The Dark Knight What's up with the stupid goons?

[Anita18]

You look at most money heist scenes in movies, there is hardly any conversation about the actual mechanics of the heist (unless it's a prior scene where they're planning it). Here, it's like a narration of the entire scene: "I break into the safelock. That's funny, I wonder why it dialed a private number instead of 911. I wish this would go a lot faster. I could take Sally out for dinner and finally make her happy. That grizzly ****e only prefers meals in fancy restaurants when she damn well knows---"

Bla bla. You get the point. Lots of exposition in Nolan's batfilms. Which is strangely odd, as his indie flicks are almost completely devoid of that amateurish writing.

In BB I can see that. For the prologue, it's the opening. They really have to set up something understandable for the audience in less than 6 minutes. A lot happens in that time, and they have to set you up.

From the dialogue we learn:

• The goons did not know each other before the heist.
• None of the goons has met/seen the Joker, they've only heard stories about him.
• Gotham National Bank is mob-connected since the alarm doesn't go to the police.
• The goons were told to kill their partner as soon as they finished their job
• The bank manager thought the bank was untouchable since the mob looks after it.
• And no wonder, the vault is protected with 5,000 volts.
• None of the goons are aware that all of them were told to take each other out.
• The Joker planned the operation without letting any of the others know the entire plan.
• Gotham's underworld is now changing, since this new guy (the Joker) is bringing chaos into the entire system.

I don't see how any of it was useless exposition. Some points were repeated for emphasis, but we had to know that robbing this particular bank was a huge deal.

 

[DorkyFresh]

I don't get it. After watching the prologue, it's as if every member in Joker's gang is a complete tard. The thing that bottles my mind is that they have a personality of a tard, but they can do difficult tasks like swing on a rope across rooftops, open the bank door, etc...

goons = physically able, mentally incapable. there's a reason they're goons and it's not because they're good at thinking.

 

[sasquatchs]

In BB I can see that. For the prologue, it's the opening. They really have to set up something understandable for the audience in less than 6 minutes. A lot happens in that time, and they have to set you up.

I don't see how any of it was useless exposition. Some points were repeated for emphasis, but we had to know that robbing this particular bank was a huge deal.

It all serves a clear and worthy purpose, but is it necessary to bring all the information across so quickly? The audience being kind of oblivious and trying to slowly piece what's happening together would be a good thing I think. Begins suffered from pandering to the audience too much, repeating information and verbalizing what doesn't need explicit confirmation. Sometimes it's better to imply rather than getting the characters to explain everything

 

[Anguissette1979]

In BB I can see that. For the prologue, it's the opening. They really have to set up something understandable for the audience in less than 6 minutes. A lot happens in that time, and they have to set you up.

From the dialogue we learn:

• The goons did not know each other before the heist.
• None of the goons has met/seen the Joker, they've only heard stories about him.
• Gotham National Bank is mob-connected since the alarm doesn't go to the police.
• The goons were told to kill their partner as soon as they finished their job
• The bank manager thought the bank was untouchable since the mob looks after it.
• And no wonder, the vault is protected with 5,000 volts.
• None of the goons are aware that all of them were told to take each other out.
• The Joker planned the operation without letting any of the others know the entire plan.
• Gotham's underworld is now changing, since this new guy (the Joker) is bringing chaos into the entire system.

I don't see how any of it was useless exposition. Some points were repeated for emphasis, but we had to know that robbing this particular bank was a huge deal.

Very very well said Anita. Gold star for you!

 

[emadz89]

the dialogue was perfect...gave me just enough background as to what the **** we're dealing with and it matched the goons fine

 

[Anguissette1979]

It all serves a clear and worthy purpose, but is it necessary to bring all the information across so quickly? The audience being kind of oblivious and trying to slowly piece what's happening together would be a good thing I think. Begins suffered from pandering to the audience too much, repeating information and verbalizing what doesn't particularly need to be brought up so explicitly

"If this pressure reached the main hub, the whole place is going to blow!"

If you're going to pander, at least this dialogue is better

 

[Anita18]

It all serves a clear and worthy purpose, but is it necessary to bring all the information across so quickly? The audience being kind of oblivious and trying to slowly piece what's happening together would be a good thing I think. Begins suffered from pandering to the audience too much, repeating information and verbalizing what doesn't need explicit confirmation. Sometimes it's better to imply rather than getting the characters to explain everything

If they're planning to fit everything we think they're going to fit into a 2.5 hour movie, I think they really do have to squeeze in everything as tightly as they can.

We'll have to see how this prologue fits into the rest of the movie, but as a short film (which is essentially is right now), it does well.

 

[Bruce Logan]

I don't get it. After watching the prologue, it's as if every member in Joker's gang is a complete tard. The thing that bottles my mind is that they have a personality of a tard, but they can do difficult tasks like swing on a rope across rooftops, open the bank door, etc...

Bottles your mind? Are you sure you want to call other people ******ed when you can't even get a common idiom right?

Could you at least make some effort to explain why you think the goons are stupid or are you just trolling?

 

[Crook]

From the dialogue we learn:

• The goons did not know each other before the heist.

Not really important. Them shooting each other would lead you to believe that they weren't close at all, or didn't know each other prior to the heist. You don't need dialog for that.

• None of the goons has met/seen the Joker, they've only heard stories about him.

This I was fine with. Setting up the dialog in the car about how they thought Joker just planned it, and wasn't sitting next to them would be needed for the final surprise in the scene.

• Gotham National Bank is mob-connected since the alarm doesn't go to the police.

I think the gangster manager with a shotty kinda made that obvious.

• The goons were told to kill their partner as soon as they finished their job

Again, that's obvious w/o dialog.

• The bank manager thought the bank was untouchable since the mob looks after it.
• And no wonder, the vault is protected with 5,000 volts.

Not really important.

• None of the goons are aware that all of them were told to take each other out.
• The Joker planned the operation without letting any of the others know the entire plan.

These can easily be inferred from the backstabbing shootings.

• Gotham's underworld is now changing, since this new guy (the Joker) is bringing chaos into the entire system.

I'll give this a pass. The dialog is pretty much necessary considering the final conversation.

 

[The Guard]

Stupid goons? You mean like the idiot being stalked by a giant bat who screams "WHERE ARE YOU???" to alert said bat creature to his location?

Stupid like that?

 

[bunk]

Bottles your mind? Are you sure you want to call other people ******ed when you can't even get a common idiom right?

Could you at least make some effort to explain why you think the goons are stupid or are you just trolling?

Mindbottle-ing lol. Wasn't that a bit from a Will Farrell movie?

 

[fear&loathing]

goons are supposed to be stupid. i've never seen a goon with intellect.

 

[TromaFreak64]

well the goones dialogue seemed like a throw back to the film noirs of past... maybe that was just me. It also provoked some Heat, Reservoir Dogs and other movie memories.

 

[hatebox]

Not really important. Them shooting each other would lead you to believe that they weren't close at all, or didn't know each other prior to the heist. You don't need dialog for that.


This I was fine with. Setting up the dialog in the car about how they thought Joker just planned it, and wasn't sitting next to them would be needed for the final surprise in the scene.


I think the gangster manager with a shotty kinda made that obvious.


Again, that's obvious w/o dialog.


Not really important.


These can easily be inferred from the backstabbing shootings.


I'll give this a pass. The dialog is pretty much necessary considering the final conversation.

I sort of see your various points, but it can get to a stage where we take it for granted that we'd get all that without the dialogue because we already have heard it, therefore we know their intentions, whereas if we'd never have heard it it may have been a little too obtuse.

 

[Anita18]

Not really important. Them shooting each other would lead you to believe that they weren't close at all, or didn't know each other prior to the heist. You don't need dialog for that.

I agree that it wasn't reeeaaaally necessary, but I think it would have changed the pacing. Hard to tell without re-editing it.

I think the gangster manager with a shotty kinda made that obvious.

Yeah, but the other points were building up to that realization.

Again, that's obvious w/o dialog.

I think the audience could have gotten that, but I don't think it would be obvious without the "Is there a problem?" "No, I'm done here" exchange.

Not really important.

I think it's to support the observation that robbing the bank is a huge deal. They need to emphasize it.

These can easily be inferred from the backstabbing shootings.

Maybe, but I would have assumed that the goons would know that they'd be trying to kill each other and be more on their guard. Kind of like Battle Royale or something. They didn't know - each thought they were given the order specifically. None of the goons in the bank knew about the bus.

Do I think all of the dialogue was absolutely fundamentally necessary to give you the gist of what was going on? No, but it's pretty informative and tight as it is so it would be difficult to prove what is or isn't necessary (and don't forget pacing) unless the prologue was re-edited.

Stupid goons? You mean like the idiot being stalked by a giant bat who screams "WHERE ARE YOU???" to alert said bat creature to his location?

Stupid like that?

Mmmm, I loved that scene.

 

[Crook]

I sort of see your various points, but it can get to a stage where we take it for granted that we'd get all that without the dialogue because we already have heard it, therefore we know their intentions, whereas if we'd never have heard it it may have been a little too obtuse.

Well maybe if we're 8 or something.

I don't think any of those points (unless otherwise stated) would be hard to infer from what was shown on screen. It's not a Rubik's cube, it's a fairly simple way of connecting the dots.

 

[hatebox]

People should remember that this scene was done with efficiency with mind. It's aim wasn't for a slow build up, it was designed to take us right into the action immediately. The dialogue helps with that, it acts as a guide because the editing and direction go along very fast.

 

[hatebox]

Well maybe if we're 8 or something.

I don't think any of those points (unless otherwise stated) would be hard to infer from what was shown on screen. It's not a Rubik's cube, it's a fairly simple way of connecting the dots.

All I'm saying is that it's easy in hindsight, because after the fact we already know what's going on partially because of the dialogue. Also note my above point.

PS: no need for sarcasm. It reflects terribly on the substance of your argument.

 

[sasquatchs]

If they're planning to fit everything we think they're going to fit into a 2.5 hour movie, I think they really do have to squeeze in everything as tightly as they can.

See I think they could squeeze the ideas in more tightly if they didn't spend so much time with the characters verbalizing them. I don't think Begins had that many ideas, every character just repeated them in their own monologue. But TDK does sound like it has alot more to pack in, and they're great ideas. I enjoy reading your posts, they're well thought out. Makes a change

 

[Anita18]

I don't think any of those points (unless otherwise stated) would be hard to infer from what was shown on screen. It's not a Rubik's cube, it's a fairly simple way of connecting the dots.

It's REALLY difficult to tell if your changes would be clear unless we actually edited the prologue and showed it to someone who had no clue what it was going in.

I'm helping a friend write a comic, and he's trying to shave the dialogue/monologue down just like you're doing, scrapping almost every caption on the first page. I was telling him that he needed the setup on the first page so the reader would know what the heck was going on. Without the setup, the reader would have no idea what was so different about his story compared to others in the genre.

If you had an entire movie with lots of room to pace things, you could make things less obvious, but this is an opening and it's 6 minutes.

 

[Anita18]

I enjoy reading your posts, they're well thought out. Makes a change

Thanks! I do try. Exercises the brain in my obsessive fangirlyness (where's that damn HD trailer?!?!).

 

[Numez]

I'm not sure why you guys are surprised that a Nolan film is filled with exposition. The man is an overexplainer.

 

[sasquatchs]

Previous to Begins he wasn't, and neither was he in The Prestige. Usually he does alot of hinting and dropping clues, Jonathan Nolan even called Chris a moron in a Q+A session for explaining the themes of Memento in response to a question. That's what makes it surprising that the approach is so different this time. "It's a comic book movie, what do you expect!" isn't really enough, there's not much you have to compromise on to make a smart mainstream movie

 

[Crook]

All I'm saying is that it's easy in hindsight, because after the fact we already know what's going on partially because of the dialogue. Also note my above point.

PS: no need for sarcasm. It reflects terribly on the substance of your argument.

It was a joke. Hence the smiley.

It's REALLY difficult to tell if your changes would be clear unless we actually edited the prologue and showed it to someone who had no clue what it was going in.

I'm helping a friend write a comic, and he's trying to shave the dialogue/monologue down just like you're doing, scrapping almost every caption on the first page. I was telling him that he needed the setup on the first page so the reader would know what the heck was going on. Without the setup, the reader would have no idea what was so different about his story compared to others in the genre.

If you had an entire movie with lots of room to pace things, you could make things less obvious, but this is an opening and it's 6 minutes.

My problem with that argument is nothing about those plot points were entirely complex to begin with. If they had kept the dialog from the car, the very last one with Joker ("I bet the boss told you to kill me..."), the bank manager's lines, and erased everything else...would it have been hard to put all the pieces together?

What part would have been confusing without the lines?

 

[turtlefocker]

I kinda liked the "where did you learn to count?" exchange