The Dark Knight Rises 6 Minutes of TDKR footage attached to Mission Impossible 4! - - - - Part 13

[Fabian]

I don't see what's so terrible about that dialogue though?

It's only the CIA *****e who annoy's me.

Bane's dialogue is perfect and from the rest 2.But that CIA person is ****ing irritating.

 

[The_Raganork]

It's only the CIA *****e who annoy's me.

Bane's dialogue is perfect and from the rest 2.But that CIA person is ****ing irritating.

Exactly the point of the character.

 

[Broker]

his dialogue is awful. Again: he's an overconfident, annoying ass.

I am sure Jar Jar's dialogue was intended to illicit a reaction which it acheived, to a degree.

It doesn't mean that it was good dialogue.

 

[The Morningstar]

Same as the guy in the armoured van with Gordon in TDK. Doesn't matter what the intention was or is, bad dialogue is bad dialogue and bad acting is bad acting.

 

[The_Raganork]

I am sure Jar Jar's dialogue was intended to illicit a reaction which it acheived, to a degree.

It doesn't mean that it was good dialogue.

Jar-jar's purpose was to be cute. George Lucas didn't intend for him to be an annoying character.

But I'm not going to argue this all day. The CIA guy was annoying and obnoxious and I liked it, perfect Balance to Bane's calm tactical beast.

 

[Broker]

Jar-jar's purpose was to be cute. George Lucas didn't intend for him to be an annoying character.

I agree for the most part.

Lucas likely knew that Jar Jar would be annoying for adults but it didn't matter so much because he made clear it was a film for kids. As far as many kids were concerned Jar Jar came across as cute and they loved him. Lucas wrote the dialogue to that end and he succeeded in his intention - but it does not alter most peoples opinion that the dialogue is dreadful.

Conversely, David Brent in the Office is overconfident and a jackass and clearly the script is written to protray that. But the script is not dreadful to achieve that. We get the picture that Brent is a muppet without thinking that it was poorly written.

Clearly, in terms of TDKR the Agent is meant to appear overconfident and out of his depth, as you say. But the dialogue could have been written innumerable ways to achieve that. It need not (in my opinion) have been quite as cheesy as it was.

 

[munchie64]

No,but i dont like he's style in the prologue.

Then you can't to say no to some one who HAS actually seen him in other things where he seems to do a good job.

Also I don't see what's wrong with the CIA *****e's dialogue. His acting maybe, but not his dialogue. "What's the next step of your master plan" makes sense. Bane bragged about his plan, and CIA called him out on it as it seemed that there was no way of escaping it.

 

[Fabian]

Jar Jar was funny.Lucas he's movies arent that uber-serious like Nolan's films

(no offense,i'm a fan of Nolan's vision)

 

[Bads316]

Jar-jar's purpose was to be cute. George Lucas didn't intend for him to be an annoying character.

But I'm not going to argue this all day. The CIA guy was annoying and obnoxious and I liked it, perfect Balance to Bane's calm tactical beast.

Exactly right.

Also, the dialogue in the prologue is consistent with the dialogue in the other two films. It's not as if you're watching it thinking that the writing has taken a dramatic turn for the worst, there were lots of complaints about TDK's prologue and the dialogue within, now that scene is being held up as an untouchable perfect slice of filmmaking.

You're criticising an elephant for having a trunk.

 

[Broker]

Then you can't to say no to some one who HAS actually seen him in other things where he seems to do a good job.

I think he's a good actor.

Aside from the recent more high profile work, I remember him from 'Queer of Folk' over a decade ago which he was brilliant in.

But I have also seen him in things which I don't think have worked for him. For example, he was recently in the TV Detective drama 'Thorne' where he had a substantive role but, in my opinion, did not convince as a Pathologist.

It was not necessarily his fault, I think he was miscast.

 

[munchie64]

I don't know, I haven't seen him in anything else. It just seems that someone who actually has, is a better authority on whether he is good or bad.

 

[Broker]

I don't know, I haven't seen him in anything else. It just seems that someone who actually has, is a better authority on whether he is good or bad.

I don't think you need to have seen him in anything else to make a judgement on how he is in TDKR. Surely every role is judged on its merits. As I said, I've seen him in films and TV series where he has been brilliant and some where he has been, in my opinion, poor.

It's not just based on his ability as an actor, the role has to be right and the script has to be right.

Sometimes it just doesn't work.

 

[Bads316]

Put it this way, this isn't some random guy who Nolan has thrown in on a whim, he is guy renowned for playing slimy, arrogant, unlikeable characters - it's perfect casting.

 

[Broker]

Put it this way, this isn't some random guy who Nolan has thrown in on a whim, he is guy renowned for playing slimy, arrogant, unlikeable characters - it's perfect casting.

On the face of it, yes. I think where he has had success playing such characters is where he has had the time to develop them.

In such a short time he has to get that over here, so I think it comes across as somewhat forced.

 

[munchie64]

I don't think you need to have seen him in anything else to make a judgement on how he is in TDKR. Surely every role is judged on its merits. As I said, I've seen him in films and TV series where he has been brilliant and some where he has been, in my opinion, poor.

It's not just based on his ability as an actor, the role has to be right and the script has to be right.

Sometimes it just doesn't work.

Yeah, but I wasn't talking about his TDKR role being good or bad, I was talking about his acting abilities being goo or bad. Something the person I responded to thought was bad when he had only seen the guy in a single role. It wasn't so much that he thought the guy was a bad actor, but more because he flat out said "No" to someone who has seen the guy in many roles and has a more complete perspective.

I agree with you about not needing anything else to judge a character in a film though.

 

[Pwz414]

Exactly the point of the character.

He seems incompetent. Maybe he was a book worm who always dreamed of the field but never quite had what it takes. He seems to think he’s tough and intimidating, but he’s really just a dork.

 

[Nevincer]

But the character is clunky and forced. He's an idiot trying to play big man.

Exactly, that's the character. Jesus. It may give you the same vibes of a bad actor who's overacting, but that's what it is supposed to do. He's an incompetant *****ebag in the CIA who has been assigned on an important operation, and he's doing a cheesy impression of what he thinks a "tough CIA guy" would be like in this situation based probably on what he's seen on tv or film.

This is like someone complaining about a scene in a film involving karoake where the character is supposed to be a bad singer, and then blaming the obviously intended bad performance on the actor/execution. What makes it worse is like Rag stated, it's made painstakingly clear. "Or perhaps he's wondering why someone would shoot a man, before throwing him out of a plane?"

 

[MrWayne]

Same as the guy in the armoured van with Gordon in TDK. Doesn't matter what the intention was or is, bad dialogue is bad dialogue and bad acting is bad acting.

Haha you know I thought about that guy when I thought of the things I DON'T WANT TO SEE in TDKR...

 

[munchie64]

I was thinking something similar Darkhunt.

 

[Pwz414]

Exactly, that's the character. Jesus. It may give you the same vibes of a bad actor who's overacting, but that's what it is supposed to do. He's an incompetant *****ebag in the CIA who has been assigned on an important operation, and he's doing a cheesy impression of what he thinks a "tough CIA guy" would be like in this situation based probably on what he's seen on tv or film.

This is like someone complaining about a scene in a film involving karoake where the character is supposed to be a bad singer, and then blaming the obviously intended bad performance on the actor/execution. What makes it worse is like Rag stated, it's made painstakingly clear. "Or perhaps he's wondering why someone would shoot a man, before throwing him out of a plane?"

Agreed.

What I might question is whether it adds to Bane's introduction. Without seeing the CIA character played differently it's tough to tell. Remember the "Bourne Supremacy", when Jason is in the interrogation room? The Interrogator might intimidate the average citizen, but we know this is Jason Bourne, and it's only a matter of time before he's unconscious. Could TDKR CIA operative have been played more like this: capable but in way over his head. Probably.

I have mixed feelings about his portrayal. What we will come to know about Bane is that had this been Jim Gordon instead his plan still would have gone off without a hitch. Bane + the element of surprise will almost always = victory, so was an incompetent adversary necessary? No, just a choice.

 

[MrWayne]

I dont know why we are discussing the CIA *****e in such length. The guy's dead and wont really be in the movie!

Lets be gratefull we only have to deal with him for the first 6 minutes of the film

 

[Pwz414]

I dont know why we are discussing the CIA *****e in such length. The guy's dead and wont really be in the movie!

Lets be gratefull we only have to deal with him for the first 6 minutes of the film

Because we're obsessed with this movie, and we've only seen this six minutes, and because he's an integral part of that six minutes

 

[Pwz414]

I dont know why we are discussing the CIA *****e in such length. The guy's dead and wont really be in the movie!

Lets be gratefull we only have to deal with him for the first 6 minutes of the film

Oh, and because Bane hasn't given us permission to do otherwise

 

[antsman41]

all CIA, MI6, and other agents/spies are all not like Bourne and Bond. There are some people that are annoying and cheesy. It's life. If everyone was like the former, we'd have very boring films...

 

[MrWayne]

Because we're obsessed with this movie, and we've only seen this six minutes, and because he's an integral part of that six minutes

I'm just as obsessed too, trust me. But I personally dont have a problem with the CIA guy scenes.

BTW what is the CIA's guy name anyways?? Might be easier typing just one name instead of just calling him "the CIA *****e" lol but anyways...

I feel he did exactly what the part called for and required. He's over the top, cocky, annoying and yea a *****e. He is supposed to be this high ranking CIA op who obviously has no idea what he's up against. He's in way over his head dealing with a caliber of the likes of Bane, waaayyyyy over his head. And he pays for it dearly with him and his teams life.