The Dark Knight Preachy dialogue.........whose fault is it ?

[Tacit Ronin]

I know everybody likes to blame Goyer for this. But keep in mind he did not write The Dark Knight.

The Nolan brothers ? Memento, The Prestige and Following all have an ending monolgue sure, but they don't have preachy dialogue throughout the movie explaining it's broad themes.

So I came to two likely conclusions:

1. Nolan has no faith in the casual movie ushers. The Inception trailers are guilty of the same preachiness.

or

2. The WB forced it on them. Remember this is the same studio behind the matrix sequels, equaly preachy films. Hmmm....

This is also the same studio that forced those dreaded monotone monologues of Ford on Ridley's Blade Runner.

 

[Solidus]

I've never seen them as preachy, yes they are more explanatory through a verbal sense and for some of the themes easier to catch. But that does not make a movie preachy or less important.

They have always struck a good balance.

Greats like Blade Runner (DC and after) can do great by not being necessarily verbal about the themes. But it takes nothing away from the depth or the power of a theme if it is explained verbally. The only thing it may do is make the pretentious angry that everyone can understand the important themes, instead of just them.

Movies can be equally deep if they are verbal or not. So I never have seen a problem with Nolan's films at all with this.

 

[Rodrigo90]

I know...Even Gordon suddenly gave a speech that would make Shakespeare call himself an 'amateur'. t:

I wouldn't call it preachy, but dramatic.

 

[The Joker]

Villains like Joker and Ra's should be preachy. They're talkers. They have to rant, and have a lot to say.

Begins always harping on about fear got on my nerves sometimes, like the audience would somehow forget what the theme was, so we have to be reminded every 5 minutes.

But comic book movies are all preachy. Be it Xavier or Magneto preaching their ideals in the X-Men movies, or Aunt May, Green Goblin, Peter Parker etc in the Spider-Man movies, or Whip Lash in the recent Iron Man 2 etc.

We get preachy characters, and it ain't going to change. Some are just not as in your face as others.

 

[Solidus]

Villains like Joker and Ra's should be preachy. They're talkers. They have to rant, and have a lot to say.

Begins always harping on about fear got on my nerves sometimes, like the audience would somehow forget what the theme was, so we have to be reminded every 5 minutes.

But comic book movies are all preachy. Be it Xavier or Magneto preaching their ideals in the X-Men movies, or Aunt May, Green Goblin, Peter Parker etc in the Spider-Man movies, or Whip Lash in the recent Iron Man 2 etc.

We get preachy characters, and it ain't going to change. Some are just not as in your face as others.

Well said, and true.

Again I just don't see preachy or as I call it "verbal" a bad thing. If it's well written it does not matter and can have great intelligence to it as well.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

At least nothing is as preachy as the Matrix Realoaded. Ergo

 

[firstclassclown]

What does this have to do with the TDK sequel?

 

[3atman]

This is one thing I really hate about the movies. I don't hate the movies, but it annoys me. It instantly makes the movies dumber. When you have to explain every emotion, you aren't doing your job. You show it to them. Or if you do say it, you use subtleties. I'll use an example of a verbal subtletie from another Bale movie, American Psycho. When he's running around the city and goes back to his office, the first guard calls him "Mr. Smith" a generic name, he shoots him, he continues and the other guy calls him Mr. Bateman, he doesn't shoot him. His whole character was based on a guy wanting to be noticed. BTW, at the end of Am Psych, he did actually kill all those people, he just wasn't caught becuase everyone looks the same and everyone is too involved in their own lives to give a crap, which makes him go even more nuts. The director and writer said that was their intent, the ending makes it vague, but I see it as way more satisfying their way. ANYWAYS, back to Batman.

The narrative dialogue to me would be alright if it's more subtle, or even more of a narrative than dialogue. Like in his head. I think what Nolan was going for is a comic book type of narration, how you read it in the comics. Problem is, he tried working it into the dialogue, which means it comes across as "you people are so stupid that I have to explain everything to you" which is actually probably true considering the movies that gross the highest are typically dumb movies.

 

[TheBatman072]

Nothing to do with TDK sequel spoilers.

 

[Solidus]

Gonna disagree on that. Like I said it does not make a movie dumber. And Nolan did it well enough that it's not like some movies with their verbal exploits. There are many subtle things, its just not everyone saw them instantly. The nice thing about BB (to a lesser degree) and TDK (to a higher degree) there were many themes and emotions explained, but so many that were not. There is so much to dig with the films, the things that are verbally explained are not the only things there. Some of the things that Nolan does are really subtle, and some not. I mean even Apocalypse Now (a very deep film) has a lot I mean a lot of verbal explanation of themes and emotion. But it still has its power in it. I believe you can do both at the same time. Doing so does not make a movie worse.

But to eaches own.

 

[Solidus]

Nothing to do with TDK sequel spoilers.

True.

 

[TheBatman072]

True.

Shouldn't be here.

 

[Anita18]

Gonna disagree on that. Like I said it does not make a movie dumber. And Nolan did it well enough that it's not like some movies with their verbal exploits. There are many subtle things, its just not everyone saw them instantly. The nice thing about BB (to a lesser degree) and TDK (to a higher degree) there were many themes and emotions explained, but so many that were not. There is so much to dig with the films, the things that are verbally explained are not the only things there. Some of the things that Nolan does are really subtle, and some not. I mean even Apocalypse Now (a very deep film) has a lot I mean a lot of verbal explanation of themes and emotion. But it still has its power in it. I believe you can do both at the same time. Doing so does not make a movie worse.

But to eaches own.

I totally agree here. There was a lot of talking, but there were A LOT of themes that weren't directly discussed either.

Gordon's speech at the end of TDK was unusually poetic, but I don't think it was "dumb" - its main objective was to be beautifully dramatic.

 

[3atman]

It dumbs down the movie if you have to explain it. That's pretty much cinema 101. If you aren't good enough to show them, for instance, let's say you're an actor (this is a micro version of it) and you get hit in the leg, if the director tells you to go "OW MY LEG!!!" then you are a bad actor because you can't convey it. It's insulting to be told every theme, no matter how many "smart" words you use (it just seems like intelligent to stupid people), if you have to explain anything it's dumbing down the movie. How is it not? The way Nolan did it might have dumbed it down less but he still dumbed it down.

Gordon's speech at the end is different because it was a closing. However, Batman stating his emotions is dumbing down the movie. In American Psycho he had a running narrative but there were deeper feelings to be revealed by his narrative, so that was smarter. Plus he wasn't saying it to other characters. I use Am Psych and an example because I think it's an amazing movie.

 

[Anita18]

It dumbs down the movie if you have to explain it. That's pretty much cinema 101. If you aren't good enough to show them, for instance, let's say you're an actor (this is a micro version of it) and you get hit in the leg, if the director tells you to go "OW MY LEG!!!" then you are a bad actor because you can't convey it. It's insulting to be told every theme, no matter how many "smart" words you use (it just seems like intelligent to stupid people), if you have to explain anything it's dumbing down the movie. How is it not? The way Nolan did it might have dumbed it down less but he still dumbed it down.

Gordon's speech at the end is different because it was a closing. However, Batman stating his emotions is dumbing down the movie. In American Psycho he had a running narrative but there were deeper feelings to be revealed by his narrative, so that was smarter. Plus he wasn't saying it to other characters. I use Am Psych and an example because I think it's an amazing movie.

Well, I don't recall him going, "Man, I'm so tired/sad/depressed" at any point during TDK. BB he talks about guilt, but he's explaining it to another character so isn't quite as exposition-y.

 

[Solidus]

It dumbs down the movie if you have to explain it. That's pretty much cinema 101. If you aren't good enough to show them, for instance, let's say you're an actor (this is a micro version of it) and you get hit in the leg, if the director tells you to go "OW MY LEG!!!" then you are a bad actor because you can't convey it. It's insulting to be told every theme, no matter how many "smart" words you use (it just seems like intelligent to stupid people), if you have to explain anything it's dumbing down the movie. How is it not? The way Nolan did it might have dumbed it down less but he still dumbed it down.

Gordon's speech at the end is different because it was a closing. However, Batman stating his emotions is dumbing down the movie. In American Psycho he had a running narrative but there were deeper feelings to be revealed by his narrative, so that was smarter. Plus he wasn't saying it to other characters. I use Am Psych and an example because I think it's an amazing movie.

Well again I just disagree. It does nothing to dumb down a movie. In real life people will explain their feelings to others with words, and it does not take away from it if they are feeling it as well.

And you seem to be thinking people are stupid (which is wrong you can think differently, but don't try to put down others to make a point by using terms like dumb it does insinuate towards those that enjoyed it that they are the same. Which is not true) that don't see this as a bad thing. Some of my favorite films are considered pretentious stuff, like Blade Runner, Apocalypse Now, 2001 ect. But to me your post is more degrading because your saying that people are dumb for liking such a way of verbal exposition.

It really does not dumb a movie down, it does help others maybe understand more, but that does not mean they will look at the themes any deeper is the thing. I remember walking out, and many people to this day I talk to don't have the same understanding of the many many themes, subtle and explodes ones.

Like Anita said, these actors did a great job "feeling" things and saying them at the same time. And never did it get extreme almost as your suggesting.

And again I hope your not going into the territory, of its dumbing it down for dumb people, and we are dumb for seeing and appreciating the depth given on both levels, exposed and subtle. That pretentious attitude is not the best to carry around. So I hope you respect how others feel on the matter with out calling them "stupid or dumb".

So no it's not dumbing down, you may not like the expose' of it. But the actors will all top notch. You can strip away the dialogue and they still have the emotion there. I mean hell one of the actors one an academy award for it. A film can explain ideas and themes, and still keep a balance, its a fine one sometimes, but Nolan I believe did it with perfection. More so in TDK.

And you can have your opinion, that is just fine I'm not trying to take it away from ya.

 

[Brother Jack]

At least nothing is as preachy as the Matrix Realoaded. Ergo

Visa Vi!

Most of the time the expository dialogue feels appropriate to me. These are big, operatic films dealing with decades-old American icons, dark and sometimes challenging themes, and at times complex narratives. It pays to have a character monologue every once in while. I don't think it has anything to do with Nolan disrespecting the audience, in fact I don't think that could be farther from the truth. TDK I think for the most part had the right balance considering all the things it was dealing with, but Begins suffered from "telling instead of showing" several times.

 

[Crook]

Villains like Joker and Ra's should be preachy. They're talkers. They have to rant, and have a lot to say.

Begins always harping on about fear got on my nerves sometimes, like the audience would somehow forget what the theme was, so we have to be reminded every 5 minutes.

But comic book movies are all preachy. Be it Xavier or Magneto preaching their ideals in the X-Men movies, or Aunt May, Green Goblin, Peter Parker etc in the Spider-Man movies, or Whip Lash in the recent Iron Man 2 etc.

We get preachy characters, and it ain't going to change. Some are just not as in your face as others.

I will say that generally speaking, this should be one of the few exceptions to avoiding exposition. If it's within character to explain or describe an emotion or event, so be it. However, it has to take place at the right context. Alfred's story on the jewel thief and the eventual parallels he drew to Joker, was exposition veiled behind fluid dialog, but it made sense. Every single character in BB referencing "fear"...not so much.

There is one show I watch that doesn't hide at all its reliance on exposition, and that is House. Every character uses it, it's in every single episode, and is usually in ever other scene. It's become a trademark of the show though, and it's really hilariously done so it's something that I can't count as a critique. Most films wouldn't adapt well to this method.

 

[TheBatman072]

I will say that generally speaking, this should be one of the few exceptions to avoiding exposition. If it's within character to explain or describe an emotion or event, so be it. However, it has to take place at the right context. Alfred's story on the jewel thief and the eventual parallels he drew to Joker, was exposition veiled behind fluid dialog, but it made sense. Every single character in BB referencing "fear"...not so much.

There is one show I watch that doesn't hide at all its reliance on exposition, and that is House. Every character uses it, it's in every single episode, and is usually in ever other scene. It's become a trademark of the show though, and it's really hilariously done so it's something that I can't count as a critique. Most films wouldn't adapt well to this method.

Except for, you know, Scarecrow.

 

[3atman]

I'm not saying you're stupid for liking the movie, I LOVED the movies. The dialogue just annoys me. It might be eloquent sounding, but it's still unnecessary and makes the movie...less sophisticated I guess.

WHen I said Nolan dumed the movie down, it's because he knows that it'll be a more "pop" movie, so you have a dumber audience. Not people on here but, come on, Transformers hit it big in the box office. the average joe isn't that movie savy and needs things spelled out for them.

 

[Crook]

Except for, you know, Scarecrow.

I don't think you got my point there.

 

[Mister H.]

I agree with 3atman. The dialog is overly expository in both BB and TDK. I can handle a lot of things, but dialog that takes me out of a movie with an unnatural amount of exposition is something that drives me nuts.

I'm guessing Nolan has to somewhat consider the younger audience, as these are summer tentpole films, no matter how "adult" we think they are. If he were to make R-rated Batman films then Nolan would probably scale back the dialog and ratchet up the suspense, but there are certain things in the summer blockbuster formula that all directors must adhere to, no matter how much creative freedom they are given.

 

[TheBatman072]

I don't think you got my point there.

No. I do.

you're saying that with some characters, exposition is excused. Then went on to say that it wasn't for every single character in BB. I said except for Scarecrow, since he kinda does that a lot too. Probably even more than Al Ghul and Joker.

 

[Solidus]

I'm not saying you're stupid for liking the movie, I LOVED the movies. The dialogue just annoys me. It might be eloquent sounding, but it's still unnecessary and makes the movie...less sophisticated I guess.

WHen I said Nolan dumed the movie down, it's because he knows that it'll be a more "pop" movie, so you have a dumber audience. Not people on here but, come on, Transformers hit it big in the box office. the average joe isn't that movie savy and needs things spelled out for them.

You can spell things out and make them very intelligent. That is one thing that many critics and fans have praised Nolan for. He has combined "indie/intelligent film with blockbuster" and created a hybrid. And some may not like this new style, but Nolan has done well. BB had a few flaws for sure, but TDK seems he learned from his mistakes.

And that's fine that you think otherwise, but it is a new thing and it has shown great potential. You can create an intelligent movie and have it accessible to the public.

 

[Mister H.]

You can spell things out and make them very intelligent. That is one thing that many critics and fans have praised Nolan for. He has combined "indie/intelligent film with blockbuster" and created a hybrid. And some may not like this new style, but Nolan has done well. BB had a few flaws for sure, but TDK seems he learned from his mistakes.

And that's fine that you think otherwise, but it is a new thing and it has shown great potential. You can create an intelligent movie and have it accessible to the public.

This I agree with. And Nolan has done that, there is no doubt. I'm an admirer of film as an artform, so I hold filmmakers (especially the ones I like) to a very high standard. Having said that, I understand that these films are mainstream, high-quality pop art-- there are going to be some things that I see as "corny". Nolan has the unenviable task of making Batman movies that are true to the mythos and that appeal to the general audience as well as to film snobs such as myself.