Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve
I believe he was referring to you, seeing as how you overeacted and misinterpreted the intention of my post. I wasn't trying to be condescending, I was merely trying to say I disagree with you and here's why.
Okay, man, maybe you weren't being condescending. I wanna give you the benefit of the doubt. You have to understand, I have been dealing with just about everyone over the fact that I didn't enjoy the film. Please accept my apology. I just felt that you were explaining the plot of the film, which to me, came off like you were talking down to me as if I didn't see the same movie.
Anyway, I get all the plot points that Nolan went with concerning the nuke, but I saw it as window dressing. It was all to mask the simplicity of the device.
I simplified the nuke because films have history, and the Dark Knight Rises doesn't exist in a vacuum. Nuclear bombs have been used over and over in action and sci-fi films since the 1950's. You can use all the excuses you want about escalation and how it relates to Batman and our world, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still an overused story device in action films. The fact that it was built for peace but then used to kill doesn't excuse that it's still a cliched MacGuffin to hinge your entire film on. It was irony in the weakest sense of the word. Like I said before, I found that aspect of the story very boring. It was a prosaic choice that lacks imagination. I never once believed it would ever go off or do harm to anybody because Nolan wouldn't have the balls to do that. Hence, there being no stakes for me as I watched the film.