I already explained my take on the piece of writing, so this argument that I´m running from it no longer applies. I can discuss writing and I do it here all the time.
Not without resorting to veiled insults, it appears.
I don´t tease you for nothing.
Ah, but you do tease. Frequently. For no productive reason.
If I may say so, to me your "intensity" often gets in the way of your arguments, the debate becomes more about your tone than about your ideas. I say that cuz I think you could be a good, even great guy to debate with, sometimes you do have a valid point, but it turns into these long-winded rants and soon it´s much more a fight than anything else.
That's unfortunate. I was raised to believe conviction and the ability to communicate my point of view was a good thing. I don't hurl insults when I argue, and I don't tend to belittle people. I present logical arguments. If people have a problem with me believing in my argument...or following through on it, that's their problem. Again, no one has to read my posts.
Where was Falcone or any of his outfit shown not to have honor? I know he wasn't specifically demonstrated to have it, really, but I don't recall anything that said he didn't? He seemed like basically any mob boss, from what I could tell.
Where was he shown TO have any honor? You've got Falcone having a young, grieving Bruce Wayne beat up for no discernable reason (to prove a point). Later, we have Falcone smuggling god knows what for god knows who...for money and favors. I don't know how honorable that is. Not long afterward, Falcone's men (or were they Ra's Al Ghul's men?) shot a District Attorney in the back. I certainly don't see any scenes where he is honorable in BATMAN BEGINS. Do you? Hence me saying that angle of the mob is somewhat ignored.
Where does it not make logical sense?
The words and actions of the bank manager, given his situation. He's provoking someone he knows will kill him for doing so.
Honestly, it may ring false to you, but when I read it I could hear it being delivered with conviction and it sounded fine. You seem to think it has to be delivered like a speech. I don't see it that way.
I never said it had to be delivered as a speech. It's just absurd dialogue regardless.
Look. First he thinks he's dealing with a generic hoodlum... he asks him if he has any idea whose money he's stealing. It's a threat. When the robber isn't impressed by it, the manager's first reaction is to call him an idiot.
Which is the first stupid thing about this scene. Who threatens and then insults an armed robber who clearly has the balls to counter a powerful mobster?
Then he instead tries to reason with him - what makes you think the guy who hired you isn't gonna kill you, too? This guy's been around the racket, he knows how it works. But the thug isn't impressed, whips off his mask. Now the banker is scared, he knows he's dealing with... something much more sinister than he first thought. That changes things. He's scared at first.
And this is where it all goes downhill. Rather than playing with "scared" or "confused", the writers suddenly have the bank manager giving a ridiculous speech.
After the initial "what are you" he then gathers his nerve and berates the guy. He knows he's dead, but he's just... look, as a banker for Maroni, he's got protection. This isn't supposed to be happening. All that talk about honor and respect, that's what that's about - this isn't supposed to be happening to him. He's got protection, you don't mess with Mr. Maroni's bank. But he's already tried that route and Joker wasn't impressed. So all he's got is a handful of honor and respect that amounts to a cup of piss as far as the man with the gun is concerned. "What do you believe in?" It has to be a plea. Maybe an angry plea, but a plea.
And my issue is exactly this. It's lame. It's unrealistic. If he's making a plea, it's a lousy one. It's logically stupid for the bank manager to provoke a madman with a gun, and even dumber to not so subtly insult him afterward. It's just moronic on every level.
Seriously. In the hands of even an essentially competent actor, these lines are fine. Especially with a director who knows what he wants out of it.
Opinion. I think they're lousy.
You're looking at scenes out of context and accusing the writers of incompetence. Trust me, Guard, I've seen incompetence. It doesn't look like this.
I'm looking at the scene in context. I do not need it's meaning or how it fits into the story explained to me. These things are fairly obvious. And I've not accused anyone of incompetence. Only of average and in this instance, overpresentational, writing.
So, I´ve had more time to think this over and put all my thoughts together, and this is what I´m thinking...
- On it being "cliché", "not innovative or fresh": Being fresh isn´t only about completely redefining cinema as we know (we´re lucky if we can say there were two movies that got even close to that in the last two decades). There are different ways of being fresh. One of them is mixing different genres that usually don´t mix. When Batman 89 did thirties retro noir, that in itself was nothing new, but mixing it with the superhero/comic book genre was. What BB hinted at and TDK is going full on is mixing the seuperhero genre with the gritty dramas of the seventies, like French Connection or Dog Day Afternoon, and now adding in a Se7en-like serial killer drama (given the take on Joker they´re going for). In that sense, it´s okay that it uses typical elements of these genres, as it was okay for B89 to use elements from old gangster movies, it´s how all those different elements are combined together in the final product that will make it fresh (again, a recurring theme here, not judge the forest for some trees).
I'm not asking THE DARK KNIGHT to reinvent the wheel. I'm mostly referring to "the same old cliche police dialogue we've seen in a dozen movies" when I say cliche. Not the tone, the storyline, or even the characterizations so much. Cliches are often inevitable, but they need not be repetitive and stale in terms of dialogue.
- On it being "average", "plain": Making the right dialogue isn´t always about giving your character the witty zingers.
Then why the hell is this writer trying to?
In some moments, the best way to say things or to keep the story moving is stand back, restrain yourself and just be straight to the point.
I agree. The thing is, I don't see a whole lot of being straight and to the point. I see quite a bit of "embellishment" that becomes far too presentational. The judge, the bank manager...
Embellishment can become distracting, can become overwriting.
And such is my issue with the writing here. This is why I called it unimpressive. It's either boring, or predictable, or far too showy.
) it explains something of Joker's outlook. That he thinks Batman's mission is completely pointless because the world - specifically, people - are inherently sick so why not just go with the flow?
