Batman Rises... and falls

(SPOILER ALERT - THIS IS GOING TO REALLY GO INTO DETAILS)

I went to see the new Batman movie over the weekend.  I wanted to go when it came out, but just never had the opportunity until now.  I really ~loved~ "The Dark Knight" (much of the credit goes to Heath Ledger, greatest Joker ever), and wanted to see the "Rise".

Let me start by saying that if you are a Christian Bale Batman series fan, you have to see this one.  That said, don't expect it to be as good as "Dark Knight".  I blame the writers/directors for that - I thought they really blew it.  Here's how it could have been much better:

First, don't use someone with a retread of Sean Connery's voice as Bane.  Totally wrong.  And I only understood about %80 of his lines.  And the excuse they gave for the mouth thing was totally lame. Use a little more imagination, like he's really on the point of dying and feeding him a pcp-type mixture is the only thing that keeps him alive.  Also lame, but at least it's better than "gee, he really hurts without it".

A few other issues:
a. Flipping back and forth to the underground prison in a foreign country?  What the heck was that?  How did they just get back and forth from there at a moments notice?  Absolutely bad...

My rewrite:  Bane ~builds~ a prison there in Gotham.  He built all sorts of everything else underground.  And he talk about how there will be courts and trials - a prison seems only natural.  Of course he would build it like the one he was in.  He traps/throws everyone in there - the police, the rich folks, etc.  Much more convenient to have your prison right there where you need it.  All of the original prison "shots" would be in history/memory/etc.

b. What was the deal with the Professor?  Bane knows him, saves him, he arms the weapon, and then gets killed.  Really?

My rewrite: Merge the "professor" character with the "caregiver in prison" character. The Professor serves as a guy that Bane was in prison with originally (which helps explain their connection) and also as the guy who weaponizes the reactor.  Instead of being killed, he gets thrown back in prison.  He can just tell the world that the weapon ~can't~ be defused - no need to kill him. Then he'd be pissed off at Bane, have more medical and scientific background to heal Bruce, and know the whole backstory to explain the whole thing.

c. "I grew up in the dark."  Really?  Seemed like there was a whole lot of light in that dark prison where you grew up.  Dark - maybe at night, like the rest of the world.  Guess there was no such thing as "fire" in that prison, either.

d. Ummm.... there's a rope?  I suppose no one ever thought to climb to wherever the rope was anchored?  No, why would you do that when you could climb the crumbling walls instead....

e. How does an escaped prisoner in a foreign country with no money - and no money anywhere - get back to Gotham?  Sorry, that deserved more than one mention here.

f. "There's only one police in Gotham" - and they are idiots.  March down a single street all in one big group?  Oh, yeah - that's how the English handled things in the American Revolution.  See: Cannon Fodder


g. "Shoot them all"?  If she can casually say "Shoot them all" and they shoot them all, why couldn't they just "shoot them all" before?

h The directors really botched the death of Bane.  Seriously.  If you are going to build this guy up, at least give us the satisfaction of letting us enjoy his finale.  How about Catwoman rides up the steps in the tumbler, bursts through the doors, flies across the room mid-air (maybe even in slow motion) and THEN fires the cannon right into the mouthpiece of a shocked looking Bane when he turns her direction, landing then on the remains of his body?  That is a finale.


i. I didn't realize that Batman was also clairvoyant.  How the heck did he know where to go to find Catwoman every time she got into a fight, or Catwoman after he escaped from the prison, or Catwoman apparently after he bailed from the "bat" towing the bomb, OR... the exact table that Alfred would face when he went off to "have his drink"?   Oy.


So many ways to make it better... Doesn't anyone give these guys feedback???

Which Candidate is Pro-Life?

http://ncronline.org/news/politics/which-presidential-candidate-truly-pro-life

That's about all that needs to be said.

An independent's cry of sorrow...

Well said words from a good friend:

"As an Independent, it is in my best interest to have two or more parties presenting candidates that are so awesome it's hard to make a decision. The last election didn't have that and neither does this. It's a damned shame, too. It's been an easy choice for me, though I have tried to hold out til the end. I'm not even seeing that option and it saddens me. There are so many positives that could come out of our election at this time. I don't believe they will. And I think that no matter which party wins, the Republican party is going to really lose out in the long run. Their stance toward women's issues and religious intolerance are too divisive and controlling. Maybe a third party will try to rise. I don't know. Sigh.

I know there are friends who will be thrilled with this ticket - and that's great for them. They are certainly entitled to have candidates that they can get behind too.

I try to keep an open mind and do my homework - though I admittedly fail sometimes - to spend as much time as I should. Biden scared me and Palin terrified me. Biden, had experience and to a large degree, managed to keep his mouth shut most of the time. Palin - no such luck - enough said. More than enough was said. Way. More.

I am glad Ryan has some facility with numbers and an interest in the intricacies of policy, but - well. Won't go there. No point. Very tired of the Super PAC and PAC systems, just tired of money running the race on both sides. And I see it getting worse instead of better.

I feel like there's a video game mentality to our elections. I don't see or hear people looking at what benefits our country, so much as who can win, what prize can be obtained, notching a reward, a "What is it gonna get me" mentality. I'm sick of it all the way around. It's getting hard to find someone with a goal of serving the people instead of forcing others to a particular way of thinking - on both sides, btw. Tolerance has really taken a hit. And it's not just at the federal level. The goal of forcing an agenda has overridden service.

There is a part of me that is soooo thrilled to see an election where we have a Mormon candidate running with a Catholic candidate (I've always been a JFK fan by the way), an older candidate (though God knows that's not new, but remains representative) and a candidate of color. That's a HUGE, huge step forward in some ways. Or could be. And yet...I see a poverty of service and tolerance.

Obama is the only one that I see working toward that - even though I don't always agree with him, his administration or party. At least I see an effort being made. A focus toward representing everyone in ways that will give them a better life and better chance instead of a pre-determined religious belief or financially self-serving boost.

Frankly, I can't see any of that from the others, no matter which way I look at it. I have tried to look at it from many different angles and through my friend's eyes.

I don't think they are rotten human beings or anything of the sort. I'd like to think we would get along just fine as human beings. I suspect they try to be good parents and pet owners and responsible partners to their spouses. I just don't think they have the focus on service, tolerance and acceptance that I expect from a civil servant.

I have been leaning toward Obama because I see it from him. Romney's choice of a running mate makes the decision for me. It makes me mourn the lack of centrism that keeps our national cohesion a priority."

An alternate universe?

While I don't think that most conservatives believe that black is white, or that up is down, I do think they sometimes stare straight at the truth and see something different:


Free Market:  Giving the uninsured taxpayer-funded health care at the emergency room

Socialism:  Requiring individuals to be responsible for their own health insurance

http://www.gocomics.com/bensargent/2012/07/06

Objecting to RomneyCare, pt 5

''No more 'free riding,' if you will, where an individual says: 'I'm not going to pay, even though I can afford it. I'm not going to get insurance, even though I can afford it. I'm instead going to just show up and make the taxpayers pay for me,' " Romney told reporters after a healthcare speech at the John F. Kennedy Library.


Google that, folks.


Also, Romney says that he is against revised health care of the Massachusetts type at the federal level.  Then why did he write an editorial article in 2009 encouraging the president to adopt his plan? 
Google "romney 2009 usa today op ed" .

Objecting to DoleORomneyCare - pt 4: A New Low

What they're saying isn't the truth, but the fact that they are saying it is...

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/29/508761/conservatives-claim-roberts-upheld-obamacare-because-of-cognitive-problems-due-to-his-epilepsy-medicine/

Objecting to Dolebamacare, pt 3

"With regards to the mandate, the 'Individual Responsibility' program which I proposed, I was very pleased to see that the compromise from the two houses includes the 'personal responsibility' principle.  That is essential for bringing health costs down for everyone and getting everybody the health insurance they deserve and need.  So I was very, very pleased with that development."  - Miit Romney, March 2006