is back together and in great spirits! Writers’ night is in session.
Rejected from CalArts this morning. Little bummed about that, it would’ve been an awesome place to study. I’ll get out to LA one day.
Good news is, the way my parents are talking, I’ll probably be able to commit to SCAD soon. Probably. Which is beyond amazing and is just another sign I probably don’t belong anywhere else. We’ll see.
A plot hole is, by definition, a logical inconsistency. For Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, the emphasis on realism is so strong that any potential fallacies are, at best, unforgiven. The release of Nolan’s final chapter in the critically-acclaimed…
You could have gotten your point across much more efficiently by simply specifying the definition of a plot hole. True, most of these aren’t technically “logical inconsistencies,” and you’ve proven that, but that’s a moot point anyway. Just because it’s logically consistent doesn’t mean it isn’t clunky writing.
Also, I respect Nolan as a filmmaker very greatly, but I wouldn’t necessarily cite him as a master of “show, don’t tell.” Most of his films rely heavily on exposition - which is fine, since that’s the nature of his stories, but if that’s your justification for telling everyone (very condescendingly) that their issues with TDKR stem from their lack of cinematic competence, fewer people are going to take you seriously.
I had no idea that was Spike Jonze until a couple weeks ago.