The Dark Knight William Fichtner - Wasted?

[Damiean Dark]

I agree.

They did feel like two seperate characters.



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

Exactly its not really whats said its the acting behind the words falcone in BB seemed more buffoon then city wide crime kingpin

 

[Mr. Superhero]

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

The same could be said for Batman.

- Tried his hardest for the good people of the city.
- Put his own ass on the line to save others.
- Incredibly compassionate.

Are these traits unique to Batman? No. But it simply doesn't work like that. Falcone is Falcone -- Batman is Batman. Sure, I'll happily accept that Falcone is much more "gangster" than what he is in the comics, but the core roots of the character are still intact, as I pointed out above.

Do you really think he was that good?

Falcone was brilliantly handled in Begins. Before steaming in and running your mouth off; try reading the entire thread. I have explained my views in an incredibly detailed fashion...

 

[bkey]

Falcone was brilliantly handled in Begins. Before steaming in and running your mouth off; try reading the entire thread. I have explained my views in an incredibly detailed fashion...

I agree. I thought Falcone was a great addition to the film. Once I just went through BB and watched only the scenes with Falcone. WIlkinson did a good job portraying him too IMO.

 

[The Joker]

The same could be said for Batman.

- Tried his hardest for the good people of the city.
- Put his own ass on the line to save others.
- Incredibly compassionate.

Are these traits unique to Batman? No. But it simply doesn't work like that.

Exactly.

That's why nobody is using that line of reasoning for the character. It's way too generic. But you are using that kind of logic for movie Falcone. That what which makes comic book Falcone unique was absent in Begins.

That's what people here are saying. Movie Falcone was fine for what he was intended to be in Begins. But it was not the Carmine Falcone of the comic books.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Exactly.

That's why nobody is using that line of reasoning for the character. It's way too generic. But you are using that kind of logic for movie Falcone. That what which makes comic book Falcone unique was absent in Begins.

That's what people here are saying. Movie Falcone was fine for what he was intended to be in Begins. But it was not the Carmine Falcone of the comic books.

I don't see anybody using any line of reasoning for the character -- just that "he was different in Begins". Yet, it was the exact same character with the exact same sentimentalities towards life. Like I said, I will accept that he had a slightly altered mannerism, but it was Carmine Falcone, only more thuggish.

I found huge remnants of Falcone from the comics in Tom Wilkinson's portrayal of the character.

 

[The Guard]

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

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

Ok...

This line shows Falcone having pride/ego. I don't recall saying I didn't want Falcone to have pride or an ego, I just don't want him to act like a complete ******* about things in context. Tell me, right after Falcone said that in the comics, did he have an innocent man beaten and insult his dead parents?

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

He was beaten and his dead parents were insulted for no good reason. Which is my issue with the portrayal.

FALCONE
You're questioning ME!?

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

And I don't really have an issue with this element.

--

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

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

Did I say I mind the man having a temper?

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?

Did I say I had an issue with Falcone calling people names?

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

Don't have an issue with Falcone pulling a gun on people if there's a reason on his end to do so. Pulling a gun on an unarmed innocent like Bruce who is already under control is a stretch.

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

No. I don't believe I was. I was complaining about him having Bruce beaten.

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.

You've got to be kidding me. Going by "select quotes" from the comics, I can justify almost anything I want to happening anywhere.

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.

Exactly. Instead of a stereotypical "thug" mob boss. And as I've said before, if he's going to be a cliche, I'd prefer him to be a faithful one.

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.

You realize you're describing almost any male character ever written, right?

I want to see what makes the comic book character INTERESTING on film, and it wasn't there. I don't care if his most basic cliche elements that have very little to do with definining him beyond cliche were present. Any idiot can write cliches like "Doesn't like to be crossed", "throws the odd insult when mad".

- Was cliche in places (TLH: "Expect the unexpected" -- Begins: "Don't burden yourself with these secrets of scary people").

Now you're trying to use "He was cliche sometimes" in order to prove the characterization was faithful?

The same could be said for Batman.

- Tried his hardest for the good people of the city.
- Put his own ass on the line to save others.
- Incredibly compassionate.

Are these traits unique to Batman? No. But it simply doesn't work like that.

No, and if you tried to tell me that these are the things that define Batman beyond the average "hero" cliche, people would laugh in your face. These are aspects of Batman. His most cliche ones. You cannot only point out that the most cliche aspects of a character existed in the translation of said character and then argue that the character was faithfully realized. It just doesn't work that way.

Falcone is Falcone -- Batman is Batman. Sure, I'll happily accept that Falcone is much more "gangster" than what he is in the comics, but the core roots of the character are still intact, as I pointed out above.

You're damn right he's more "gangster" than what he is in the comics, and that's the whole issue I have with the portray al. That's the whole issue anyone has with the portrayal, as far as I can tell. It's not accurate to the source material.

That's why nobody is using that line of reasoning for the character. It's way too generic. But you are using that kind of logic for movie Falcone. That what which makes comic book Falcone unique was absent in Begins.
That's what people here are saying. Movie Falcone was fine for what he was intended to be in Begins. But it was not the Carmine Falcone of the comic books.

That's pretty much what I've said all along. And then, when challenged with the notion that Nolan's take on Falcone was "brilliant", pointed out how I don't think the use of cliche (which is found in Falcone's character in spades) is brilliant, and therefore that Nolan's take on the character is not impressive or unique enough to justify changing him so much.

I don't see anybody using any line of reasoning for the character -- just that "he was different in Begins".

"He was different in some very key ways".

Yet, it was the exact same character with the exact same sentimentalities towards life.

I'm sorry..."exact same character"?

Like I said, I will accept that he had a slightly altered mannerism, but it was Carmine Falcone, only more thuggish.

Then it wasn't a faithful-to-the-source portrayal of Carmine Falcone. That's like me saying that Burton's Batman is "the exact same character as comic book Batman, only he kills and has a less impressive physique".

I found huge remnants of Falcone from the comics in Tom Wilkinson's portrayal of the character.

You seem to find your huge remnants in the smallest and most insignificant of places. I think you're reaching. You are taking the most broadly applied character moments possible and trying to say it's a faithful rendition. That's like me looking at the portrayal of Bruce Wayne/Batman in Burton's films, ignoring that Batman kills and is shorter and wears an armored suit instead of having the physique to fill it and picking out a few bits of dialogue and saying that based on the moments they got right that the ENTIRE version of that character is faithful.

 

[ActuallyRobin]

I suspect when the world ends, this debate will still be raging

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Ok...

This line shows Falcone having pride/ego. I don't recall saying I didn't want Falcone to have pride or an ego, I just don't want him to act like a complete ******* about things in context. Tell me, right after Falcone said that in the comics, did he have an innocent man beaten and insult his dead parents?

He obviously didn't do f**k all, because the recipient was Batman.

But, if you want to know WHAT FALCONE DID AFTERWARDS, I'll tell you: he pulled out a gun...

He was beaten and his dead parents were insulted for no good reason. Which is my issue with the portrayal.

And yet, wasn't Harvey insulted for "no good reason" in TLH when Falcone referred to him as a "freak"?

And I don't really have an issue with this element.

That's right; how could I forget? You have an issue with one f*****g scene.

Your pettiness knows no end...

Did I say I mind the man having a temper?

Excellent -- so now that you accept that Falcone has quite a temper on him; why do you deprive the man of unleashing that temper on Bruce? According to the comics, this man does some pretty crazy and aggressive things to vent his anger, and yet you have an issue with him using that anger to insult Bruce?

Boggles the mind.

Did I say I had an issue with Falcone calling people names?

Not at all, but you seem to have a problem with Falcone throwing insults at people for "no good reason". Yet he does it in both the comics and the films.

Go figure.

Don't have an issue with Falcone pulling a gun on people if there's a reason on his end to do so. Pulling a gun on an unarmed innocent like Bruce who is already under control is a stretch.

HAHAHA! This is ridiculous! So now you have a problem with Falcone pulling an EMPTY gun on Bruce, because Bruce was, scientifically speaking, "innocent" and "unarmed"? So, according to you, Falcone is only allowed to pull a FULLY-LOADED gun on someone who is potentially threatening?

No. I don't believe I was. I was complaining about him having Bruce beaten.

Jesus, you can't even remember your OWN arguments, dude! You've been saying that it was out-of-character for Falcone to pull a gun on Bruce, yet he does all the friggin' time in the comics.

You've got to be kidding me. Going by "select quotes" from the comics, I can justify almost anything I want to happening anywhere.

And I have justified my stance by backing it up with quotes, too.

My stance has been proven right. It is well within the realms of Falcone's characterization for him to A) purposefully insult someone, B) pull a gun on someone who is only TRYING TO TALK, and C) he anger sometimes gets the better of him.

You were saying?

You realize you're describing almost any male character ever written, right?

I want to see what makes the comic book character INTERESTING on film, and it wasn't there. I don't care if his most basic cliche elements that have very little to do with definining him beyond cliche were present. Any idiot can write cliches like "Doesn't like to be crossed", "throws the odd insult when mad"

Hey, you're the one complaining about his interpretation in Begins. It seems to me that you simply have an issue with his MANNERISM -- not his actual sentimentalities.

His mannerism, dude. His f*****g mannerism. I could say that Bruce Wayne's mannerism is slightly different in Begins -- doesn't mean it's a bad thing or that I am unhappy with such a fractional change.

Because that's it is: a fractional change.

Now you're trying to use "He was cliche sometimes" in order to prove the characterization was faithful?

I seem to remember you babbling on about Falcone being too cliche -- yet he is just as cliche in the comics.

Boggles the mind.

No, and if you tried to tell me that these are the things that define Batman beyond the average "hero" cliche, people would laugh in your face. These are aspects of Batman. His most cliche ones. You cannot only point out that the most cliche aspects of a character existed in the translation of said character and then argue that the character was faithfully realized. It just doesn't work that way.

Nor am I intending to convey such a point; just that Falcone's persona was influenced by his sentimentalities, which are totally faithful to the comics.

Hence, he is the exact same character, with a slightly altered mannerism. If this bothers you so much, then I can only sympathize for you.

You're damn right he's more "gangster" than what he is in the comics, and that's the whole issue I have with the portray al. That's the whole issue anyone has with the portrayal, as far as I can tell. It's not accurate to the source material.

Bruce was funnier in the Begins; do I have an issue with that? Do you have an issue with that?

It's so f*****g petty. You have basically got your panties in a bunch because Falcone is slightly more thuggish. I can't even begin to explain how delightfully pathetic that is...

"He was different in some very key ways".

Was he f**k. He just had a different mannerism. He still carried out the exact same actions that he would carry out in the comics. Like I said; if you cross him -- he'll bite you.

I'm sorry..."exact same character"?

For the most part -- hell yes.

The only difference being that he was slightly more thuggish, but hey; I found Bruce Wayne to be a lot more charismatic and funnier in Begins.

What's the problem?

Then it wasn't a faithful-to-the-source portrayal of Carmine Falcone. That's like me saying that Burton's Batman is "the exact same character as comic book Batman, only he kills and has a less impressive physique".

Trust me, that's one stupid comparison to make. Listen, you are comparing Falcone's slight mannerism change with Batman physically killing people.

Read this sentence carefully, and then you might be able to see how ridiculous it is.

You seem to find your huge remnants in the smallest and most insignificant of places. I think you're reaching. You are taking the most broadly applied character moments possible and trying to say it's a faithful rendition. That's like me looking at the portrayal of Bruce Wayne/Batman in Burton's films, ignoring that Batman kills and is shorter and wears an armored suit instead of having the physique to fill it and picking out a few bits of dialogue and saying that based on the moments they got right that the ENTIRE version of that character is faithful.

WTF is your deal, man? I have made lots of comparative points, and then I say that I found huge remnants of comic-book Falcone in Wilkinson's portrayal, and then you say I'm friggin' reaching?

How can I be reaching, if what I say has been backed up in the comics? For THE MOST PART -- Falcone was Falcone, bar the slight mannerism change. See what I did there? I granted that Falcone's mannerism was slightly difference, but hey, I'm not the one who's got such an issue with this.

 

[Figs]

Personally, I liked Wilkinson's performance. I thought it was good enough for the film itself.

Part of the reason I don't judge it too harshly is because when it comes to Batman villians, I almost always have put the normal/boring, typical mobsters below most if not all of his rogues gallery.

When I want to see some entertaining mobster action I watch the Godfather movies or Goodfellas or any other number of good/great mob films.

When it came to Batman, it was all about the freaks. Just like when I watch episodes from B:TAS. I hated it when Rupert Thorn was in an episode, I would usually only half watch them. Play it in the background while I was doing something else.

Overall, I can see the points people are bringing up about him straying from the comics but like I said originally, it was a good performance for the film at hand.

 

[The Guard]

I don't recall saying Falcone could never pull guns on people or insult them. Show me where I said that. Do I think it's a little extreme to pull a gun on an innocent who has already been subdued and poses no threat? Hell yes, but my main issue is clearly Falcone having Bruce beaten and how he treats Bruce in general. You have yet to show me comic book examples of a similar situation, where Falcone treats an innocent person like that, or loses his temper to the point where he has someone who poses no threat to him beaten. My issue is what the man does in context compared to the comic book version (he hits pots and pans when he has an actual emotional reason to get mad, so what, are you seriously trying to compare that...to having a man beaten for no reason?) I believe it is out of character. Yes, I have an issue with his mannerisms, because, like his actions, they strike me as being out of character. I don't see enough of the elements I like about Falcone in the movie to say that it's a faithful translation.

You have made lots of comparative points. Almost none of them even relate to the issues I actually have with the character. You have failed to convince me with your ridiculous "But-but he gets mad in this line" attempts. It was never about his temper or his penchant for acting like a mob boss in general, and I have never had an issue with any of those elements. "Having some of the same cliches" is not enough to be considered a faithful rendition. I don't see the comic book Falcone in the movie. I don't see comic book Falcone environments, for the most part. I don't see comic book Falcone interactions and themes beyond the most cliche of them. You're welcome to if you wish. I also continue to think that while Falcone is used appropriately and fairly well storywise for the most part (except the scene that I have voiced having an issue with) and serves the story well enough, he's not that interesting, and certainly nothing brilliant. It is not "brilliant" to just "connect" a character to the hero's past, have something that he says motivate the hero to rise above the villain, and to use him to show the character as capable. That's been done in what, half the action movies ever made? As for babbling on and on about cilche, I made a very direct point. I said that I don't find the use of cliche brilliant or particular interesting. I never said cliches are always a bad thing.

 

[The Guard]

How I would have liked to have seen Falcone done:

For starter's, I'd bring The Roman aspect back into play. This is a man who truly has an empire, and who acts like it. He'd be a mob boss with political clout. Not someone who just bribes people to get out of trouble, but someone who has the Mayor's ear, the DA's office, etc. Someone who has the people's trust. Essentially, before Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham, Falcone would be something like Bruce Wayne. The most wealthy Gothamite, the most charitable, etc. One of Gotham's top citizens. I would probably, for the sake of screentime, remove Earle and give Falcone Earle's role as the head of Wayne Enterprises, and make him Thomas Wayne's one-time ally and friend. This would give Bruce's "realization" about how corrupt Gotham is that much more weight and relevance. Falcone's organization would also be involved in mafia organization, drugs, gunrunning, prostitution, etc. He wouldn't be anyone's pawn, and he wouldn't rely on anyone else outside his organization to get the things he wants handled accomplished. He'd be an intelligent man, a calm and efficient man for the most part, and even a compassionate man on some level. He'd be a man worth keeping around beyond one movie. None of the scenes and relevance Falcone had in BATMAN BEGINS need be sacrificed for this, the character could merely have been added to here and there. This would have allowed for more Bruce/Falcone interactions and only served to strengthen their "relationship" in the film. I would have Falcone's organization weakened during the events of BATMAN BEGINS and perhaps even keep Falcone being incapacitated by The Scarecrow, and then he'd be back in THE DARK KNIGHT, his grip on Gotham weakened somewhat, which would give him a real reason to hate "the freaks" and allow for the mob wars to begin, and allow us to see more of the character, along with Maroni, as rival gangs made their play for some of Falcone's turf.

 

[Figs]

That is one thing I have to agree with The Guard on bigtime. In TDK, there is going to be all these different gangs/mobs fighting over territory right?

Where were they in BB?? I think it would have made Falcone in the film look like an actual boss of bosses kind of guy. They should have had some scenes in BB where he interacts with some of the other mob bosses and puts them in their place.

Just to show that he is at the top, that only after he got gassed and thrown in Arkham were the others able to have the courage to try and take control of his empire.

 

[JaD]

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.

well ur obviously not giving the thread (or anyone else) any bit of a chance with all these drawn out debates about something unrelated to fichtner, uve got ur opinion right there about fichtner in ur comment, but thats not how everyone else feels tho, can this debate that barely half of anybody would even care to read/get involved with come to an end/or be moved?

because some of us who admire him as an actor, including me, think its awesome he decided to take this small but memorable role, and really enjoyed seeing fichtner walking and blasting a shotgun in the prologue. (not to mention the smoothest way to take off ur glasses and set them on a table)

 

[Damiean Dark]

I think a normal villian who isnt a freak can be just as interesting in a batmovie Max Shreck was a evil power hungry sonava***** in BR he was probably worse then most villains before or since because he had everything but wanted more. you cant compare walkens darker shreck moments to Wilkinsons buffoonery of a parody of a gangster i still dont believe anyone thinks he was that good.

 

[Damiean Dark]

The same could be said for Batman.

- Tried his hardest for the good people of the city.
- Put his own ass on the line to save others.
- Incredibly compassionate.

Are these traits unique to Batman? No. But it simply doesn't work like that. Falcone is Falcone -- Batman is Batman. Sure, I'll happily accept that Falcone is much more "gangster" than what he is in the comics, but the core roots of the character are still intact, as I pointed out above.


Falcone was brilliantly handled in Begins. Before steaming in and running your mouth off; try reading the entire thread. I have explained my views in an incredibly detailed fashion...

All your views dont get down to the fact that (imo) wilkinson was wrong for the role the words and actions are forgivable but the acting style was poorly acted a BAD cliche of a mobster.

 

[CaptainClown]

All your views dont get down to the fact that (imo) wilkinson was wrong for the role the words and actions are forgivable but the acting style was poorly acted a BAD cliche of a mobster.

 

[Gianakin_]

Yup, that right there is comedy gold.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

I don't recall saying Falcone could never pull guns on people or insult them. Show me where I said that. Do I think it's a little extreme to pull a gun on an innocent who has already been subdued and poses no threat? Hell yes, but my main issue is clearly Falcone having Bruce beaten and how he treats Bruce in general. You have yet to show me comic book examples of a similar situation, where Falcone treats an innocent person like that, or loses his temper to the point where he has someone who poses no threat to him beaten.

He didn't pull a gun on Bruce to kill him -- he pulled out the gun to scare him. He pulled out the gun to illustrate just how powerful he is. It was tied into the narrative -- it was in there to help the audience understand just how corrupt the city was, due mainly to Carmine Falcone. Why did we need to see an in-depth interpretation to recognize the power of this guy, when you could simply have him perform one action to convey the same message, only more vigorously? It was a great move by Nolan, because he basically summed up the state of the city in having one of his characters whip out and empty gun and point it in someone's face.

You have made lots of comparative points. Almost none of them even relate to the issues I actually have with the character. You have failed to convince me with your ridiculous "But-but he gets mad in this line" attempts.

I think my argument has been a little bit more complex than that. But hey, I've come to expect it from someone who is quite as unreasonable as yourself.

For starter's, I'd bring The Roman aspect back into play. This is a man who truly has an empire, and who acts like it. He'd be a mob boss with political clout. Not someone who just bribes people to get out of trouble, but someone who has the Mayor's ear, the DA's office, etc. Someone who has the people's trust. Essentially, before Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham, Falcone would be something like Bruce Wayne. The most wealthy Gothamite, the most charitable, etc. One of Gotham's top citizens. I would probably, for the sake of screentime, remove Earle and give Falcone Earle's role as the head of Wayne Enterprises, and make him Thomas Wayne's one-time ally and friend. This would give Bruce's "realization" about how corrupt Gotham is that much more weight and relevance. Falcone's organization would also be involved in mafia organization, drugs, gunrunning, prostitution, etc. He wouldn't be anyone's pawn, and he wouldn't rely on anyone else outside his organization to get the things he wants handled accomplished. He'd be an intelligent man, a calm and efficient man for the most part, and even a compassionate man on some level. He'd be a man worth keeping around beyond one movie. None of the scenes and relevance Falcone had in BATMAN BEGINS need be sacrificed for this, the character could merely have been added to here and there. This would have allowed for more Bruce/Falcone interactions and only served to strengthen their "relationship" in the film. I would have Falcone's organization weakened during the events of BATMAN BEGINS and perhaps even keep Falcone being incapacitated by The Scarecrow, and then he'd be back in THE DARK KNIGHT, his grip on Gotham weakened somewhat, which would give him a real reason to hate "the freaks" and allow for the mob wars to begin, and allow us to see more of the character, along with Maroni, as rival gangs made their play for some of Falcone's turf.

That's perfectly fine. You'd have preferred Falcone to be a more prominent figure -- you'd have preferred Falcone to have much more screen time. Nolan decided to take a different route, but that doesn't serve to degrade the character at all.

All your views dont get down to the fact that (imo) wilkinson was wrong for the role the words and actions are forgivable but the acting style was poorly acted a BAD cliche of a mobster.

Wilkinson was perfect for the role.

And the acting style was awesome.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Ha! Only just noticed that.

Early contender for the most contradictory statement of the year award, anyone?

 

[JaD]

holy crap i just noticed that too haha


thats special

 

[Carnotaur3]

That is one thing I have to agree with The Guard on bigtime. In TDK, there is going to be all these different gangs/mobs fighting over territory right?

Where were they in BB??

Waiting for a bigger film to take a more prominent role. Nolan used his characters well, if he had ventured any more into mob land, the story would be convoluted (ex. Spider-Man 3).

Putting all the character focus on Bruce Wayne was the main idea, and that's why the film had suceeded so well.

In TDK, we already have a good arc going with Bruce Wayne with a little more time to explore the CITY of GOTHAM. You'll remember Nolan said that in this film he'll show how alive the city is. In Batman Begins it was just a backdrop.

If Nolan wanted to use the Mob for BB more, he would have, but knowing he could very well be doing a sequel, let it have it's own movie when the time comes instead of playing all your cards upfront at once.

 

[The Guard]

well ur obviously not giving the thread (or anyone else) any bit of a chance with all these drawn out debates about something unrelated to fichtner, uve got ur opinion right there about fichtner in ur comment, but thats not how everyone else feels tho, can this debate that barely half of anybody would even care to read/get involved with come to an end/or be moved?

Explain to me how my Falcone stuff prevents interested parties from posting about whether or Fichtner was wasted.

He didn't pull a gun on Bruce to kill him -- he pulled out the gun to scare him. He pulled out the gun to illustrate just how powerful he is. It was tied into the narrative -- it was in there to help the audience understand just how corrupt the city was, due mainly to Carmine Falcone. Why did we need to see an in-depth interpretation to recognize the power of this guy, when you could simply have him perform one action to convey the same message, only more vigorously? It was a great move by Nolan, because he basically summed up the state of the city in having one of his characters whip out and empty gun and point it in someone's face.

Mr. Superhero, when have I ever said I have an issue with Falcone pulling a gun in the context of the film? Did you just MISS ENTIRELY the earlier post where I talk about how I like when Falcone pulls out the empty gun, and I mention its significance in the context of the movie?

 

[Nightwing1977]

I can't help but laugh at his comments. He seriously make up excuse or don't even know what he is talking about. Oh well. And he compare Walken to Wilkinson? Lame!! Falcone is nothing like Shreck, but he compare them for some stupid reason.

 

[Figs]

Waiting for a bigger film to take a more prominent role. Nolan used his characters well, if he had ventured any more into mob land, the story would be convoluted (ex. Spider-Man 3).

Putting all the character focus on Bruce Wayne was the main idea, and that's why the film had suceeded so well.

In TDK, we already have a good arc going with Bruce Wayne with a little more time to explore the CITY of GOTHAM. You'll remember Nolan said that in this film he'll show how alive the city is. In Batman Begins it was just a backdrop.

If Nolan wanted to use the Mob for BB more, he would have, but knowing he could very well be doing a sequel, let it have it's own movie when the time comes instead of playing all your cards upfront at once.

I understand and I wouldn't want it to be convoluted like SM3 either. I think they could have done something small in BB though.

Like right as Bruce entered the bar to see Falcone they could have had a quick scene with some other mobster getting told off by Falcone real quick. It didn't have to be a major scene just something small to show his weight a little more.

All in all I still thought Wilkinson's performance was pretty good.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Mr. Superhero, when have I ever said I have an issue with Falcone pulling a gun in the context of the film? Did you just MISS ENTIRELY the earlier post where I talk about how I like when Falcone pulls out the empty gun, and I mention its significance in the context of the movie?

Wait, let me guess...

It was good for the story; bad for the Falcone character?

Weee!!