The Dark Knight William Fichtner - Wasted?

[JaD]

but i dont wanna start a long topic about VT and violence in the media so...

 

[JaD]

heres the script for that prologue in case anyone missed any of the dialogue like someone had mentioned earlier

GOON #4: Three of a kind. Let’s do this.


GOON #5: That’s it? Three guys?


GOON #4: Two guys on the roof. Every guy gets a share. Five shares. It’s plenty.


GOON #5: Six shares. Don’t forget the guy who planned the job.


GOON #4: He thinks he can sit it out and still take a slice?


GOON #5: I know why they call him “The Joker”.


GOON #1: So, why do they call him “The Joker”?


GOON #2: I heard he wears make-up.


GOON #1: Make-up?


GOON #2: Yeah, to scare people. You know, “war paint”.


GOON #5: Alright, everybody! Hands up, heads down! I said “hands up, heads down”! Let’s go, pal. I’m making a withdrawal here. I said “hands up–”


GOON #2: Here comes the silent alarm. And there it goes.


GOON #5: Heads down! … You just stay down there!


GOON #2: Funny. It didn’t dial out to 911. It was trying to reach a private number.


GOON #1: Is there a problem?


GOON #2: No, I’m done here.


GOON #5: Sit down! Now! … just stay down there!


GOON #5: Obviously we don’t want you doing anything with your hands other than holding on for dear life.


GOON #5: On the ground! Stay on the ground! Nobody makes a move! Nobody! Stay down!


GOTHAM NATIONAL BANK MANAGER: Hey!


GNB MANAGER: You have any idea who you’re stealing from!? You and your friends are dead!


GOON #4: He’s out, right?


GOON #4: Where did you learn to count!?


GOON #1: They wired this thing up with about 5,000 volts. What kind of bank does that?


GOON #4: Mob bank. I guess The Joker is as crazy as they say. Where’s the alarm guy?


GOON #1: Boss told me when the guy was done, I should take him out. One less share, right?


GOON #4: Funny. He told me something similar.


GOON #1: He wh–? No! NO!


GOON #4: That’s a lot of money. If this Joker guy was so smart, he’d had had us bring a bigger car.


GOON #4: I’m betting The Joker told you to kill me as soon as we loaded the cash.


GOON #3 (sighs): No, no, no, no. I kill the bus driver.


GOON #4: Bus driver…? What bus driver!?


GOON #6 [BUS DRIVER]: School’s out. Time to go! Not getting up, is he? That’s a lot of money. What happened to the rest of the guys?


GNB MANAGER: Think you’re smart, huh? You guys are hired goons. They’ll just do the same to you. The criminals in this town used to believe in things. Honor. Respect. Look at you! What do you believe in, huh? WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IN!?


GOON #3: I believe whatever doesn’t kill you simply makes you……


THE JOKER [GOON #3]: … stranger.

 

[CaptainClown]

wanna take it to the lounge; I think its a fascinating topic

 

[JaD]

allllrighty then

 

[Mr. Superhero]

heres the script for that prologue in case anyone missed any of the dialogue like someone had mentioned earlier

GOON #4: Three of a kind. Let’s do this.


GOON #5: That’s it? Three guys?


GOON #4: Two guys on the roof. Every guy gets a share. Five shares. It’s plenty.


GOON #5: Six shares. Don’t forget the guy who planned the job.


GOON #4: He thinks he can sit it out and still take a slice?


GOON #5: I know why they call him “The Joker”.


GOON #1: So, why do they call him “The Joker”?


GOON #2: I heard he wears make-up.


GOON #1: Make-up?


GOON #2: Yeah, to scare people. You know, “war paint”.


GOON #5: Alright, everybody! Hands up, heads down! I said “hands up, heads down”! Let’s go, pal. I’m making a withdrawal here. I said “hands up–”


GOON #2: Here comes the silent alarm. And there it goes.


GOON #5: Heads down! … You just stay down there!


GOON #2: Funny. It didn’t dial out to 911. It was trying to reach a private number.


GOON #1: Is there a problem?


GOON #2: No, I’m done here.


GOON #5: Sit down! Now! … just stay down there!


GOON #5: Obviously we don’t want you doing anything with your hands other than holding on for dear life.


GOON #5: On the ground! Stay on the ground! Nobody makes a move! Nobody! Stay down!


GOTHAM NATIONAL BANK MANAGER: Hey!


GNB MANAGER: You have any idea who you’re stealing from!? You and your friends are dead!


GOON #4: He’s out, right?


GOON #4: Where did you learn to count!?


GOON #1: They wired this thing up with about 5,000 volts. What kind of bank does that?


GOON #4: Mob bank. I guess The Joker is as crazy as they say. Where’s the alarm guy?


GOON #1: Boss told me when the guy was done, I should take him out. One less share, right?


GOON #4: Funny. He told me something similar.


GOON #1: He wh–? No! NO!


GOON #4: That’s a lot of money. If this Joker guy was so smart, he’d had had us bring a bigger car.


GOON #4: I’m betting The Joker told you to kill me as soon as we loaded the cash.


GOON #3 (sighs): No, no, no, no. I kill the bus driver.


GOON #4: Bus driver…? What bus driver!?


GOON #6 [BUS DRIVER]: School’s out. Time to go! Not getting up, is he? That’s a lot of money. What happened to the rest of the guys?


GNB MANAGER: Think you’re smart, huh? You guys are hired goons. They’ll just do the same to you. The criminals in this town used to believe in things. Honor. Respect. Look at you! What do you believe in, huh? WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IN!?


GOON #3: I believe whatever doesn’t kill you simply makes you……


THE JOKER [GOON #3]: … stranger.

Whoa - thanks for that. I've been in the midst about a lot of the dialogue in the IMAX prologue -- especially the "bigger car" bit.

Thank you, my friend. Very helpful.

 

[JaD]

i hope u catched this too ---> GOON #2: Funny. It didn’t dial out to 911. It was trying to reach a private number.

thats pretty cool, the mob has there own 800 # haha

 

[Mr. Superhero]

^ Yeah, pretty cool.

Also, I thought the goon said: "Five shares is twenty."

Little did I know that he said "It's plenty"...

 

[drakefinx2604]

heres the script for that prologue in case anyone missed any of the dialogue like someone had mentioned earlier

GOON #4: Three of a kind. Let’s do this.


GOON #5: That’s it? Three guys?


GOON #4: Two guys on the roof. Every guy gets a share. Five shares. It’s plenty.


GOON #5: Six shares. Don’t forget the guy who planned the job.


GOON #4: He thinks he can sit it out and still take a slice?


GOON #5: I know why they call him “The Joker”.


GOON #1: So, why do they call him “The Joker”?


GOON #2: I heard he wears make-up.


GOON #1: Make-up?


GOON #2: Yeah, to scare people. You know, “war paint”.


GOON #5: Alright, everybody! Hands up, heads down! I said “hands up, heads down”! Let’s go, pal. I’m making a withdrawal here. I said “hands up–”


GOON #2: Here comes the silent alarm. And there it goes.


GOON #5: Heads down! … You just stay down there!


GOON #2: Funny. It didn’t dial out to 911. It was trying to reach a private number.


GOON #1: Is there a problem?


GOON #2: No, I’m done here.


GOON #5: Sit down! Now! … just stay down there!


GOON #5: Obviously we don’t want you doing anything with your hands other than holding on for dear life.


GOON #5: On the ground! Stay on the ground! Nobody makes a move! Nobody! Stay down!


GOTHAM NATIONAL BANK MANAGER: Hey!


GNB MANAGER: You have any idea who you’re stealing from!? You and your friends are dead!


GOON #4: He’s out, right?


GOON #4: Where did you learn to count!?


GOON #1: They wired this thing up with about 5,000 volts. What kind of bank does that?


GOON #4: Mob bank. I guess The Joker is as crazy as they say. Where’s the alarm guy?


GOON #1: Boss told me when the guy was done, I should take him out. One less share, right?


GOON #4: Funny. He told me something similar.


GOON #1: He wh–? No! NO!


GOON #4: That’s a lot of money. If this Joker guy was so smart, he’d had had us bring a bigger car.


GOON #4: I’m betting The Joker told you to kill me as soon as we loaded the cash.


GOON #3 (sighs): No, no, no, no. I kill the bus driver.


GOON #4: Bus driver…? What bus driver!?


GOON #6 [BUS DRIVER]: School’s out. Time to go! Not getting up, is he? That’s a lot of money. What happened to the rest of the guys?


GNB MANAGER: Think you’re smart, huh? You guys are hired goons. They’ll just do the same to you. The criminals in this town used to believe in things. Honor. Respect. Look at you! What do you believe in, huh? WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IN!?


GOON #3: I believe whatever doesn’t kill you simply makes you……


THE JOKER [GOON #3]: … stranger.

O wow, that's awesome. Thanks for that. I can actually picture the entire prologue in my head when I read it haha. Pretty cool.

 

[bkey]

O wow, that's awesome. Thanks for that. I can actually picture the entire prologue in my head when I read it haha. Pretty cool.

ooh have you not seen it yet? Is pretty awesome.

 

[DeathRaven]

i hope u catched this too ---> GOON #2: Funny. It didn’t dial out to 911. It was trying to reach a private number.

thats pretty cool, the mob has there own 800 # haha

heh I caught that to, damn I cant wait for the rest of this movie!

 

[Shoemeister]

You were saying? t:

I've been here longer.




*~*AND I'M HOTT 2!*~*

 

[The Guard]

He is, in that particular scene, though, isn't he?

Seems to me as though he is coming off as a "cliche" character. Y'know -- one of those character who somehow conjure up the courage to stand up against injustice? Isn't that "cliche"?

Then again, does it even matter? No, because this is cinema, and characters are built around fables of cliche. You wouldn't know anything about that, though, because you haven't studied film arts, right?

Once again, I didn't say there could be no cliche in a film or in a character. Obviously there are going to be some.

OK, here's the deal:

TheGuard
Falcone is a thug -- not a refined mob boss.

...in one scene. Doesn't Falcone come across as a THUG in one scene in TLH, when he offers anyone a million dollars to take down either the Bat or the Cat?

I take it you hated that scene, as well, then?

No, just as I didn't hate ALL Falcone's scenes in BATMAN BEGINS. In fact I didn't hate the Bruce/Falcone scene, and have never claimed to. I just didn't care for some elements of it.

Right, and now you are asking me to prove to you that you don't understand Falcone's film adaptation in Begins, yet I have been sitting here, for the last two days, explaining to you how you have misunderstood the nature of his inclusion.

So if you say something about someone...it's just...true? You have yet to show any evidence that I do not understand Falcone's role in this film. You just keep saying "You don't get it", presumably because I don't think it's brilliant (which doesn't mean I hate it, btw), and because I don't like certain elements of it. Which does not say jack about my understanding of it.

I might think that Batman wearing a high-gadgetry suit is wrong, but if I don't OPEN MY MIND to see why he wears such a suit, then I am being fickle.

Like you are being, here.

I think I've said repeatedly that I understand Falcone's role in BEGINS and appreciate the thematic relevance and so forth. I just didn't care for some elements of it.

EVERYONE in Begins is f*****g cliche.

Bruce is the epitome of goodness. Alfred is the epitome of kindness.

Both cliche characters, but due to your lack of knowledge of cinema, you do not understand the inherent cliche of ALL characters residing within cinema.

Go figure.

Sweet glory do you see things in a shallow light. Just because something contains some cliche does not make the concept itself a cliche.

So, now you are insisting that there isn't ANYTHING WRONG with the portrayal?

No, as I've repeatedly pointed out what I think is wrong with it. I do like certain elements of the character's portrayal.

Will you settle for "good", then, as opposed to "brilliant"? Just to make you feel better.

It's "okay". If you think it's good, that's fine. You can even think it's brilliant. I don't think it's remotely clever enough an inclusion to be considered brilliant.

It is, kind of.

How so? To me it's mostly based around the freaks VS mob angle, and to that end, I'd say Maroni has a more pivotal role than Falcone does. Falcone tends to be the "reactor" in THE LONG HALLOWEEN.

Joker's the main villain in TDK; hence, the story will be based around his predominant existence within the story. Same thing.

But if he wasn't. Let's say...The Joker was in a movie...and he was just "cannon fodder". Would you be ok with that?

You obviously don't understand it, because you keep referring to this "cliche" thing. Do you not see how much cliche there is residing within almost every single freakin' character in every freakin' film that has ever been freakin' created?

You seem to think that because I feel it's cliche that I don't understand its nature. Again, these are two mutually exclusive concepts. Yes, I realize how much cliche exists in cinema and literature. I am okay with a certain amount of cliche existing. However, I don't like a character who exists beyond these cliches in his source material being relegated to what I would consider tired mobster cliches on film.

He plays around with the character's background -- not his persona. There is a difference here.

He plays around with his persona, too. Even had Falcone been responsible for what happened to the Waynes on some level, and for Chill's death, the comic book version would not have taunted Bruce about their death. He's simply not that cruel. He was a businessman, not a complete ******* for the sake of it.

Nolan made Falcone less connected to the Wayne family, and through that Falcone treat Bruce just as he would treat any other bozo who crossed him.

Falcone doesn't treat people like that, though. This is my point. He has a much calmer presence in the comics. He's not going to resort to something so "lowbrow".

And yet, Falcone is just as hateful in TLH, when he offers mega-bucks for anyone who takes down Batman.

Because they were interrupting his business. Bruce isn't interrupting his business in BATMAN BEGINS, and he's not going to hurt him, either. What Falcone does in BATMAN BEGINS, he does to show Bruce who has the power in Gotham. And it works thematically, and in the context of the very shallow character that the movie presents, it is even in character. But it is very out of character for the Falcone of the comic books, which I very much prefer.

That hatefulness was carried into Begins, it would seem. I guess you just don't like hateful character, because it's "cliche", or something...

I don't see any valid reason for Falcone to have Bruce beaten and to resort to making such derogatory statements about his parents. Nor is there any need to threaten his friends. Not in the context of the Falcone I know. In the movie, he seems to do it just because Goyer apparently cannot get his point across without making it blatantly obvious that Falcone is a bad person. I don't like that style of screenwriting. You may as well have the villain say "I am a villain. Look how mean I am".

Nor is he a "stock thug" in the films. You were just disappointed with ONE SCENE, right?

Now wait a minute. You were going on and on about how Falcone is portrayed as a thug because "That's how Bruce sees him". Have you now abandoned that tack?

Nor is he a "stock thug" in the films. You were just disappointed with ONE SCENE, right?

Mostly, although his acting in the "gassing" scene leaves something to be desired.

That's exactly it, though. We are going to see how Falcone treats latter-known personalities, because that's what Bruce is to Falcone.

That's the movie Falcone. That's a very shallow, brutish portrayal of the character. That is not the Falcone I know and like to see.

No...Just that Nolan used subjective shooting for the most part of Batman Begins.

Unfortunately, most people seem to think that if you use subjective shooting or anything resembling a first person narrative that characters must be "bare bones". That is simply not the case.

I'll let the thread speak for itself.

The thread doesn't contain anything for you to base that assessment on.

Because we never see him even contemplating raping little children.

And we never see the things I wanted to see about Falcone. But you tell me they "might" exist. Well, Bruce Wayne the child rapist "might" exist, too, by that logic.

At least we get to see Falcone being respectful to others in Begins. Go figure.

Falcone being respectful to criminals isn't the issue. The way Falcone acts around decent people (Bruce) is. Again, am I just supposed to ignore the scene in context?

And what does he SHOW and TELL you? That's he's a constant, impolite, "stock thug"? Or was that just for one scene?

Remember to watch those toes...

That in the first scene he comes across as that. In subsequent scenes, he loses all trace of personality, and essentially becomes a cliche mob boss.

It's not who you are underneath -- it's what you do that defines you."
This is a theme of the movie. Rubbed off on Falcone, in the Wayne scene, didn't it?

Whaaat?

Who said anything about it being high-class? Just that most respectable people hang out there.

I don't consider people who take bribes and overlook the kinds of things Falcone does respectable. The fact is, the place was in a lousy part of town.

And how many low-life cafe's do you know that have bouncers stood at the door? Go figure.

A lot of them do. A lot of bars do, period. Especially the ones that are freqented by criminals. They pretty much have to, because violence erupts at such places constantly.

Judge Faden -- who is he again?

He's a judge. A corrupt one. In a city the size of Gotham, I'd imagine they have several.

Isn't he the most popular and renowned Judge residing within the city, yet he's going to hang out in a trampy, old bar where no one respectable hangs out, also?

There's absolutely nothing to suggest he's "the most popular and renowned judge in the city".

Lacks logic.

It doesn't lack logic at all. The man's on Falcone's payroll. Early drafts of the script have him taking bribes from Falcone, and having Falcone getting him women at the dive.

Every crime-lord must, at some period, present themselves in a respectable fashion.

Where is that written?

That's why they get to where they are, because they have shown to have a little MORE than your average Joe Chill, who is a "stock thug", right?
Since all Rachel says is "He keeps the bad people rich and the good people scared", I'm sorry, I see no element of the man being remotely respectable in the public eye.

So, you accept that Falcone was "laid back" in certain scenes in Begins? So, he isn't just a "stock thug" all of the time"? Goody.

Yes, I accept that he was not a complete ******* in every scene. But again, my issue is that he IS in that very pivotal and character-establishing-and-revealing scene. He's pretty much a mobster cliche in every scene he's in, though.

And now we are left with the Bruce scene, which ties into my point about you not UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF THE SCENE.

What?

Which he may have done in Nolan's universe -- we just didn't need to see that on-screen.

What he may or may not have done is inconsequential. My issue is that we did not see this side of his character.

So why are you still crying?

I'm not crying. You really think this upsets me?

Which, again, may have gotten him to where he is in Begins, but we didn't NEED to see that, did we?

It's not always about need. It's about what I would have liked to have scene to flesh out the character and tie him even more concretely into the themes of the film. Adding to the character could only have benefitted the movie. We didn't NEED to see him badmouth Bruce Wayne's dead parents to know what kind of a man he was, either. The movie showed it anyway.

Well, just about every single criminal that has ever hit the silver-screen is cliche, then, I take it?

Yes, most criminal portrayals are pretty cliche. That's why I was hoping Falcone wouldn't be quite so much, and was disappointed to find that he was.

Even the Joker in TDK, going by the trailer and such like.

Jury's still out on that one.

Yet Falcone comes across as "cliche" in The Long Halloween.

In various scenes, actually.

What is your argument, then?

That overall, he is still a more interesting character than the version that appeared in BATMAN BEGINS. He has more layers to him, and more potential as a part of the Batman mythology.

Going by Falcone's presentation, his alliances, and his knowledge of life; don't you think that he might, at various stages in his life, been respectable to people? Heck, he's even respectable to people IN THE FILM. Your argument doesn't work, I'm afraid.

When you say "his knowledge of life", what exactly are you referring to?
My argument involves him being respectable to Bruce, given the situation. Once again, I do not feel that a Carmine Falcone who treats people like that is faithful to the source material.

No, you said that you are disappointed because his connection wasn't tied more into the narrative. Lord knows what narrative purpose that would serve...

Right, I'd like to see that, but I never said it had to be. It could serve both a narrative purpose AND a thematic one. If they were smart they'd just have made Falcone "Earle".

But the connection is still there, right? Don't tell me, you now have an issue with the amount of connectiveness between Falcone and Thomas friggin' Wayne???

No, in fact I do not.

And I refer you to SCREEN-TIME.

If a character isn't going to be the main figure of the story, then how can a director have the screen-time to "flesh out" a character to TheGuard's satisfaction?

By using the screentime given to lesser, completely pointless characters for Falcone, and by not wasting all Falcone's screentime with "I am evil" cliches.

It's like putting a good guy in a room with a convicted murderer, and then the good guy beating down on the murderer, and then someone saying: "I thought the good guy wasn't good, because he didn't show any compassion and just threw punch after punch after punch."

Uh...yes, the only chance you were given to view the person's actions or "character" would be your best chance to assess that person or their "character".

Falcone is like that to certain people, something to which you aren't able to grasp.

To other people -- people who mean something to him -- he is respectful, laid-back and reasonable towards them.

I never said he treated everyone that way. My issue is that he did with Bruce. I thought I made that pretty clear.

Eh? Falcone's empowerment over Gotham's criminals is not a matter of choice, it is added by default.

The persona was spot on, because Falcone comes across as, according to you, "cliche" and "polite" at times in The Long Halloween.

What is your argument?

I recall asking you a question. The polite thing to do would be to answer it before posing your own question. Do you think that only the most shallow parts of characters should be adapted?

It's not out of character at all, it's just that Nolan made Falcone less connected to the Wayne family. Again, can you not see the denotative difference here? Falcone would have acted the same way to anyone who crossed him who wasn't important to him.

When you say Falcone, you mean Falcone in the comics, or Falcone in the movies? Falcone in the comics was never that lowbrow. Even when his son died, he restrained himself more than that.

And yet, he is just as "cliche" in The Long Halloween...

True, but it is a cliche that is suitable for the character. "Refined, elegant mob boss". The cliche used in BATMAN BEGINS fits a characterization of Falcone that seems invented for the movie. Lowbrow, brutish mob boss.

All characters are cliche.

All characters have some element of cliche to them. As I've stated before, I'm ok with that. What I'm not ok with is characters being adapted without their characterization intact, and being nothing but one cliche after another,

Do you have an issue with Superman, too, then? Do you have an issue with the Joker, because he finds death amusing, which all criminals seem to do?

How exactly is Superman a cliche? And since when do all criminals find death amusing?

There are holes developing in this argument of yours

I think you're just making up arguments you think I may or may not have as you go along.

The context of the story didn't order Batman to kill.

That's arguable.

You have, once again, missed the point and shown an absolute lack of knowledge of cinema.

Missed what point? You, btw, clearly misinterpreted "BATMAN" as "BATMAN BEGINS" and then went on a rant about "Have you seen BATMAN BEGINS?".

What, and Falcone wasn't always plotting to kill people in The Long Halloween? He wasn't always searching for new ways to gain more power?

Read the book again, or I'll just provide the quotes for you.

I'm spoon-feeding you, now, you know...

What? I never said Falcone wasn't evil in the comics. Can you keep any of your statements or their contexts straight? You were giving me some bunk about the man being respectable in those scenes. He isn't.

That Falcone is cliche in both adaptations.

You have missed the f*****g point, son.

I never said Falcone doesn't have cliche elements to him in the comics. My issue is that the movie version is nothing BUT cliches and that the movie version doesn't resemble the comic book version except in the most shallow and basic way.
Which point have I missed? Did I at some point deny Falcone's cliche elements in the comics, or even say that I hate having any cliche to anything?

Eh?

I asked you to tell me what Falcone is, and what the movie presents. So tell me: What should Carmine Falcone be, at his best portrayal?

You do realize that you are, now, questioning the characterization of the comic-book Falcone, through implying that he isn't unique in Begins?

No, and where did I say the comic version IS unique? I'm simply arguing that the movie version wasn't brilliant because he wasn't uniquely portrayed. I don't think the comic book Falcone is brilliant, either.

Falcone runs a criminal-empire within Gotham City; always evades arrest; is your average looking Joe; is a very old man; ALWAYS relies on others to do his dirty work... how isn't that unique, and I don't even know why I am arguing this?

I don't recall saying that Falcone from the comics is all that unique. He's a hell of a lot more unique and interesting that the movie version, though.

Lord knows how you are going to respond to Joker's "cliche" characterization in TDK, then...

It'll be interesting. I hope that intelligent screenwriters and thinkers will figure out The Joker's potential and utilize it. I imagine they will, at least to a point.

You've missed the point of "cliche" characters -- assuming that Falcone was never cliche in the comics, when he f*****g is.

You have missed the point, Colin.

I didn't say Falcone isn't somewhat cliche in the comics.

Hmm, you do realize that I was describing the COMIC-BOOK version there, don't you?

Yes. It's still a very shallow description/interpretation of the character.

 

[Nepenthes]

ha ha. That is why you do not argue with The Guard.

 

[The Guard]

Falcone is corrupt in the comics, and when crossed, is not a nice man. Remember him putting a one-million dollar price-tag on Batman's and Catwoman's head in TLH???

Your point? Does he badmouth Bruce Wayne's dead parents? Is he cruel for the sake of being cruel?

There are other scenes in the movie where isn't plain thuggery, you know...

That's true, and as I've said, while I don't think that Falcone's role in the other scenes are brilliant or all that interesting, I don't have too many issues with them. But explain to me why I should ignore what I see in this particular, clearly very pivotal scene?

Seems to me like you're argument is changing, then. First, you were unhappy because the character wasn't as interesting and that his connection to the Wayne family wasn't as tied more into the story, and now you are arguing that Falcone wasn't Falcone in ONE SCENE, even though he WAS Falcone in that scene, because that's what he is in the comics:

Find me a scene like that in the comics and we'll talk about how he "WAS Falcone in that scene". Where an intelligent man who tends not to seek to stir things up has a young man beaten and badmouths his dead parents. Or does anything remotely close.

A box of hatred waiting to unload.

What?

you don't have an issue with it, or if you UNDERSTAND it, then why point it out? If you understand why Falcone being taken out pretty quickly was FOR THE BETTER, then you wouldn't even need to bring that up to argue your point.

Why bring it up? For the hell of it. Personally, I feel Falcone could have played a pivotal role in the franchise, not just the first movie. I don't feel him being taken down when he's taken down is any "better" or "worse", it simply is. I can see it working if he wasn't even at the docks, and just reacted to it, and the story went from there.

The fact that you wanted to see a more "interesting" character.

Oh, I see. Because you think I don't think what's presented is as interesting as it could be...you don't think I get what's there onscreen. So what we have here is an issue where you are satisifed, and I, who see the potential the character has beyond what was already done with him in the movie, am not.

Oh, that's right -- your argument has changed, now. What you are really unhappy with is how mean Falcone is to Bruce.

No, I wasn't real pleased with that from the get-go.

Unbelievable, and I can't believe you cannot see the ineptitude and frequently altering state of this totally fallaciously constructed argument.

What have I altered, exactly?

Through confronting him, obviously.

Why do you think he pulled a gun on him? Because Bruce pissed him the f**k off, dude.

He had the situation well in hand. He pulled the gun to teach Bruce a lesson about fear (which is why I feel this is a completely forced angle, there's just no reason for this to happen, for him to start talking about fear and so forth). The gun was empty. Falcone carries an empty gun, and survives on the power of the fear that his presence and reputation bring him. He was illustrating to Bruce the power of fear. Not because Bruce pissed him off any great amount, because he's not really all that angry, he's actually fairly calm (if a dick). He's just telling Bruce what he tells him because he can. For the hell of it.

Out of character? Yeah, and it's not like Falcone ever puts a one-million dollar price tag on someone's head in the comics, is it? Seems pretty in-character to me.

Will you explain to me how putting a one million dollar price tag on the head of someone who is interrupting your business even begins to relate to having a kid who is no threat to you at all beaten and then insulting his dead parents?

FFS -- HE'S NOT MEANT TO BE RESPECTABLE IN THAT SCENE.

And this is my issue with the scene and the portrayal. It doesn't feel like the Falcone I know.

The answers lays within the sights of the beholder...

You clearly can't prove it, or you would have by now. You just keep making ridiculous quips and backpeddling every time I ask you to.

Not at all, because it's totally in-character.

I disagree.

He did, in the other scenes I keep referring to.

No...he really didn't. Drug-running...having people killed...that's pretty standard crime boss stuff.

So is the Joker in TDK. So is Bruce in Batman. So is Superman in Donner's films. So is Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Elaborate, please. While each has some element of cliche, none of these characters by themselves IS a complete cliche.

Cinema, in of itself, is a great, big recycling cliche. You need to study it before running your mouth off in a debate similar to this...

No, cinema has elements of varying degrees of cliche in it. It is not ALL cliche.

Now we're cooking on gas!!

Never said it wasn't tied into the story. Only said it wasn't brilliant or interesting, and that I found it forced.

...in your opinion. The speech was incredibly relevant to the story, and only made Falcone's character a damn, side more interesting.

Yes in my opinion. It being relevant to the story doesn't matter to me, because it was so forced that all impact was lost for me. "Interesting" is up for debate. I suppose it can be interesting when someone states the obvious about something we should already know. I never find it interesting when a villain goes on and on about "the power of fear", since that's something that almost every crime villain has in common on some level.

F**k me, you do some tossing-and-turning...

Why? I never called the speech cliche, though it is about a cliche topic, the power of fear as it relates to crime. I said it was forced and not brilliant.

What. The. F**k?

I've just gone bog-eyed.

Wow, a criminal who uses fear to keep people down. Never seen that before. I'm sorry, I don't find stating the obvious brilliant. And I find writing styles where a writer has to have a character state the obvious to somehow illuminate what they've already SHOWN (show, don't tell) to be very forced writing.

Oh, you killed my parents -- I am going to turn super-good!"

Never seen that angle, before, right?

He doesn't turn super good, he wants/tries to kill Joe Chill, gets lost in his desire for revenge, travels around the world, and then is shown the way. And I never said that some of that isn't a cliche, quit assuming how I think or what I feel about every subject in the world in an attempt to discredit my views. Dressing up like a creature of the night, becoming someone else entirely, utilizing Batman's methods...now that's a bit less cliche.

Same goes for every cop, superhero or super villain. At the core of each characters lays the same message, does it not?

To a point. Did I say it didn't?

I don't, because it keeps f*****g changing.

What's changed?

I wouldn't even want to waste my time listening to you blabber on about your all-encompassing viewpoints for the film...I'd much rather just sit here and make a mockery out of your points.

And yet by your own admission, you don't seem to know what my points are.

Which ties into my earlier point about Falcone.

With more scenes, he might have been more polite to people. Those scenes weren't there, but you never know...

The screentime has squat to do with it. The PORTRAYAL in that screentime has to do with how faithful a character is to the source material.

Manner of speech?

"The Bat or the Cat"

That sounds very much like a thugs way of referring to Batman. Who said that? IT WAS FALCONE!!! ZING, ZING, ZING!!!

You're reaching. When did I whine about Falcone's manner of speech?

And yet, Falcone's character was very faithful to the comics.

No, he really wasn't.

NARRATIVE.

For the life of me...

It wouldn't have affected the story. It just wouldn't have been so "in your face" and Falcone wouldn't have been so "cruel".

No one's said anything like that. That's just you and your fictional way of creating another person's argument.

Which would be why I said "unless".

And yet, the "content" of Falcone was very faithful to the comic-book truths of the character, because he was thuggish, hateful and even police and laid-back at times.

Nope.

How isn't that an accurate description of the comic-book adaptation of Carmine Falcone, oh knowledgeable and all-knowing one?

Because you can't just broadly apply descriptions of a character like that and expect them to stick when looking closely at the character.

According to who?

You, I'm guessing? I saw a very accurate portrayal of Carmine Falcone. All you have to do is open up The Long Halloween.

Nope.

It's very much about screentime. A character can be fleshed out a lot more, given more screentime. You might even have got to see Falcone being ever MORE respectful, given more screen time. Gordon got more screen time so we just about got to see how he reacts in EVERY normal situation.

Go figure.

It's not. You can write a faithful Batman scene and it won't take five minutes. By the same token, all that is needed to show an elegant, respectful Carmine Falcone is Falcone acting elegant and more respectful instead of acting like an ******* in the time he's onscreen. The screen time need not be altered a bit. The portrayal would be.

If the Joker was given three or four scenes, then we wouldn't get to know this character.

Again, your fictional knowledge of cinema prevails.

You could easily get to know The Joker in three or four scenes. Easily. Why you think you couldn't is beyond me.

Hey, you were the one insisting that Falcone in Begins wasn't an "ounce" like Falcone in the comics...

I'm wrong on that count, I'll agree. I misspoke there. His most basic elements were retained. His characterization was not.

Ah...so Falcone is SLIGHTLY reminiscent to the Falcone from the comics? That's weird, because I seem to remember you saying that Falcone wasn't an "ounce" like Falcone from the comics.

You are always changing your arguments. Do you not see this?

As I just said, I clearly misspoke there. How am I changing my arguments?

Because he was mean? I seem to remember Falcone being mean in The Long Halloween.

No, because of the context in which he was "mean".

I wasn't the one complaining about Falcone not being an "ounce" like the Falcone we know from the comics...

Go figure.

As I said, I misspoke on that. You'd think people would recognize hyperbole when they see it. Apparently not.

Come to think of it...did I even say that? Which post was that in?

Progress.

I never said the tone was ALL WRONG to begin with. I said the tone in that scene was wrong.

Not at all. Another misconception of cinema. Nolan altered the character's background -- not his persona.

No, Nolan clearly altered his persona.

Lovely.

More progress

So much for Falcone not being at all like the comic-book version, right?

As I have said before, he obviously maintains some of the most generic and shallow ties to his comic book counterpart. He's still more like your average cliche crime boss than Carmine Falcone from the comics.

My point is slowly being proven...

I don't recall ever disagreeing about cliches existing.

You said he wasn't an "ounce" like his comic-book counterpart.

Your words, not mine.

If you don't believe me, go back a page or so.

As I said already, three times, I misspoke.

By the way, remember when you said there were no characters other than Falcone who had a crime empire and then mocked me about it?

What was that there? Misspeaking? Or were you really unaware of the ten or twelve other crime empires related to Batman's mythology?

But it is being applied to a specific character. If I wanted to describe a character in detail -- I f*****g would. I chose not to. I simply chose to give a short synopsis of a character. Kind of like how you would explain it to a newcomer.

It's still a shallow interpretation. Your average newcomer would be like "What's so damn special about that character?

F**k, you are so petty.

I prefer to call it detail-oriented. Your synopses are shallow. They lack key details that define the characters.

There is a difference between describing a character's actual persona, and their place within a specific universe.

You weren't describing anything. You just listed some really, really shallow interpretations of characters.

And thus you might agree that making Falcone less connected to the Wayne family was for the better, too, then?

Nope.

Because it made that wonderful exchange between the two possible in Begins, and through that confrontation, the story got rolling and Bruce had an inspiration to travel the world to understand the criminal mind.

There's no reason Bruce "had" to have that particular confrontation to fuel his desire to "understand the criminal mind". That's just the particular motivation the filmmakers chose to base it on. And besides, with a more relevant connection to Thomas Wayne, that scene could have been more interesting and tense at the same time, with Bruce realizing just how corrupt Falcone was, and by extension, how corrupt Gotham was becoming. I can easily see it unfolding.

The League of Shadows having gun-powder sat openly is contrived.

Wayne Enterprises having survival suits and what not is contrived.

So is Falcone happening to share a jail cell with the man who shot Bruce Wayne's parents, and happening to tell all his secrets to him, to the point where Chill has enough to testify against him for.

Doesn't mean it's not for the better, now, does it? It's done to serve the narrative. You don't know that, though -- that's why you keep putting your friggin' foot in it.

I never said it wasn't for the better. I just said it was contrived. Care to respond to that element of my statement, rather than this "straw argument" thing you're doing?

The fact that Falcone has always been a cliche character, and that cinema, in general, is all a great, big cliche.

No, cinema contains cliches. It is not all cliche, and it is that kind of thinking that leads to sedentary, uninteresting concepts and executions of concepts.

If you understood this, or if you just accepted this, then you wouldn't have a problem with Falcone's portrayal in Batman Begins.

No, I still have a problem with it, because I don't feel it is faithful to the source material. I would rather have a faithful cliche than a non faithful one, is what it comes down to, and I've made no bones about that.

No, Bruce's dad didn't beg like a dog, but that doesn't mean that those comments aren't hurtful.

Why? Is Bruce Wayne not an intelligent person? Is he really so easily baited?

My mum isn't a man, but I would still be insulted if someone said that to me, because I can understand the symbolic reference behind that insult.

What symbolic reference? Are YOU so easily baited?

You've got higher standard than me, remember?

Oh, no, I was genuinely confused by what you meant there.

 

[The Guard]

Where the heck are the rules of Guardball?

 

[JaD]

Once again, I didn't say there could be no cliche in a film or in a character. Obviously there are going to be some.


No, just as I didn't hate ALL Falcone's scenes in BATMAN BEGINS. In fact I didn't hate the Bruce/Falcone scene, and have never claimed to. I just didn't care for some elements of it.



So if you say something about someone...it's just...true? You have yet to show any evidence that I do not understand Falcone's role in this film. You just keep saying "You don't get it", presumably because I don't think it's brilliant (which doesn't mean I hate it, btw), and because I don't like certain elements of it. Which does not say jack about my understanding of it.




I think I've said repeatedly that I understand Falcone's role in BEGINS and appreciate the thematic relevance and so forth. I just didn't care for some elements of it.




Sweet glory do you see things in a shallow light. Just because something contains some cliche does not make the concept itself a cliche.





No, as I've repeatedly pointed out what I think is wrong with it. I do like certain elements of the character's portrayal.





It's "okay". If you think it's good, that's fine. You can even think it's brilliant. I don't think it's remotely clever enough an inclusion to be considered brilliant.





How so? To me it's mostly based around the freaks VS mob angle, and to that end, I'd say Maroni has a more pivotal role than Falcone does. Falcone tends to be the "reactor" in THE LONG HALLOWEEN.





But if he wasn't. Let's say...The Joker was in a movie...and he was just "cannon fodder". Would you be ok with that?







You seem to think that because I feel it's cliche that I don't understand its nature. Again, these are two mutually exclusive concepts. Yes, I realize how much cliche exists in cinema and literature. I am okay with a certain amount of cliche existing. However, I don't like a character who exists beyond these cliches in his source material being relegated to what I would consider tired mobster cliches on film.







He plays around with his persona, too. Even had Falcone been responsible for what happened to the Waynes on some level, and for Chill's death, the comic book version would not have taunted Bruce about their death. He's simply not that cruel. He was a businessman, not a complete ******* for the sake of it.







Falcone doesn't treat people like that, though. This is my point. He has a much calmer presence in the comics. He's not going to resort to something so "lowbrow".







Because they were interrupting his business. Bruce isn't interrupting his business in BATMAN BEGINS, and he's not going to hurt him, either. What Falcone does in BATMAN BEGINS, he does to show Bruce who has the power in Gotham. And it works thematically, and in the context of the very shallow character that the movie presents, it is even in character. But it is very out of character for the Falcone of the comic books, which I very much prefer.







I don't see any valid reason for Falcone to have Bruce beaten and to resort to making such derogatory statements about his parents. Nor is there any need to threaten his friends. Not in the context of the Falcone I know. In the movie, he seems to do it just because Goyer apparently cannot get his point across without making it blatantly obvious that Falcone is a bad person. I don't like that style of screenwriting. You may as well have the villain say "I am a villain. Look how mean I am".







Now wait a minute. You were going on and on about how Falcone is portrayed as a thug because "That's how Bruce sees him". Have you now abandoned that tack?







Mostly, although his acting in the "gassing" scene leaves something to be desired.







That's the movie Falcone. That's a very shallow, brutish portrayal of the character. That is not the Falcone I know and like to see.







Unfortunately, most people seem to think that if you use subjective shooting or anything resembling a first person narrative that characters must be "bare bones". That is simply not the case.







The thread doesn't contain anything for you to base that assessment on.







And we never see the things I wanted to see about Falcone. But you tell me they "might" exist. Well, Bruce Wayne the child rapist "might" exist, too, by that logic.







Falcone being respectful to criminals isn't the issue. The way Falcone acts around decent people (Bruce) is. Again, am I just supposed to ignore the scene in context?







That in the first scene he comes across as that. In subsequent scenes, he loses all trace of personality, and essentially becomes a cliche mob boss.





Whaaat?



I don't consider people who take bribes and overlook the kinds of things Falcone does respectable. The fact is, the place was in a lousy part of town.







A lot of them do. A lot of bars do, period. Especially the ones that are freqented by criminals. They pretty much have to, because violence erupts at such places constantly.







He's a judge. A corrupt one. In a city the size of Gotham, I'd imagine they have several.







There's absolutely nothing to suggest he's "the most popular and renowned judge in the city".





It doesn't lack logic at all. The man's on Falcone's payroll. Early drafts of the script have him taking bribes from Falcone, and having Falcone getting him women at the dive.



Where is that written?



That's why they get to where they are, because they have shown to have a little MORE than your average Joe Chill, who is a "stock thug", right?

Since all Rachel says is "He keeps the bad people rich and the good people scared", I'm sorry, I see no element of the man being remotely respectable in the public eye.



Yes, I accept that he was not a complete ******* in every scene. But again, my issue is that he IS in that very pivotal and character-establishing-and-revealing scene. He's pretty much a mobster cliche in every scene he's in, though.







What?





What he may or may not have done is inconsequential. My issue is that we did not see this side of his character.





I'm not crying. You really think this upsets me?



It's not always about need. It's about what I would have liked to have scene to flesh out the character and tie him even more concretely into the themes of the film. Adding to the character could only have benefitted the movie. We didn't NEED to see him badmouth Bruce Wayne's dead parents to know what kind of a man he was, either. The movie showed it anyway.



Yes, most criminal portrayals are pretty cliche. That's why I was hoping Falcone wouldn't be quite so much, and was disappointed to find that he was.







Jury's still out on that one.







That overall, he is still a more interesting character than the version that appeared in BATMAN BEGINS. He has more layers to him, and more potential as a part of the Batman mythology.



When you say "his knowledge of life", what exactly are you referring to?

My argument involves him being respectable to Bruce, given the situation. Once again, I do not feel that a Carmine Falcone who treats people like that is faithful to the source material.



Right, I'd like to see that, but I never said it had to be. It could serve both a narrative purpose AND a thematic one. If they were smart they'd just have made Falcone "Earle".





No, in fact I do not.







By using the screentime given to lesser, completely pointless characters for Falcone, and by not wasting all Falcone's screentime with "I am evil" cliches.





Uh...yes, the only chance you were given to view the person's actions or "character" would be your best chance to assess that person or their "character".



I never said he treated everyone that way. My issue is that he did with Bruce. I thought I made that pretty clear.



I recall asking you a question. The polite thing to do would be to answer it before posing your own question. Do you think that only the most shallow parts of characters should be adapted?



When you say Falcone, you mean Falcone in the comics, or Falcone in the movies? Falcone in the comics was never that lowbrow. Even when his son died, he restrained himself more than that.



True, but it is a cliche that is suitable for the character. "Refined, elegant mob boss". The cliche used in BATMAN BEGINS fits a characterization of Falcone that seems invented for the movie. Lowbrow, brutish mob boss.



All characters have some element of cliche to them. As I've stated before, I'm ok with that. What I'm not ok with is characters being adapted without their characterization intact, and being nothing but one cliche after another,





How exactly is Superman a cliche? And since when do all criminals find death amusing?





I think you're just making up arguments you think I may or may not have as you go along.



That's arguable.





Missed what point? You, btw, clearly misinterpreted "BATMAN" as "BATMAN BEGINS" and then went on a rant about "Have you seen BATMAN BEGINS?".



What? I never said Falcone wasn't evil in the comics. Can you keep any of your statements or their contexts straight? You were giving me some bunk about the man being respectable in those scenes. He isn't.



I never said Falcone doesn't have cliche elements to him in the comics. My issue is that the movie version is nothing BUT cliches and that the movie version doesn't resemble the comic book version except in the most shallow and basic way.

Which point have I missed? Did I at some point deny Falcone's cliche elements in the comics, or even say that I hate having any cliche to anything?



I asked you to tell me what Falcone is, and what the movie presents. So tell me: What should Carmine Falcone be, at his best portrayal?



No, and where did I say the comic version IS unique? I'm simply arguing that the movie version wasn't brilliant because he wasn't uniquely portrayed. I don't think the comic book Falcone is brilliant, either.





I don't recall saying that Falcone from the comics is all that unique. He's a hell of a lot more unique and interesting that the movie version, though.



It'll be interesting. I hope that intelligent screenwriters and thinkers will figure out The Joker's potential and utilize it. I imagine they will, at least to a point.



I didn't say Falcone isn't somewhat cliche in the comics.



Yes. It's still a very shallow description/interpretation of the character.

Your point? Does he badmouth Bruce Wayne's dead parents? Is he cruel for the sake of being cruel?



That's true, and as I've said, while I don't think that Falcone's role in the other scenes are brilliant or all that interesting, I don't have too many issues with them. But explain to me why I should ignore what I see in this particular, clearly very pivotal scene?



Find me a scene like that in the comics and we'll talk about how he "WAS Falcone in that scene". Where an intelligent man who tends not to seek to stir things up has a young man beaten and badmouths his dead parents. Or does anything remotely close.



What?



Why bring it up? For the hell of it. Personally, I feel Falcone could have played a pivotal role in the franchise, not just the first movie. I don't feel him being taken down when he's taken down is any "better" or "worse", it simply is. I can see it working if he wasn't even at the docks, and just reacted to it, and the story went from there.



Oh, I see. Because you think I don't think what's presented is as interesting as it could be...you don't think I get what's there onscreen. So what we have here is an issue where you are satisifed, and I, who see the potential the character has beyond what was already done with him in the movie, am not.



No, I wasn't real pleased with that from the get-go.



What have I altered, exactly?



He had the situation well in hand. He pulled the gun to teach Bruce a lesson about fear (which is why I feel this is a completely forced angle, there's just no reason for this to happen, for him to start talking about fear and so forth). The gun was empty. Falcone carries an empty gun, and survives on the power of the fear that his presence and reputation bring him. He was illustrating to Bruce the power of fear. Not because Bruce pissed him off any great amount, because he's not really all that angry, he's actually fairly calm (if a dick). He's just telling Bruce what he tells him because he can. For the hell of it.



Will you explain to me how putting a one million dollar price tag on the head of someone who is interrupting your business even begins to relate to having a kid who is no threat to you at all beaten and then insulting his dead parents?



And this is my issue with the scene and the portrayal. It doesn't feel like the Falcone I know.



You clearly can't prove it, or you would have by now. You just keep making ridiculous quips and backpeddling every time I ask you to.



I disagree.



No...he really didn't. Drug-running...having people killed...that's pretty standard crime boss stuff.



Elaborate, please. While each has some element of cliche, none of these characters by themselves IS a complete cliche.



No, cinema has elements of varying degrees of cliche in it. It is not ALL cliche.



Never said it wasn't tied into the story. Only said it wasn't brilliant or interesting, and that I found it forced.



Yes in my opinion. It being relevant to the story doesn't matter to me, because it was so forced that all impact was lost for me. "Interesting" is up for debate. I suppose it can be interesting when someone states the obvious about something we should already know. I never find it interesting when a villain goes on and on about "the power of fear", since that's something that almost every crime villain has in common on some level.



Why? I never called the speech cliche, though it is about a cliche topic, the power of fear as it relates to crime. I said it was forced and not brilliant.



Wow, a criminal who uses fear to keep people down. Never seen that before. I'm sorry, I don't find stating the obvious brilliant. And I find writing styles where a writer has to have a character state the obvious to somehow illuminate what they've already SHOWN (show, don't tell) to be very forced writing.



He doesn't turn super good, he wants/tries to kill Joe Chill, gets lost in his desire for revenge, travels around the world, and then is shown the way. And I never said that some of that isn't a cliche, quit assuming how I think or what I feel about every subject in the world in an attempt to discredit my views. Dressing up like a creature of the night, becoming someone else entirely, utilizing Batman's methods...now that's a bit less cliche.



To a point. Did I say it didn't?



What's changed?



And yet by your own admission, you don't seem to know what my points are.



The screentime has squat to do with it. The PORTRAYAL in that screentime has to do with how faithful a character is to the source material.



You're reaching. When did I whine about Falcone's manner of speech?



No, he really wasn't.



It wouldn't have affected the story. It just wouldn't have been so "in your face" and Falcone wouldn't have been so "cruel".



Which would be why I said "unless".



Nope.



Because you can't just broadly apply descriptions of a character like that and expect them to stick when looking closely at the character.



Nope.



It's not. You can write a faithful Batman scene and it won't take five minutes. By the same token, all that is needed to show an elegant, respectful Carmine Falcone is Falcone acting elegant and more respectful instead of acting like an ******* in the time he's onscreen. The screen time need not be altered a bit. The portrayal would be.



You could easily get to know The Joker in three or four scenes. Easily. Why you think you couldn't is beyond me.



I'm wrong on that count, I'll agree. I misspoke there. His most basic elements were retained. His characterization was not.



As I just said, I clearly misspoke there. How am I changing my arguments?



No, because of the context in which he was "mean".



As I said, I misspoke on that. You'd think people would recognize hyperbole when they see it. Apparently not.

Come to think of it...did I even say that? Which post was that in?



I never said the tone was ALL WRONG to begin with. I said the tone in that scene was wrong.



No, Nolan clearly altered his persona.



As I have said before, he obviously maintains some of the most generic and shallow ties to his comic book counterpart. He's still more like your average cliche crime boss than Carmine Falcone from the comics.



I don't recall ever disagreeing about cliches existing.



As I said already, three times, I misspoke.

By the way, remember when you said there were no characters other than Falcone who had a crime empire and then mocked me about it?

What was that there? Misspeaking? Or were you really unaware of the ten or twelve other crime empires related to Batman's mythology?



It's still a shallow interpretation. Your average newcomer would be like "What's so damn special about that character?



I prefer to call it detail-oriented. Your synopses are shallow. They lack key details that define the characters.



You weren't describing anything. You just listed some really, really shallow interpretations of characters.



Nope.



There's no reason Bruce "had" to have that particular confrontation to fuel his desire to "understand the criminal mind". That's just the particular motivation the filmmakers chose to base it on. And besides, with a more relevant connection to Thomas Wayne, that scene could have been more interesting and tense at the same time, with Bruce realizing just how corrupt Falcone was, and by extension, how corrupt Gotham was becoming. I can easily see it unfolding.



So is Falcone happening to share a jail cell with the man who shot Bruce Wayne's parents, and happening to tell all his secrets to him, to the point where Chill has enough to testify against him for.



I never said it wasn't for the better. I just said it was contrived. Care to respond to that element of my statement, rather than this "straw argument" thing you're doing?



No, cinema contains cliches. It is not all cliche, and it is that kind of thinking that leads to sedentary, uninteresting concepts and executions of concepts.



No, I still have a problem with it, because I don't feel it is faithful to the source material. I would rather have a faithful cliche than a non faithful one, is what it comes down to, and I've made no bones about that.



Why? Is Bruce Wayne not an intelligent person? Is he really so easily baited?



What symbolic reference? Are YOU so easily baited?



Oh, no, I was genuinely confused by what you meant there.

to sum it up.



i think u killed the Fichtner small role/appreciation discussion

 

[Damiean Dark]

Falcone is a small role in BB (it should have been bigger) its what was done in the small time he had that counted and i think Wilkinson was completely off the ball with it Again CLICHES CAN BE GOOD IF THEY ARE DONE RIGHT! goodfellas, the godfather, casino, Hoffa, the sopranos are all basically cliches or steroetypes of different mobster mannerisms and personalitys but they where done, or acted i should say, in a manner that carried the air of menace and power a trait falcone completely lacked Wilkinson was a bad joke plain and simple he had some good lines but they where still acted like a bad parody with Nolans casting of some great actors like Freeman and the like why pick wilkinson? rutgar hauer would have suited BB falcone better and maybe wilkinson would have been better cast as Earle.

 

[ActuallyRobin]

wow you 2 are still going at it?

 

[The Guard]

to sum it up.

i think u killed the Fichtner small role/appreciation discussion

I think it was already dying. He has a small role. He's not a brilliant actor by any means, and he didn't appear to bring his A game to the table for the small role in TDK. He doesn't leave me wanting any more after watching his scene. I don't really care how long he's onscreen in the movie.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Here's a few quotes for The Guard from "The Long Halloween":

FALCONE
Nobody. And I mean, nobody. Speaks to me this way.

Heh -- and what happened when Bruce spoke to him that way, Guard?

---

FALCONE
You're questioning ME!?

Heh -- doesn't like to be questioned either.

--

FALCONE
How dare he defy ME!? My own son!

And do you know what he does after saying that? He wrecks the entire kitchen.

FALCONE
I'll burn it all down -- before I let a freak have it.

Wow -- is that Falcone being "impolite"? Is that Falcone calling someone a name?

Also, do you want to know how many times Falcone pulls a gun on someone in "The Long Halloween"?

I'll tell you: three times. And weren't you complaining about Falcone putting a gun in Bruce's face in at some point?

You say Falcone was out-of-character, yet the evidence stacks up against you, Guard. Going by the quotes above, Falcone was very much in-character.

 

[lixdexia]

Here's a few quotes for The Guard from "The Long Halloween":

FALCONE
Nobody. And I mean, nobody. Speaks to me this way.

Heh -- and what happened when Bruce spoke to him that way, Guard?

---

FALCONE
You're questioning ME!?

Heh -- doesn't like to be questioned either.

--

FALCONE
How dare he defy ME!? My own son!

And do you know what he does after saying that? He wrecks the entire kitchen.

FALCONE
I'll burn it all down -- before I left a freak have it.

Wow -- is that Falcone being "impolite"? Is that Falcone calling someone a name?

Also, do you want to know how many times Falcone pulls a gun on someone in "The Long Halloween"?

I'll tell you: three times. And weren't you complaining about Falcone putting a gun in Bruce's face in at some point?

You say Falcone was out-of-character, yet the evidence stacks up against you, Guard. Going by the quotes above, Falcone was very much in-character.

he was still out of character for the comics. he was a different character in the movie and that's fine, but in the comics he carried himself with a much more reserved demeanor and was regarded as more of a stereotypical italian mafioso.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

he was still out of character for the comics. he was a different character in the movie and that's fine, but in the comics he carried himself with a much more reserved demeanor and was regarded as more of a stereotypical italian mafioso.

Sure, he was slightly more direct in Begins, but was still the same character:

- Didn't like to be crossed.
- Wasn't a nice guy when eventually crossed.
- Threw the odd insult.
- Was cliche in places (TLH: "Expect the unexpected" -- Begins: "Don't burden yourself with these secrets of scary people").

Falcone was awesome in Begins. True to the sources, only more ruthless and direct, which complimented the character greatly.

 

[Damiean Dark]

Falcone in the comics was so far removed from BB it isnt even funny why bother to even call him Falcone? he had no class its like comparing The familys from the godfather (micheal corlione) to the familys in the sorpranos (tony sorprano) both can do the angry shouting gun to the head "nobody does that to me!" type thing but which one was acted better, done with that real underlineing sense of realistic power and real menace?.

 

[The Joker]

he was still out of character for the comics. he was a different character in the movie and that's fine, but in the comics he carried himself with a much more reserved demeanor and was regarded as more of a stereotypical italian mafioso.

I agree.

They did feel like two seperate characters.

Sure, he was slightly more direct in Begins, but was still the same character:

- Didn't like to be crossed.
- Wasn't a nice guy when eventually crossed.
- Threw the odd insult.

Those three traits go for most big time criminals in any movie or medium. Hardly unique to movie Falcone.

 

[Damiean Dark]

Sure, he was slightly more direct in Begins, but was still the same character:

- Didn't like to be crossed.
- Wasn't a nice guy when eventually crossed.
- Threw the odd insult.
- Was cliche in places (TLH: "Expect the unexpected" -- Begins: "Don't burden yourself with these secrets of scary people").

Falcone was awesome in Begins. True to the sources, only more ruthless and direct, which complimented the character greatly.

Do you really think he was that good? your opinion i suppose....