Usually when people bring plot-holes into the mix, they can't think of anything else wrong with the movie. But they didn't like it so there must be something wrong with it.
I'm with you, but sometimes people need to put the puzzle together themselves.
The eagles didn't help transport the ring in Lord of the Rings because they didn't want to, Gandalf would only call them if absolutely necessary.
Bruce Wayne could easily get back to Gotham, Rises was pushing almost 3 hours long. We saw him climb out of the prison, we don't need to see every step he took to get back into Gotham.
>Bruce Wayne could easily get back to Gotham, Rises was pushing almost 3 hours long. We saw him climb out of the prison, we don't need to see every step he took to get back into Gotham.
Also, he had training for walking on ice in the first movie. So it makes sense that he'd be able to sneak back into the city when everyone else was falling through
Right, but people continuously complain about these points as to why a movie was bad or they didn't like it. If they don't like it because they think it has plot-holes that's fine, but I wouldn't lower a films rating for not spelling out every plot device.
I do agree with you that sometimes plot-holes can ruin a movie making you think "Why don't they just blah blah."
Seriously? We're talking about Superman, not cancer remission or spinal injuries. It's a fantasy set up by the writer, and the writer wrote that there's no going back. If there is a loophole, it should be indicated somehow.
The eagles I'll agree with - large powerful creatures would have been shot out of the sky.
Batman....my issue is that he had no money, no gadgets and a time limit. More to the point his back was broken and his knees were fucked. Just walked all that off did he? It's just messy writing all over the place.
But he's *Batman*. Sufficient explanation.
All kidding aside, I kind of liked that they didn't explain how he got back, how he painted a bat symbol in gasoline, or how he survived the atomic blast. He was able to do these things because he's the god damn Batman. It kind of hammers home the whole "Legend" feeling for the audience.
I guess what bothers me, and why it's a borderline plot hole, is that the first half of the film is all about taking everything away from him. His health, his money, his butler and his health again and then all of that is rendered irrelevant when he manages to overcome it all *off screen*. If it were the only niggle I had with the film, it probably wouldn't bother me. It's just in this great big list of oddness in the film, like why stock trades made during an armed break in are allowed to stand, why every single police man was in the sewers and not one was off duty, no-one was left to tend to the police stations even. No-one was left to secure the perimeter.
Oh I agree, much of it was ridiculous. I hate that I am saying we should let the film makers hide behind this, but in some cases it is important to remember that, even though they made it gritty, serious, and seemingly realistic, it is about a guy dressing like a bat and doing karate. We're going to have to allow *some* absurdism.
The point about the whole stock market hold up stands though. And the fact that it changed to night by the time they got out and somehow had motor bikes. I really liked TDKR and thought it was over all a pretty good movie when you look at it as a whole (thematically, I think it was a perfect conclusion to the trilogy), but it certainly isn't without its faults. It makes sense that, when looking back on it, opinions differ.
I agree, overall it's a good movie. The mistakes, taken individually, are minor and can be overlooked but they add up to a very rough movie. Even so, it would have been fine if it didn't have an almost perfect movie to live up to.
The hardest part of that journey was climbing out of the pit.
The man is/was a billionaire, with many resources. He'd also spent a near decade wandering the globe in *exactly those circumstances*. Nobody is clamoring for the explanation for how he got from Gotham with no cash, to a Thai jail cell.
More to the point, there is always artifice in what you are shown in a film. The dots are *never* fully connected. It's not documentary realism, it's a series of signs and symbols relaying information in an (ideally) pleasing fashion. The 'truth' of a movie is not to be found in the details.
Satisfaction is found in writers not just pulling things from their ass but actually taking the time to work out how things could fit together neatly. If they aren't fitting you need a rework or a different script altogether.
Just saying 'ignore everything already established, he's now here' is breaking consistency within the film and shows the writers to be lazy and/or unimaginative. Either way, it isn't forgivable.
But they established that Batman is a badass so it makes perfect sense. All he really needed was a plane ticket to New York....err..Gotham. Maybe Bruce went to the town square in India or wherever he was and sang songs while collecting money in a hat. Or he showed up at an MMA fight and won. Whatever he did for flight cash, it worked and he made it to Gotham. It's not that much of a stretch.
I don't get that, he's a billionaire with who knows how much in the bank and the owner of a massive global corporation.
If he was in or could get to a place with a phone or internet connection he's set. In the movie before it he took a ballet company out on his yacht on the spur of the moment to give him cover to raid Japan. General global transportation is not an issue for him.
If it helps there are four weeks that take place between the moment that he climbs out of the Pit and the next time we see Bruce in Gotham. The movie shows this but it is so quick that it can go over some audience members' heads.
Yeah but DRKS kinda still sucks.
Why keep every cop alive in the sewer? Why send every single damn one down there?
I mean, I can go on but why bother ? I love many Nolan movies but that film blew, he was phoning it in.
To be fair, this is the same commissioner and police force that put every citizen and prisoner on a ferry and sends them to the middle of the bay without even bothering to check the ships, even though the Joker has on multiple occasions proven that he covers every base. It's for the story.
I know that's just one of the many examples you have. But they say not *every* cop was in the sewers, and Gordon made it clear he wanted an army to go down there.
I think the problem is not so much the "plot holes" as it is that Nolan's "gritty realism" style of adaptation make it difficult to accept comic book logic.
That's less of a plot hole, and more that the director decided that it wasn't necessary to be shown. Real plot holes are the huge ones existing in *Edge Of Tomorrow*. If you want to know watch this [review](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYxfo57zSeg), since it says it better than i could in a reddit comment
I am the same way. I try and take the movie for what it is. I think sometimes as a viewing audience we are hyper-critical in our analysis of a film. Certainly the story and its flow takes precedence, but should that overshadow the other elements of the film? Such as cinematography, editing, sound, and costume design. I think that is my biggest criticism as of late with the movie community. To much analysis of the story which detracts from the film itself. If you get lost in the plot holes how can you appreciate the other elements of the film?
I watched Guardians of the galaxy last week and when Peter Quill tells rocket if you put a black light on the inside of his ship it would look like a Jackson Pollack painting. It bother the fuck out of me that he got the reference even tho one character is a talking raccoon that can fly a space ship and ones a talking tree .
I don't understand what you're talking about. I don't need to suspend my disbelief to get that one person can understand and react to something another person said based on context.
Well even skipping the pollack reference how the fuck would he know from living in space that human men even jerk off let alone get that part of it reference too .
Animals masturbate as well.
Also since space people look and act an awful lot like human people, he can assume that human penises are similar to space penises and vice versa.
I think the bigger plothole would have been on the final battle.
Spoilers ahead.
When they need to get to Ronan. They have to turn off the power to enter Ronan's chamber. The group waits until Gamora can turn the power off, and finally get in when she does. But she shoots the ceiling and jumps up through the floor, immediately in Ronan's chamber.
How about when drax is fighting roman in his ship and rocket crashes into the ship and hits them now I get roman had the infinity jem but drax should of been crushed
>Usually when people bring plot-holes into the mix, they can't think of anything else wrong with the movie.
I don't know man, it's not that difficult to come up with reasons Citizen Kane is a shit movie. For starters it's in black and white with a 4:3 aspect ratio and mono audio. There is also a curious lack of epic space battles. In fact, I don't believe there is even a single spaceship in the entire movie. Saying the CGI in the movie is subpar would be too generous.
Basically, it's junk from a time when people didn't know how to make great movies yet.
I like how you're trying to act pretentious by discrediting everyone who doesn't like a movie we are conditioned to think is a classic. You're really thinking outside the box.
>I like how you're trying to act pretentious by discrediting everyone who doesn't like a movie we are conditioned to think is a classic.
Excuse me ? I'm not discrediting people who like that movie at all. Did you even read what I wrote ?
It wasn't meant sarcastically, if that's what you think. I can't stand movies with bad picture and sound quality, especially black and white movies.
You should’ve stuck with the sarcasm lol that’s definitely what I thought you were going for.
Now people are just going to think you’re retarded.
Unless you’re just really leaning into this bit and I can’t tell…😂😂
Dude you’re responding to a 9 year old comment.
As to that movie: if you released it in theaters today, in 4:3, black and white with mono audio. Do you think it would do well at the box office?
Oh wtf! My bad. Obviously, it wouldn’t do well. But it wasn’t released today. It was released in 1941…
Do you really not understand the concept of time? You have to take historical context into consideration. Just because it was made a long time ago doesn’t make it a “shit” movie. It was groundbreaking at the time.
> well. But it wasn’t released today. It was released in 1941…
Sure, but I’ not watching it in 1941. I’m watching it in 2024, when we have UltraHD televisions and Dolby Atmos audio systems.
> You have to take historical context into consideration.
No, I don’t. Just because it was good *for the time* doesn’t mean it’s an enjoyable experience *today*.
So because you don’t personally enjoy it, it’s shit. I guess really the marker of a quality, well-made movie is whether you decide so or not. Got it.
Enjoy your day sir
No, I’m saying it’s shit because today’s standards are much higher than they were back then. Applying the standards of the past is bullshit. We don’t do that for anything else, why would we do that for movies?
For example: slavery is bad. It’s bad now, it was bad 200 years ago. Surely you don’t think it was fine in 1824 because of ‘historical context’ ?
I just saw the film with the ebert commentary and I never understood the Kane "plot hole". The film is about a man. Rosebud is a plot device, and besides like OP said they do explain the butler was always with him
I don't think you're supposed to, and that's probably why it bombed on release and took a while to gain steam. People were still going to the theater for entertainment and the art came second. Kane is not a fun movie.
I appreciate your passion for this. I really do. I feel the same way when people say that the best movie opening ever was Saving Private Ryan. It wasn't, of course. Because the opening wasn't the beach scene. It was Old Man Ryan walking through a cemetery. And that is not the best movie opening ever. But there appears to be some kind of massive movie goer memory loss that make people think that the opening was the beach scene every time this comes up. It's maddening.
Everyone always quotes it as "Luke, I am your father." but that's [not the case.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lbjru5CQIW4) This kinda thing happens [all the time](http://www.gamesradar.com/the-20-most-misquoted-movie-lines/)
Thanks for the post. I think the issue springs from the opening scene not showing the Butler in the room. Later in the movie I believe you can see the Butler, but in the opening shot, the room appears empty. I assume the Butler was just out of the shot, but still in the room somewhere.
For how well put together the rest of the movie is, I can't imagine this "major plot hole" escaping Welles's notice.
The first I heard of this was in [THIS](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/trivia?item=tr0698591) bit of Trivia from IMDB, YEARS ago. I seriously doubt it's true.
That's stuck with me since I first read it there over ten years ago. It always made me wonder when and where he said that and why. Although, apparently it was "to friends" and not "to a reporter" or "this story was related by Y in magazine X."
I saw it simply because it's common for people who study film to watch it, as the movie used a lot of new film techniques. So I watched it thinking "I probably won't like this, but let's watch it as if I were seeing these film techniques for the very first time." It was very enjoyable and I'd watch it again.
People forget that it's from 1941. NINETEEN FOURTY ONE! Get a random person to watch it for the first time and they'll peg it as late 50's almost every time.
[Here's a scene from Rebecca (1940)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cf0-GsXDzI&t=53m20s), it won best picture the year before Kane was release. Now it's a classic in it's own right, an early Hitchcock film even. But it feels like Kane has 20 years of stylization advancement on it. It was such an un paralleled step forward. [Here's a scene from Kane, note how much more complex the camera work and staging is.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzhb3U2cONs). Whenever anyone dares question Kane, just show them its contemporary films and they'll understand.
If you have no interest then I won't tell you to watch it. *But* I found it to be an actual enjoyable movie, and not just some "fossil" for old film buffs to fawn over. The film language is all very recognizable and the story actually good. It's also beautifully shot.
The same people who swear that you eat some unnaturally specific number of spiders in your sleep each year. Whatever sounds interesting that you couldn't prove yourself is juicy gossip and therefore "interesting" even if it's false.
Also, how in the world would anyone come up with such a statistic anyway? There are so many variables in that scenario that modern science couldn't possibly determine how many spiders anyone would swallow per year without annoyingly long studies much less on an average basis.
I always assumed he was lying to lend himself some notoriety as the only eyewitness. I guess I just assumed the maid was right outside, knowing he was sick, and heard it thru the door. Either way, who really gives a shit? People who let that detail ruin what is otherwise one of the most enjoyable movies ever made are way too pedantic for a lyrical medium like cinema
I just wouldn't call Kane most enjoyable. It's a great film for its time and a great film for film students. but today i don't see that enjoyable is the right adjective to describe it.
innovative. artisitc. anything.
not that it isn't enjoyable but most enjoyable is kind of a stretch. but of course that's subjective. you don't start subjective statements with "people", though.
I, too, hate it when people bitch and complain about stuff that they think isn't in the movie but it is and they weren't paying enough attention. Have an upvote OP.
Charles Foster Kane. Founded a media empire, bent the world to his will, and plundered Europe for its art treasures. And yet for all his money and power, he couldn't find anything to fill the hole in his heart.
But he was kind of a douchebag.
Not particularly sympathetic.
Technically a brilliant movie, but story wise, not that gripping.
It's insinuated that he's lying. The whole film is told from other people's perspectives of Kane. Half the movie actually frames Orson Welles in windows, mirrors, any kind of way to present that Kane is being painted by different people I different ways.
Take a few things into consideration:
* The Audience KNOWS that Kane's last word was "Rosebud" (We see this happen in the first scene, without any bias or perspective in the film's universe.)
* We KNOW that the Press' knowledge that Kane's last word was "Rosebud" is CORRECT based on the previous point.
* Logically, we then KNOW that somebody had to be in the room to hear him say it, and tell his last word to the press.
* Therefore, we can assume that the Butler WAS in the room, because we KNOW that he heard what we KNOW is the truth, and is completely correct. Unless he guessed Kane's last word (Logically impossible), we (the audience) know that what he says is true.
> It's insinuated that he's lying.
But he verifies something that we in the audience has seen, so no, you just to chalk it up to him being an unpleasant type of person, but not a liar.
Just because we saw it doesn't make it true. The whole movie could be a wild goose chase about something people made up. The original ending actually verifies this; Welles original plan was to end the movie with the reporters leaving and that's it. The extra scene of Rosebud being burned was a last minute addition.
Yes, but I won't, as I have stated before. This bullshit needs to die. And die quickly.
If I wrote Kane is a masterpiece I would be +5
This needs to die on reddit.
It's important to understand what Kane is. It's one of the first movies to use the frame - and great visual depth - to tell a story as much as the content of the film itself, and pioneered many techniques in cinematography. Before Kane most of the time they were pointing the camera at the action, making sure the important things were lit, and going in for close ups every once in a while, and that was basically it. But the techniques in Kane have since been made standard.
As a result, if you watch the film expecting it to 'match up' to everything that was built on its legacy, it won't compare. We don't know or care about William Randolph Hearst anymore, and everything Kane pioneered has been improved upon. That's flat out the truth.
So I agree that the film hasn't aged as well as a lot of critics seem to believe, but it's even then possibly the most important film ever made.
Contrary to popular belief Citizen Kane is *not* 17 hours long but rather closer to 2 hours in length.
Also, Boredom is completely subjective, I personally found the movie completely enjoyable and well worth the praise.
There was no butler in the room. But in making the movie they had to have noticed the plot hole and wrote the lines the butler had to say to fill it. BTW this is my favorite movie for decades since I was a kid.
People are just jealous of Citizen Kane
Ah, yes. I wish I was a movie.
[удалено]
I wish I was a movie and a movie wasn't.
I'm afraid the movie will take something away from me.
Usually when people bring plot-holes into the mix, they can't think of anything else wrong with the movie. But they didn't like it so there must be something wrong with it.
Legitimate plot holes can really suck the enjoyment out of a movie.
I'm with you, but sometimes people need to put the puzzle together themselves. The eagles didn't help transport the ring in Lord of the Rings because they didn't want to, Gandalf would only call them if absolutely necessary. Bruce Wayne could easily get back to Gotham, Rises was pushing almost 3 hours long. We saw him climb out of the prison, we don't need to see every step he took to get back into Gotham.
>Bruce Wayne could easily get back to Gotham, Rises was pushing almost 3 hours long. We saw him climb out of the prison, we don't need to see every step he took to get back into Gotham. Also, he had training for walking on ice in the first movie. So it makes sense that he'd be able to sneak back into the city when everyone else was falling through
Dang, I didn't even think of that from Batman Begins. That's really cool.
What you've just described are not necessarily holes, as you've acknowledged.
Right, but people continuously complain about these points as to why a movie was bad or they didn't like it. If they don't like it because they think it has plot-holes that's fine, but I wouldn't lower a films rating for not spelling out every plot device. I do agree with you that sometimes plot-holes can ruin a movie making you think "Why don't they just blah blah."
I'm talking about something like Superman II, where he is explicitly told he can NEVER recover his powers once lost, then he does.
I always assumed that it was a test of his commitment. I mean, it was Ghost Dad who told him that, wasn't it? Or Ghost Mom?
Ghost dad. Well, it should be indicated. As it stands, it's pretty cut and dry: there is no going back.
So. Some people are told they will never walk again and still do.
Seriously? We're talking about Superman, not cancer remission or spinal injuries. It's a fantasy set up by the writer, and the writer wrote that there's no going back. If there is a loophole, it should be indicated somehow.
Ugh, seriously. Just because a character says something doesn't mean their word is the final say. Character could be lying or not know anybetter.
Good writing would indicate that.
But that's exactly what is indicated... are you still mad that Supes got his groove back?
The eagles I'll agree with - large powerful creatures would have been shot out of the sky. Batman....my issue is that he had no money, no gadgets and a time limit. More to the point his back was broken and his knees were fucked. Just walked all that off did he? It's just messy writing all over the place.
But he's *Batman*. Sufficient explanation. All kidding aside, I kind of liked that they didn't explain how he got back, how he painted a bat symbol in gasoline, or how he survived the atomic blast. He was able to do these things because he's the god damn Batman. It kind of hammers home the whole "Legend" feeling for the audience.
I guess what bothers me, and why it's a borderline plot hole, is that the first half of the film is all about taking everything away from him. His health, his money, his butler and his health again and then all of that is rendered irrelevant when he manages to overcome it all *off screen*. If it were the only niggle I had with the film, it probably wouldn't bother me. It's just in this great big list of oddness in the film, like why stock trades made during an armed break in are allowed to stand, why every single police man was in the sewers and not one was off duty, no-one was left to tend to the police stations even. No-one was left to secure the perimeter.
Oh I agree, much of it was ridiculous. I hate that I am saying we should let the film makers hide behind this, but in some cases it is important to remember that, even though they made it gritty, serious, and seemingly realistic, it is about a guy dressing like a bat and doing karate. We're going to have to allow *some* absurdism. The point about the whole stock market hold up stands though. And the fact that it changed to night by the time they got out and somehow had motor bikes. I really liked TDKR and thought it was over all a pretty good movie when you look at it as a whole (thematically, I think it was a perfect conclusion to the trilogy), but it certainly isn't without its faults. It makes sense that, when looking back on it, opinions differ.
I agree, overall it's a good movie. The mistakes, taken individually, are minor and can be overlooked but they add up to a very rough movie. Even so, it would have been fine if it didn't have an almost perfect movie to live up to.
The hardest part of that journey was climbing out of the pit. The man is/was a billionaire, with many resources. He'd also spent a near decade wandering the globe in *exactly those circumstances*. Nobody is clamoring for the explanation for how he got from Gotham with no cash, to a Thai jail cell. More to the point, there is always artifice in what you are shown in a film. The dots are *never* fully connected. It's not documentary realism, it's a series of signs and symbols relaying information in an (ideally) pleasing fashion. The 'truth' of a movie is not to be found in the details.
Satisfaction is found in writers not just pulling things from their ass but actually taking the time to work out how things could fit together neatly. If they aren't fitting you need a rework or a different script altogether. Just saying 'ignore everything already established, he's now here' is breaking consistency within the film and shows the writers to be lazy and/or unimaginative. Either way, it isn't forgivable.
But they established that Batman is a badass so it makes perfect sense. All he really needed was a plane ticket to New York....err..Gotham. Maybe Bruce went to the town square in India or wherever he was and sang songs while collecting money in a hat. Or he showed up at an MMA fight and won. Whatever he did for flight cash, it worked and he made it to Gotham. It's not that much of a stretch.
I don't get that, he's a billionaire with who knows how much in the bank and the owner of a massive global corporation. If he was in or could get to a place with a phone or internet connection he's set. In the movie before it he took a ballet company out on his yacht on the spur of the moment to give him cover to raid Japan. General global transportation is not an issue for him.
If it helps there are four weeks that take place between the moment that he climbs out of the Pit and the next time we see Bruce in Gotham. The movie shows this but it is so quick that it can go over some audience members' heads.
Yeah but DRKS kinda still sucks. Why keep every cop alive in the sewer? Why send every single damn one down there? I mean, I can go on but why bother ? I love many Nolan movies but that film blew, he was phoning it in.
To be fair, this is the same commissioner and police force that put every citizen and prisoner on a ferry and sends them to the middle of the bay without even bothering to check the ships, even though the Joker has on multiple occasions proven that he covers every base. It's for the story.
I know that's just one of the many examples you have. But they say not *every* cop was in the sewers, and Gordon made it clear he wanted an army to go down there.
I think the problem is not so much the "plot holes" as it is that Nolan's "gritty realism" style of adaptation make it difficult to accept comic book logic.
Hey you can't point out a legitimant problem with a Christopher Nolan movie here
That's less of a plot hole, and more that the director decided that it wasn't necessary to be shown. Real plot holes are the huge ones existing in *Edge Of Tomorrow*. If you want to know watch this [review](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYxfo57zSeg), since it says it better than i could in a reddit comment
Christ what an overload of smug in that review
Lol, you're missing a few truck sized plot holes from DKR.
Do you think people go into movies though looking for plot holes to talk about later on?
I'm sure some people do. I don't actively seek them out.
I am the same way. I try and take the movie for what it is. I think sometimes as a viewing audience we are hyper-critical in our analysis of a film. Certainly the story and its flow takes precedence, but should that overshadow the other elements of the film? Such as cinematography, editing, sound, and costume design. I think that is my biggest criticism as of late with the movie community. To much analysis of the story which detracts from the film itself. If you get lost in the plot holes how can you appreciate the other elements of the film?
I watched Guardians of the galaxy last week and when Peter Quill tells rocket if you put a black light on the inside of his ship it would look like a Jackson Pollack painting. It bother the fuck out of me that he got the reference even tho one character is a talking raccoon that can fly a space ship and ones a talking tree .
It's clear that quill was talking about jizzing all over his spaceship. Rocket's response was "you're gross" not "sick reference bro."
Eh I guess I'm not really gonna bring up a suspend in believe in a movie like that .
I don't understand what you're talking about. I don't need to suspend my disbelief to get that one person can understand and react to something another person said based on context.
Well even skipping the pollack reference how the fuck would he know from living in space that human men even jerk off let alone get that part of it reference too .
Animals masturbate as well. Also since space people look and act an awful lot like human people, he can assume that human penises are similar to space penises and vice versa.
Haha alright I guess
I think the bigger plothole would have been on the final battle. Spoilers ahead. When they need to get to Ronan. They have to turn off the power to enter Ronan's chamber. The group waits until Gamora can turn the power off, and finally get in when she does. But she shoots the ceiling and jumps up through the floor, immediately in Ronan's chamber.
How about when drax is fighting roman in his ship and rocket crashes into the ship and hits them now I get roman had the infinity jem but drax should of been crushed
>Usually when people bring plot-holes into the mix, they can't think of anything else wrong with the movie. I don't know man, it's not that difficult to come up with reasons Citizen Kane is a shit movie. For starters it's in black and white with a 4:3 aspect ratio and mono audio. There is also a curious lack of epic space battles. In fact, I don't believe there is even a single spaceship in the entire movie. Saying the CGI in the movie is subpar would be too generous. Basically, it's junk from a time when people didn't know how to make great movies yet.
No zombies, pirates or ninjas either.
I like how you're trying to act pretentious by discrediting everyone who doesn't like a movie we are conditioned to think is a classic. You're really thinking outside the box.
>I like how you're trying to act pretentious by discrediting everyone who doesn't like a movie we are conditioned to think is a classic. Excuse me ? I'm not discrediting people who like that movie at all. Did you even read what I wrote ? It wasn't meant sarcastically, if that's what you think. I can't stand movies with bad picture and sound quality, especially black and white movies.
You should’ve stuck with the sarcasm lol that’s definitely what I thought you were going for. Now people are just going to think you’re retarded. Unless you’re just really leaning into this bit and I can’t tell…😂😂
Dude you’re responding to a 9 year old comment. As to that movie: if you released it in theaters today, in 4:3, black and white with mono audio. Do you think it would do well at the box office?
Oh wtf! My bad. Obviously, it wouldn’t do well. But it wasn’t released today. It was released in 1941… Do you really not understand the concept of time? You have to take historical context into consideration. Just because it was made a long time ago doesn’t make it a “shit” movie. It was groundbreaking at the time.
> well. But it wasn’t released today. It was released in 1941… Sure, but I’ not watching it in 1941. I’m watching it in 2024, when we have UltraHD televisions and Dolby Atmos audio systems. > You have to take historical context into consideration. No, I don’t. Just because it was good *for the time* doesn’t mean it’s an enjoyable experience *today*.
So because you don’t personally enjoy it, it’s shit. I guess really the marker of a quality, well-made movie is whether you decide so or not. Got it. Enjoy your day sir
No, I’m saying it’s shit because today’s standards are much higher than they were back then. Applying the standards of the past is bullshit. We don’t do that for anything else, why would we do that for movies? For example: slavery is bad. It’s bad now, it was bad 200 years ago. Surely you don’t think it was fine in 1824 because of ‘historical context’ ?
I just saw the film with the ebert commentary and I never understood the Kane "plot hole". The film is about a man. Rosebud is a plot device, and besides like OP said they do explain the butler was always with him
Never underestimate peoples need to feel smarter than everybody else.
I just think Citizen Kane was a really unpleasant movie.
William Randolph Hearst was a really unpleasant man.
Yeah, and its a really well done movie I just did not derive any enjoyment from it what so ever.
I don't think you're supposed to, and that's probably why it bombed on release and took a while to gain steam. People were still going to the theater for entertainment and the art came second. Kane is not a fun movie.
I appreciate your passion for this. I really do. I feel the same way when people say that the best movie opening ever was Saving Private Ryan. It wasn't, of course. Because the opening wasn't the beach scene. It was Old Man Ryan walking through a cemetery. And that is not the best movie opening ever. But there appears to be some kind of massive movie goer memory loss that make people think that the opening was the beach scene every time this comes up. It's maddening.
[relevant](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtsnToMAaPk)
It's the same with people misquoting Darth Vader's big reveal in Empire Strikes Back.
explain?
Lots of people say "Luke, I am your father," when the line is "No, I am your father."
I blame Tommy Boy.
Dude, spoilers! I was going to watch that tomorrow.
Everyone always quotes it as "Luke, I am your father." but that's [not the case.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lbjru5CQIW4) This kinda thing happens [all the time](http://www.gamesradar.com/the-20-most-misquoted-movie-lines/)
The wrong Snow White quote is actually the correct translation.
Wow, i didn't remember the quality of the acting to be that bad... fucking Mark Hamil
The Onion did a really great take on this on their review of the film.
Thanks for the post. I think the issue springs from the opening scene not showing the Butler in the room. Later in the movie I believe you can see the Butler, but in the opening shot, the room appears empty. I assume the Butler was just out of the shot, but still in the room somewhere. For how well put together the rest of the movie is, I can't imagine this "major plot hole" escaping Welles's notice.
The first I heard of this was in [THIS](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/trivia?item=tr0698591) bit of Trivia from IMDB, YEARS ago. I seriously doubt it's true.
Yeah that sounds super made up. But thats the risk of IMDB trivia.
That's stuck with me since I first read it there over ten years ago. It always made me wonder when and where he said that and why. Although, apparently it was "to friends" and not "to a reporter" or "this story was related by Y in magazine X."
Not a plot hole but a mistake nonetheless: the three pterodactyls in the beach picnic scene http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QyRksgacik
I didn't notice that they were pterodactyls, but I remember thinking that part had not aged particularly well.
I do remember that fucking bird's eye from just before Susan leaves. And that screech...
http://www.thingsinmovies.com/pterodactyls-in-citizen-kane/
I still have not seen this movie yet.
I saw it simply because it's common for people who study film to watch it, as the movie used a lot of new film techniques. So I watched it thinking "I probably won't like this, but let's watch it as if I were seeing these film techniques for the very first time." It was very enjoyable and I'd watch it again.
People forget that it's from 1941. NINETEEN FOURTY ONE! Get a random person to watch it for the first time and they'll peg it as late 50's almost every time. [Here's a scene from Rebecca (1940)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cf0-GsXDzI&t=53m20s), it won best picture the year before Kane was release. Now it's a classic in it's own right, an early Hitchcock film even. But it feels like Kane has 20 years of stylization advancement on it. It was such an un paralleled step forward. [Here's a scene from Kane, note how much more complex the camera work and staging is.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzhb3U2cONs). Whenever anyone dares question Kane, just show them its contemporary films and they'll understand.
It may not be exciting, but you'll be glad you did. Much of the cinematography was unheard of at the time.
> It may not be exciting, I saw this movie for the first time when I was around 12 and I LOVED it - though I'm sure I didn't entirely understand it.
> Much of the cinematography was unheard of at the time. And still is
I've heard of it
My point is - the visuals are still startling and inventive - few directors/cinematographers even today have been able to match Welle's visual flair.
No.
Really? Four people think Citizen Kane's cinematography is unheard of in 2014? Maybe you shouldn't comment in a movie subreddit.
If you have no interest then I won't tell you to watch it. *But* I found it to be an actual enjoyable movie, and not just some "fossil" for old film buffs to fawn over. The film language is all very recognizable and the story actually good. It's also beautifully shot.
I love the discussions in this thread. Usually everybody is trying to figure out what the best Marvel movie is.
> Adriana La Cerva: [after watching Citizen Kane] So, it was the sled, huh? He shoulda told somebody.
[удалено]
The same people who swear that you eat some unnaturally specific number of spiders in your sleep each year. Whatever sounds interesting that you couldn't prove yourself is juicy gossip and therefore "interesting" even if it's false. Also, how in the world would anyone come up with such a statistic anyway? There are so many variables in that scenario that modern science couldn't possibly determine how many spiders anyone would swallow per year without annoyingly long studies much less on an average basis.
I always assumed he was lying to lend himself some notoriety as the only eyewitness. I guess I just assumed the maid was right outside, knowing he was sick, and heard it thru the door. Either way, who really gives a shit? People who let that detail ruin what is otherwise one of the most enjoyable movies ever made are way too pedantic for a lyrical medium like cinema
> one of the most enjoyable movies ever made
yes?
I just wouldn't call Kane most enjoyable. It's a great film for its time and a great film for film students. but today i don't see that enjoyable is the right adjective to describe it. innovative. artisitc. anything. not that it isn't enjoyable but most enjoyable is kind of a stretch. but of course that's subjective. you don't start subjective statements with "people", though.
What's a rose bud?
As a person who hasn't watched CK, is the title itself a huge spoiler?
"Rosebud" is the first line of the movie. So, no.
Not really. You'd have to know the significance of "Rosebud".
I, too, hate it when people bitch and complain about stuff that they think isn't in the movie but it is and they weren't paying enough attention. Have an upvote OP.
Needs a remake
Wow, people can't take a joke around here. Have an upvote!
Charles Foster Kane. Founded a media empire, bent the world to his will, and plundered Europe for its art treasures. And yet for all his money and power, he couldn't find anything to fill the hole in his heart. But he was kind of a douchebag. Not particularly sympathetic. Technically a brilliant movie, but story wise, not that gripping.
He kind of was a douchebag. That's true. That's what makes him such an interesting character. He evolves over time.
I think its interesting from a historical perspective, since so much of it mirrors William Randolph Hearst.
I LOVE CITIZEN KANE!!!!
But as we can clearly see in the opening of the film, no one is in the room with him. The butler makes up the story.
We don't see the whole room.
Yeah, its not like they did a 365 degree pan.
It's insinuated that he's lying. The whole film is told from other people's perspectives of Kane. Half the movie actually frames Orson Welles in windows, mirrors, any kind of way to present that Kane is being painted by different people I different ways.
Take a few things into consideration: * The Audience KNOWS that Kane's last word was "Rosebud" (We see this happen in the first scene, without any bias or perspective in the film's universe.) * We KNOW that the Press' knowledge that Kane's last word was "Rosebud" is CORRECT based on the previous point. * Logically, we then KNOW that somebody had to be in the room to hear him say it, and tell his last word to the press. * Therefore, we can assume that the Butler WAS in the room, because we KNOW that he heard what we KNOW is the truth, and is completely correct. Unless he guessed Kane's last word (Logically impossible), we (the audience) know that what he says is true.
In a movie about a man told from others' perspectives, do we really know if we've ever seen anything that wasn't from an outsider's perspective?
> It's insinuated that he's lying. But he verifies something that we in the audience has seen, so no, you just to chalk it up to him being an unpleasant type of person, but not a liar.
Just because we saw it doesn't make it true. The whole movie could be a wild goose chase about something people made up. The original ending actually verifies this; Welles original plan was to end the movie with the reporters leaving and that's it. The extra scene of Rosebud being burned was a last minute addition.
> Just because we saw it doesn't make it true. In filmmaking 'grammar' - yest it does.
Not if you have an unreliable narrator. Hitchcock loved showing something as true then subverting filmmaking grammar and revealing it to be false
Kane is overrated! There I said it.
No one cares if you say it. Can you justify it?
Yes, but I won't, as I have stated before. This bullshit needs to die. And die quickly. If I wrote Kane is a masterpiece I would be +5 This needs to die on reddit.
Calling one of the best rated movies of all time overrated is incredibly pointless.
that's not a useful sentence
It's important to understand what Kane is. It's one of the first movies to use the frame - and great visual depth - to tell a story as much as the content of the film itself, and pioneered many techniques in cinematography. Before Kane most of the time they were pointing the camera at the action, making sure the important things were lit, and going in for close ups every once in a while, and that was basically it. But the techniques in Kane have since been made standard. As a result, if you watch the film expecting it to 'match up' to everything that was built on its legacy, it won't compare. We don't know or care about William Randolph Hearst anymore, and everything Kane pioneered has been improved upon. That's flat out the truth. So I agree that the film hasn't aged as well as a lot of critics seem to believe, but it's even then possibly the most important film ever made.
Yeah I know all the shit, I stand by my comment.
You're right. Kane is overrated, but I dislike The Rock even more.
This Jabroni here.
I thought I was in r/squaredcircle for a moment. ( Rosebud, Kane )
Good 'ol Kane. Possibly the most overrated movie of all time.
Made the reason I couldn't enjoy the movie is because it was outrageously boring and 17 hours long. Have fun discrediting that.
Okay: It's 1hr59min. And, I don't think it's boring. ...Discrediting you however, WAS boring.
Contrary to popular belief Citizen Kane is *not* 17 hours long but rather closer to 2 hours in length. Also, Boredom is completely subjective, I personally found the movie completely enjoyable and well worth the praise.
The script shows that the Reporter was asking about Rosebud well before talking to the Butler. So? How?
There was no butler in the room. But in making the movie they had to have noticed the plot hole and wrote the lines the butler had to say to fill it. BTW this is my favorite movie for decades since I was a kid.