The Match Cut Xtreme Crocheting Thread (and The Dark Knight)

[number8]

I dunno why, but this never gets old for me.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a387/deathbypika/Message%20Board%20Crap/omgbatman.gif

[Skitch]

:lol:

Excellent.

[Spinal]

I wasn't a big fan of this film.

Wait, did you just see it for the first time?

[Spinal]

Wait, did you just see it for the first time?

Reviewing the thread ... no. Never mind.

[D_Davis]

I thought this movie was okay.

[Sycophant]

I wasn't a big fan of this film.

o/

[Sycophant]

I'm almost done with a new baby blanket! It is purple with white stripes.

o/

[Ezee E]

Still a big fan. I wish I had the patience for crocheting though.

[megladon8]

Well, if I remember correctly, KF liked it a lot at first, but after re-thinking it came to dislike it.

He's been doing that a lot lately. It makes me sad.

[Rowland]

I still like this a lot more than Inception. Haven't seen it in two years though.

[Spinal]

Although I did like this movie, I think my disinterest in Batman in general keeps me from liking it more. I don't find him to be a character that I really connect with or care to know more about. And it doesn't help matters to put Christian Bale in the role.

Why am I talking about The Dark Knight again? Damn it, KF.

[Mara]

Our world is a world of joyous things.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v254/maragirl/twobeautifulthings.jpg

[Sycophant]

Yeah, KF, why are you doing this to us?

[Scar]

Yeah, KF, why are you doing this to us?

He's a sadist.

[megladon8]

He's a sadist.


No, he's an anarchist. You know...like the Joker...

Or maybe I'm having a dyslexic moment and meant to write "anti-christ"?

[Fezzik]

Although I did like this movie, I think my disinterest in Batman in general keeps me from liking it more. I don't find him to be a character that I really connect with or care to know more about. And it doesn't help matters to put Christian Bale in the role.

Why am I talking about The Dark Knight again? Damn it, KF.

I just wanted to say that I heartily approve of your new av, Spinal.

[[ETM]]

Hmm... I've still only seen it once. Never felt the urge to do so again.

[number8]

I think I've seen it at least 8 times now. Lost count.

It's a curious thing. My opinion of it can falter when I'm thinking/discussing it, but whenever I pop it in for a rewatch, I am completely engrossed from start to finish, and my love for it invigorated when it ends. Then a few days later I doubt it again.

I think it's because there are so many questionable elements in the film that seem faulty when recalled individually, but when they are pieced together, the momentum is unquestionably thrilling.

[Kurosawa Fan]

:pritch:

http://www.dreamstime.com/bunch-of-suckers-largethumb4418753.jpg

[Dukefrukem]

Although I did like this movie, I think my disinterest in Batman in general keeps me from liking it more. I don't find him to be a character that I really connect with or care to know more about. And it doesn't help matters to put Christian Bale in the role.

Why am I talking about The Dark Knight again? Damn it, KF.

That's interesting you say this because I found the exact opposite. I was never a big Batman fan and the previous movies were OK, but the Dark Knight really took on a whole new dimension of the universe Nolan built from BB. I think it had a lot to do with Ledger performance combined with the vastness of the corruption of the city... I never felt that before in a Batman film. It was really well portrayed in Dark Knight... awesomely.

[Mara]

Lollipop!

*pop*

BA DUM DUM DUM!

[Dukefrukem]

Ok 8 we get it, you're a Batsexual.

[number8]

No, I don't think I'm done yet.

[Dukefrukem]

Just bustin your balls. I enjoyed those.

[Bosco B Thug]

I think I've seen it at least 8 times now. Lost count.

It's a curious thing. My opinion of it can falter when I'm thinking/discussing it, but whenever I pop it in for a rewatch, I am completely engrossed from start to finish, and my love for it invigorated when it ends. Then a few days later I doubt it again.

I think it's because there are so many questionable elements in the film that seem faulty when recalled individually, but when they are pieced together, the momentum is unquestionably thrilling. This is normal, at least for me and the movies I love. Heck, the things I love. Anyway, I hate it when it comes to movies.

[megladon8]

Lately I have frequently found myself thinking about just how ballsy this movie was for an enormous summer blockbuster.

Nolan did a lot of things that must have really, really worried the studio heads.

[Dukefrukem]

like?

[megladon8]

like?


Like it's a 2 1/2 hour blockbuster based more on concept than on action.

That while there are several action scenes in the film (Batman vs. thugs being most of them) arguably the biggest action sequence in the entire thing is a short car chase which climaxes with a truck flipping over.

That there is no climactic action sequence - yes, there's the scene where Batman is going through the various floors of the under-construction building and dispatching Joker's foes, but there's no ENORMOUS BALL-SHATTERING ACTION CLIMAX.

In fact, the climax is a clash of ideas between Batman, Two-Face and Gordon. And there is no action to speak of in that scene at all.

I can imagine a WB studio exec looking at it and thinking "should we, like, have the end credits scroll over a series of filmed explosions and gunfights, just so it ends on a more exciting note?"

[Dukefrukem]

I never would have though the script was an issue if it was sitting in front of me. It's Batman at it's finest... that's what the people want and that's what they got. The action is just a icing on the cake. Id rather see the development of the Batman gadgets, how Bruce hides his 2nd identity, everything that was in the movie..

[megladon8]

I never would have though the script was an issue if it was sitting in front of me. It's Batman at it's finest... that's what the people want and that's what they got. The action is just a icing on the cake. Id rather see the development of the Batman gadgets, how Bruce hides his 2nd identity, everything that was in the movie..


But that's really not how studio execs think. To them this would practically look like an art flick.

[Derek]

Eh, I thought Hulk and Superman Returns were far "ballsier" in terms of going against blockbuster expectations. I would've loved to be in the room when the execs heard "So yeah, the action centerpiece is gonna be Hulk fighting three giant poodles."

[Dukefrukem]

But that's really not how studio execs think. To them this would practically look like an art flick.

I agree, but i think Nolan convinced them using ideas he began expanding on with Batmain Begins. I don't recall much action in that movie either; Bat Mobile scene, beating up thugs by the docks scene, monorail scene....

[eternity]

Like it's a 2 1/2 hour blockbuster based more on concept than on action.

That while there are several action scenes in the film (Batman vs. thugs being most of them) arguably the biggest action sequence in the entire thing is a short car chase which climaxes with a truck flipping over.

That there is no climactic action sequence - yes, there's the scene where Batman is going through the various floors of the under-construction building and dispatching Joker's foes, but there's no ENORMOUS BALL-SHATTERING ACTION CLIMAX.

In fact, the climax is a clash of ideas between Batman, Two-Face and Gordon. And there is no action to speak of in that scene at all.

I can imagine a WB studio exec looking at it and thinking "should we, like, have the end credits scroll over a series of filmed explosions and gunfights, just so it ends on a more exciting note?"
So...it was ballsy to pull back on the BOOM! WOOSH! SPLAT! of say, a Michael Bay film?

[BuffaloWilder]

I'm always a little amused by people who seem to think that, in the hospital scene between Dent and the Joker, that the Joker's identifying himself as an 'agent of chaos' and all of that is an accident, given that he's the most meticulously planned-out of any of the characters, or because it seems too "on-the-nose" thematically. Everything that comes afterword demonstrates that this has amounted to what is basically a smoke-screen, and The Joker has gained an almost total criminal monopoly on the city overnight, completely under everyone's nose.

Also, the production notes kind of admit that it's all a lie, meant to goad Harvey into doing what he does, later on. So -

[BuffaloWilder]

So...it was ballsy to pull back on the BOOM! WOOSH! SPLAT! of say, a Michael Bay film?

...well yeah, kind of. I mean, let's face it, for better or worse, Bay's had a massive impact on the mainstream face of the action film genre - with his ultra-frenetic editing and all that stuff, which has been adapted part-and-parcel into the lexicon of almost every modern two-bit studio schlockmeister that has come after.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I'm always a little amused by people who seem to think that, in the hospital scene between Dent and the Joker, that the Joker's identifying himself as an 'agent of chaos' and all of that is an accident, given that he's the most meticulously planned-out of any of the characters, or because it seems too "on-the-nose" thematically. Everything that comes afterword demonstrates that this has amounted to what is basically a smoke-screen, and The Joker has gained an almost total criminal monopoly on the city overnight, completely under everyone's nose.

It also fits in with the way the other two mains (Wayne and Dent) betray their principles in order to achieve what they perceive as necessary (salvation of Gotham and true justice, respectively).

[Irish]

Our world is a world of joyous things.
At first glance I thought you were watching TV with a lace thong in your hand and, for some reason, felt compelled to post a photo of it to the internets.


I'm always a little amused by people who seem to think that, in the hospital scene between Dent and the Joker, that the Joker's identifying himself as an 'agent of chaos' and all of that is an accident, given that he's the most meticulously planned-out of any of the characters, or because it seems too "on-the-nose" thematically.
This is a really good insight. The Joker is also the most internally consistent character in the movie.


It also fits in with the way the other two mains (Wayne and Dent) betray their principles in order to achieve what they perceive as necessary (salvation of Gotham and true justice, respectively).
That struck me on my lasting viewing (I've only seen the movie twice): Wayne is a complete and total scumbag from start to finish. He cuts every moral corner he can to achieve an overarching goal.

In the end, though, there's something about this movie that has always bothered me. Most of it centers around how the air goes completely out of it at the second act climax, and everybody starts talking in half-profundities and gibberish ("He's not the hero Gotham wants but needs hero we do," whatever).

If I knew how to do spoiler tags, I'd talk more about it -- but the stuff at the end with Harvey seems tacked on and almost ridiculous.

The second act climax is phenomenal but man, for me, the movie ended right there.

[Russ]

Very interesting video essay (http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/archives/IN_THE_CUT_The_Dark_Knight_by_ Christopher_Nolan/) on Nolan's inability to shoot a coherent action sequence.

[Mara]

I just picked up an old crochet project to finish! I haven't had time to crochet in months, maybe close to a year.

Also, I missed this thread.

[Mara]

Good luck crocheting with your FROZEN LITTLE HANDS, COLD BABY.

I was paging back to try and remember why crocheting and TDK got all mixed, and I have to say... this thread got a little bit weird.

[Thirdmango]

Very interesting video essay (http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/archives/IN_THE_CUT_The_Dark_Knight_by_ Christopher_Nolan/) on Nolan's inability to shoot a coherent action sequence.

I'm about halfway through and I agree with the essay in certain areas but in the entire truck hitting the swat vehicle portion he's wrong. He keeps saying they shouldn't do what they do but by knowing simple lefts and rights it's doing exactly what it should be doing. And I am someone who is pissed at Dark Knight on a whole, but I can't fault this scene where the essay seems to want us to be confused maybe just because he's confusing us.

If a car gets grazed or hit from it's right side it's going to go in a left ward motion which is why the passanger side would fall off first if the swat vehicle did in fact do a 180 from getting hit that hard. This would also help the truck to do a wide right turn. But for some reason he wants us to believe that this is all opposite of what it should be?

[Ezee E]

Watch it in real time and I don't really find it confusing at all, even if it breaks filmmaking rules like the 180-degree.

[Thirdmango]

it's almost like this guy has never played a racing game from over head. Yeah it breaks some 180 degree things, but every car scene so far has done exactly what it should. It hasn't broken any rules, he's just applying things to try and make it confusing when it's not.

[Sven]

I'm about halfway through and I agree with the essay in certain areas but in the entire truck hitting the swat vehicle portion he's wrong. He keeps saying they shouldn't do what they do but by knowing simple lefts and rights it's doing exactly what it should be doing. And I am someone who is pissed at Dark Knight on a whole, but I can't fault this scene where the essay seems to want us to be confused maybe just because he's confusing us.

If a car gets grazed or hit from it's right side it's going to go in a left ward motion which is why the passanger side would fall off first if the swat vehicle did in fact do a 180 from getting hit that hard. This would also help the truck to do a wide right turn. But for some reason he wants us to believe that this is all opposite of what it should be?

I hate to butt heads, but you're incorrect. He doesn't say that the swat car does a 180 before falling off. It just careens. And if it did do a 180, there's no way that it would have fallen off the road on such a forward trajectory. And if the swat car is smashed from the right, it is going to fall off the road to its left. But when it falls into the water, it is on the cars right. Emerson breaks it down correctly.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm about halfway through and I agree with the essay in certain areas but in the entire truck hitting the swat vehicle portion he's wrong. He keeps saying they shouldn't do what they do but by knowing simple lefts and rights it's doing exactly what it should be doing. And I am someone who is pissed at Dark Knight on a whole, but I can't fault this scene where the essay seems to want us to be confused maybe just because he's confusing us.


I agree you. He's overcomplicating the effectiveness of this scene. The only complaint I have would be the cut out of the no sound scene. That would be have been sweet if they skipped that Joker appearance.


Watch it in real time and I don't really find it confusing at all, even if it breaks filmmaking rules like the 180-degree.

This.

[Thirdmango]

I hate to butt heads, but you're incorrect. He doesn't say that the swat car does a 180 before falling off. It just careens. And if it did do a 180, there's no way that it would have fallen off the road on such a forward trajectory. And if the swat car is smashed from the right, it is going to fall off the road to its left. But when it falls into the water, it is on the cars right. Emerson breaks it down correctly.

Okay, I now see where you can get that. I agree that the forward trajectory is bad, but it does still fall of on the left side and not the right. Even though he breaks the 180 rules, this entire sequence is being done (except when batman comes in) with the camera heading backward. If it were in this one scene heading forwards then you would be right that the swat car is coming out on the right, but it's not, it's coming out on the left side of the action.

[Thirdmango]

the trouble is the scene is cut too quickly. The swat vehicle has 2-3 lanes to get across. If it's going at a very high speed and gets pushed from the right side and then it basically starts going in a left manner, it could concievably do a left hand turn which would make it coming out 3 lanes from there into the water with the passenger side out and that would also account for the truck making such a wide angled right turn using the momentum of the impact to help with the curve going right. You have to assume that the chase is going from the upper portion of the screen towards the lower like the camera has been doing so from when they entered the tunnel area.

It's basically like an hour glass shape when the two vehicles collide. the truck moves in a right angle and the swat in a left angle which would make sense if it kept going left and crossed two to three lanes of traffic for it to come out onto the water in the manner that it did. If the scene were showed that the swat vehicle had to go over 3 lanes of traffic then that would make more sense.

[Thirdmango]

when the swat van actually hits the water the back side continues to follow the motion as if it had been going in a leftward direction. Thus actually making a 180. If the water were not there and the swat van had been allowed to keep going on it's trajectory, they could have regained control and then been going the opposite direction that they were coming from.

[Sven]

Okay, I now see where you can get that. I agree that the forward trajectory is bad, but it does still fall of on the left side and not the right. Even though he breaks the 180 rules, this entire sequence is being done (except when batman comes in) with the camera heading backward. If it were in this one scene heading forwards then you would be right that the swat car is coming out on the right, but it's not, it's coming out on the left side of the action.

I don't know what you mean. The swat car falls off the road to its right. I don't see how that can be disputed. Logically, it should be coming out on left side of the action, yes, but its trajectory is that of a car going the other direction. The only way the sequence would work is if the swat van actually did pivot against the concrete barrier, maintain its speeding momentum, then traveled down the street in the other direction for a stretch so it could land in the water parallel to the street facing the other way.

[Sven]

when the swat van actually hits the water the back side continues to follow the motion as if it had been going in a leftward direction. Thus actually making a 180. If the water were not there and the swat van had been allowed to keep going on it's trajectory, they could have regained control and then been going the opposite direction that they were coming from.

...but I think the wideness of the geography suggested, as well as the concrete axis, prohibits a plausible high-speed 180.

[Sven]

But I don't want to go into it further. I think Emerson's point is clear and applicable: Nolan's action is overcut and opaque much of the time and the video demonstrates how. Even if the filmmakers were suggesting a 180, there's not enough information to fill in the gaps satisfyingly.

[Thirdmango]

...but I think the wideness of the geography suggested, as well as the concrete axis, prohibits a plausible high-speed 180.

the pivot does occur because of where the truck hits the the swat van. If it had hit the swat van in the middle this wouldn't make as much sense. Since it hit the swat van near the front of the vehicle and the truck was aiming to turn right to join in the chase. The front side of the swat would move to the left and the back side would move to the right. The momentum of the swat makes it so that both vehicles are parallel to each other as they cross into the 2-3 lanes and as the truck continues to turn right, the swat vehicle continues to turn left until it's turned about 130-140 degrees in it's entire run until it comes out of the barrier and as it hits the water the force of the turn continues to make the truck go in a left ward angle but because the front of the vehicle has stopped the back wide continues to go right.

What I was saying is pretend there were no barrier and no water but that there was say a parking lot there instead. If that were the case eventually the swat would end up in 180 if the driver could regain control at the point of entering the parking lot. Because there is no parking lot he goes out into the water finishing the 180 in the end as the back side of the truck continues the momentum.

You have to do all this assuming the camera in this entire sequence is always going in a backward motion staying in front of the chase as if they were in a truck ahead of the chase scene with the camera pointed backwards. If you took your original assumption then in that one scene the camera flipped around to the other side of the action to show the swat van coming out and then switched back. This is not the case, the camera is still ahead of the chase thus the swat does not careen to it's right it gets hit on the right and swerves around a good 130 degrees coming out on the other side.

[Thirdmango]

But I don't want to go into it further. I think Emerson's point is clear and applicable: Nolan's action is overcut and opaque much of the time and the video demonstrates how. Even if the filmmakers were suggesting a 180, there's not enough information to fill in the gaps satisfyingly.

Thing is, I actually agree with this for most of the movie. I even agree with a lot of the action in the same sequence. If I could draw it, it would make a lot more sense. You just have to assume even though he had broken 180 rules, in that scene he did not, which is quite an assumption since he already was breaking 180 rules to begin with and then he breaks that exact same rule when batman is introduced. The physics of the crash do make sense, but with all of the rules he breaks and with all of the scenes he misses the scene still does have way too many gaps. I had just not taken into account the possibility of seeing that the swat could just fall into the right side cause I thought it was too awful of a mistake that they wouldn't make it so my mind made the necessary adjustments.

[Melville]

I'm with Thirdmango and Duke here. Emerson is making up confusion where I experienced none.

The truck hitting the swat car makes perfect sense: it causes the car to swerve off to its left, away from the collision. It doesn't turn nearly 180 degrees before going off the road. And the truck is clearly shown swerving into an adjacent lane after the collision. Emerson says there's just random twisting to make the final trajectories of the two vehicles feel plausible, but the twisting is fairly pointed.

His criticism of the garbage truck hitting the back of the armored car also seems off. The editing in the moment makes perfect spatial sense; there's just a continuity error in that Two-Face has momentarily seemed to switch seats from where he was originally (and where he is later in the scene).

[transmogrifier]

Isn't this the scene that has some horrible "comedy" from a supposedly background character intercut throughout it? The guy in the passenger seat? (Genuine question, as I have only seen it once, and that's all I vaguely attribute to it years on.)

[Ezee E]

Isn't this the scene that has some horrible "comedy" from a supposedly background character intercut throughout it? The guy in the passenger seat? (Genuine question, as I have only seen it once, and that's all I vaguely attribute to it years on.)
Wouldn't say it's comedic intent. Just the atypical nervous guy that makes "Whoa" comments.

[MadMan]

Wouldn't say it's comedic intent. Just the atypical nervous guy that makes "Whoa" comments.I like nervous guy, just because he's actually realistic in terms of he seems to be the only one in the entire movie who's actually reacting in a fashion that many of us would be. I guarantee you most people wouldn't be completely calm if they were facing a demented murderous clown firing rockets at you. But hey that's just me.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Isn't this the scene that has some horrible "comedy" from a supposedly background character intercut throughout it? The guy in the passenger seat? (Genuine question, as I have only seen it once, and that's all I vaguely attribute to it years on.)

Yep. Pretty awful character.

"We'll be sitting ducks."
"I didn't sign up for this!"
"That's what I'm talkin' about!"
"That's not good!"

Thank you for your contributions to the film, sir.

[Dukefrukem]

Yep. Pretty awful character.

"We'll be sitting ducks."
"I didn't sign up for this!"
"That's what I'm talkin' about!"
"That's not good!"

Thank you for your contributions to the film, sir.

If I remember correctly he says that final line twice. The second time with more emphasis on "not".

[MadMan]

Yep. Pretty awful character.

"We'll be sitting ducks."
"I didn't sign up for this!"
"That's what I'm talkin' about!"
"That's not good!"

Thank you for your contributions to the film, sir.:|

Good to know that when the Joker decides to try and kill you, you'll be a supreme badass :P

[number8]

:|

Good to know that when the Joker decides to try and kill you, you'll be a supreme badass :P

That's completely besides the point. Nobody's making fun of the guy for being scared, just the fact that he's a useless character who added nothing to the sequence by being there.

If I ever meet Bane, I would probably piss my pants, but THE DARK KNIGHT RISES will not be a better movie if Batman fighting Bane keeps cutting to a shot of me expelling urine.

[Sycophant]

It seems obvious he's supposed to be comic relief--or at least a tension reliever--of some sort, since he does nothing of any import and his character has no name, and he delivers cliché and hackneyed lines uttered by a million reluctant characters in as many Hollywood adventure films. It was a choice to put him in there. I think it undercuts the effectiveness of the scene, and it's gimmicky and lame.

It's a pretty confusing scene anyway, for the reasons Jim Emerson cites. The sound design really makes it feel a bit more coherent than it is. I can only imagine how much more devastating a cut-by-cut analysis of the snow level scene in Inception would be.

[Sycophant]

I started writing that before number8 posted. But I'm leaving it there.

[Dead & Messed Up]

:|

Good to know that when the Joker decides to try and kill you, you'll be a supreme badass :P

It's not about whether or not he's scared. It's about whether or not he's useful to the scene.

He isn't.

He is a redundancy, and a cliched redundancy at that. There is no reason for him to say what he says or be in the scene.

In fact, imagine the scene without him - it'd be damn near silent. I think I have a project for this weekend. Editing him out and making the scene a lot cooler.

[megladon8]

I found it strange that a role like that was played by Nicky Katt.

I mean, it's not like the guy has a fantastic career, but he's arguably past playing "Unnamed Swat Guy #1".

I felt the same way about Michael Ironside randomly appearing for 5 minutes at the end of X-Men: First Class as "American General".

[Dead & Messed Up]

Joseph Kahn of Torque posted a rebuttal (http://josephkahn.blogspot.com/2011/09/analyzing-action.html) to Emerson's deconstruction.

Pretty good stuff.

[Sven]

Joseph Kahn of Torque posted a rebuttal (http://josephkahn.blogspot.com/2011/09/analyzing-action.html) to Emerson's deconstruction.

Pretty good stuff.

Stalactites.

Good read.

[Sven]

His breakdown of the semi collision is wrong, though. The van is thrown to the left. Aaaaagh.

[[ETM]]

I felt the same way about Michael Ironside randomly appearing for 5 minutes at the end of X-Men: First Class as "American General".

I saw the film last night and laughed at all the cameos by hardasses (like Ironside) and established character actors (Ray Wise, for example) in tiny bit roles.


And the deconstruction of the deconstruction is pretty damn good. He should proof read more, as Sven pointed out. You don't "have a problem of criticism" but "with criticism" in this particular instance.

[Melville]

Good article, though its opening bits are a little too vague.


His breakdown of the semi collision is wrong, though. The van is thrown to the left. Aaaaagh.
It's thrown to its own left, but to the right side of the screen.

[Sven]

It's thrown to its own left, but to the right side of the screen.

Yes, but that does not explain the van's careening into the river to its right. Kahn explains the visual connection, not the geographical connection. Only the 180 does. But we covered all this earlier.

[Melville]

Yes, but that does not explain the van's careening into the river to its right. Kahn explains the visual connection, not the geographical connection. Only the 180 does. But we covered all this earlier.
But he's saying the visual connection shows the geographical connection: the van is pushed to screen-right and appropriately veers off into the water in that direction. Again, by the time it goes off the road, it's turned much less than 180 degrees. The physics of it makes perfect sense. Maybe starting the shot a split second earlier would have improved it by showing more of the van's turning.

[Sven]

Again, by the time it goes off the road, it's turned much less than 180 degrees.

I think an element compounding the confusion is that the shot when the van hits the water is zooming in, towards the van, but the chase (which is being shot mostly in a backward direction from its front) is moving away from it, to screen left. So essentially the camera is moving away from the chase with the direction of movement switching from pulling backward to zooming forward. I am more inclined to believe the physics of it at this point, but I still think the turn is too unclear and the camera movement used to emphasize the splash aligns things confusingly.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I think an element compounding the confusion is that the shot when the van hits the water is zooming in, towards the van, but the chase (which is being shot mostly in a backward direction from its front) is moving away from it, to screen left. So essentially the camera is moving away from the chase with the direction of movement switching from pulling backward to zooming forward. I am more inclined to believe the physics of it at this point, but I still think the turn is too unclear and the camera movement used to emphasize the splash aligns things confusingly.

If there was an intermediate shot to show how far askew the van was knocked, it'd all be good. I think Emerson's right-on with that criticism.

Also, I think it's pretty cool that Emerson and Kahn are discussing the minutiae of film clearly and intelligently. It might set a standard for a lot of people in regards to online discussion.

[Rowland]

I just watched the sequence again for the first time since I last saw the film years ago, and it's still pretty spectacular, regardless of this nitpicky minutiae. Nevertheless, this debate is an entertaining read.

[Qrazy]

The van getting hit and falling into the water makes sense. The other van behind it not then smashing into the semi makes less sense. Although in theory they could have hit their breaks and the semi could have continued on it's merry way. Although if the goal is to get at Harvey then why the semi would continue on it's merry way and not just stop and act as a roadblock does not make sense. The shot where the batmobile takes the rocket and the van is no longer next to it also makes no sense. And I actually did clue into that one when I saw the film.

I also don't really agree with his 180 rule criticisms or his vantage point criticisms for the most part. I do agree though that the sequence would be better without all that pointless extraneous dialogue and cut aways to inconsequential extras. Just keep the focus on the primary characters.

[megladon8]

I remember while watching the film for the first time that the geography felt a little choppy while Batman was taking the detour through the shopping mall.

I haven't watched it in quite some time now so my memory is hazy, but I do remember cuts and transitions where he seemed to be in completely different places from where he was just a split second before.

Again, my memory is terrible. I just remember feeling that confusion at one time.

[Skitch]

In other news, I use that scene to test my sound quality. :)