The comment is directly on the topic: if you feel entitled to be so harsh on other people´s dialogue, it implies you should know the subject considerably well, which indicates your own dialogue would be expected to be better than average.
If I feel entitled to be harsh on dialogue, it's because I believe I know the difference between impressive and nonimpressive, or average, dialogue. Why? Because I've been reading great literature and average literature my entire life.
What I said implied that I can do better, or that I know the subject consiberably well? Says who? I made no such assertions. I've met plenty of film and theatre critics who can't sing or act a lick. Does that mean they don't know their stuff when it comes to judging those elements?
Only one thing implies what you imply that I have implied. And that would be me saying "I could write circles around these people." I don't recall saying ANYTHING of that nature. But yes, I do know dialogue very intimately, having read and seen and heard a LOT of it used in my time. However, almost ANYONE can boast this, which is why I can't see how people can miss such obviously poor attempts at conversation in certain spots in these excerpts.
And you DID sound harsh, given how much focus you put on what you consider the negative, even if you didn´t mean it.
That's unfortunate. If people can't take what I wrote in the context of my statements, and can't seperate my various thoughts and think about what I'm actually saying, then it's their issue, not mine. This won't be the first time I've presented both sides and gotten lambasted for being too "harsh".
Know what´s funny? I AM a paid professional writer. I write the scripts and articles for Brazil´s most popular education comic book, which is paid by aour industry national confederation (I mean, it´s private, not public) and distributed freely in schools, with one million copies and estimated four million readers and an overall approval above 95% among our readers. We talk to kids about complicated issues like global warming, the treatment of people with special needs, etc. And exactly because I work with it and I know the bitsch it is, I try to stay humble and not be unnecessarily harsh with the writing of professional people working in the real world. I know how hard it is.
What's your point? Past the self-******iating, what does your response have to do with ANYTHING regarding our discussion? That you can tell me that you stay "humble" (even though, hold on, you feel the need to cite statistics about your accomplishments in this particular instance) because you know art is difficult?
So art is difficult. Tough. Am I supposed to give people a free pass when they screw up because writing isn't the simplest thing to master? People who get PAID to get this stuff right? Many who have attended school for it?
I am well aware that writing is not easy. No art is (this goes for sports, music, theatre, writing, painting, sculpting, you name it). But it's not THAT hard, either. Not if you're willing to learn, and to continue learning. In my mind, if you're an artist, especially a paid professional artist, and you can't provide something innovative, fine, then that's how you write. But there's no point in being offended when someone calls you on it. The truth hurts sometimes. And guess what? People don't learn or benefit from being mollycoddled like that. Rewarding mediocrity as a culture is not going to help anyone in the long wrong. Most of the time, good writers learn how to improve by other people pointing out the mistakes and weaker aspects of their work, and then seeking out solutions to them. This is the approach I take when I "critique". I do not give professional writers free passes if some of their writing is absurd just because their work is "hard".
The dialogue is not necessarily brilliant, even though I do think it shines in some moments, but it´s not bad either. Most of it is straight to the point and fits the pulpesque noirish style of filmmaking the sequel is going for.
I never said it was bad. I said some of it is awful, and most of it is average. It may be your opinion that it's ok to get straight to the point and go pulp/noir with every police/DA exchange. Mine is that it is not impressive to simply adapt every pulp and noir "cliche" in making a film like THE DARK KNIGHT.
It doesn´t have to be entirely realistic because it´s not The Departed, it´s in that middle ground between not being too over-the-top but still being summer entertainment to a certain level.
I could have sworn that the Summer Entertainment aspects were things like the action sequences, elaborate sets, costumes, etc. Not being lazy while writing the movie's non-superhero sequences.
Realism isn't even my issue. Appropriateness to character is. In the case of that bank manager thing, it borders on absurd. That's Akiva Goldsman-esque. Who gives someone who's robbing them and may well kill them a freaking speech about criminals believing in honor and duty and so forth?
I was just using an example that a movie can still work with a dialogue that doesn´t feel entirely realistic. It´s the whole package that makes the scenes work, as I made very clear.
Unfortunately, in a couple places, one little moment becomes so absurd that it takes me right out of it. It's not even neccessarily the DIALOGUE in these sequences, it's the placement of a given thematic that the dialogue presents. It's just ridiculous.
You´re entitled to call whatever you want good or bad dialogue. And I´m entitled to disagree or either not care at all what you think is that.
Fair enough. Why didn't you just say that to begin with? Because obviously you just want to call me out personally, as you always do. And do a bit of self-******iating in the process.
