Is it just me or is some of the dialogue in this film just downright awful? In the scene where Selina confronts Daggett about the clean slate, everyone gives clever comebacks non-stop and it just doesn't sound natural. And to be honest, even the "clever comebacks", aren't that good, some of them I thought just sounded like they're trying too hard to be witty and came off a little cringey.
I don't know, am I the only one who thought some of the dialogue was awful?
It's not just you...
It's not just you; Nolan sems to make every character a genius in those films. The characters don't deliver normal lines and it's not realistic for every character to be smart to near psychic extents. Heck Batman seems like one of the dumber characters in these films.
Blake's conversation with Gordon after Bruce's fake (or at least very premature) funeral is just cringeworthy. "Structures becoming shackles, something something injustice, I can't take it". Aside from how little sense it makes for the character, it's terrible dialogue and a terrible delivery.
It doesn't count for this film but for some reason I really didn't like the line spoken by a Gotham citizen: "Things are worse than ever!!" at Harvey Dent. The very same line was uttered by Rachel in Batman Begins and I found it to be highly repetitious and a mistake. Very juvenilistic a thing to say actually. Maybe it's just me? It wasn't exactly well delivered by the actor either but I felt pretty much all the extras in the Nolan movies were kind of dreadful in their acting and facial expressions.
Gordon's dramatic final speech in The Dark Knight is possibly the silliest thing of them all. I mean yes, it's a good dramatic final speech. Did he have to be saying it to his simple minded kid however? I doubt he has a clue just what in the hell his daddy is talking about lol "Wha pop?....a silent guardian, watchful protector?....or just a dude with bat ears and a cape?"
I can't find the interest to see The Dark Knight Rises but I will say that the two Burton Batman movies have much better dialogue and witty lines than Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.
the issue with the Nolan films is that every character acts like a philosopher. Who talks like that?
Quotethe issue with the Nolan films is that every character acts like a philosopher. Who talks like that?
I like it better in the old movies where most Gothamites seem to be idiots except for Bruce, Alfred, their friends and the villains. Idiots who are always being tricked by the villains into thinking Batman is the bad guy and the villains are their friends. And poor Batman who is so hated by the city nonetheless puts his life on the line to save the ungrateful fools.
And I'm not being sarcastic here. I genuinely like this portrayal of the people in the Batman universe.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 29 Jul 2015, 01:58
Blake's conversation with Gordon after Bruce's fake (or at least very premature) funeral is just cringeworthy. "Structures becoming shackles, something something injustice, I can't take it". Aside from how little sense it makes for the character, it's terrible dialogue and a terrible delivery.
How does it make little sense for his character? There was a whole scene where he gets angry at a cop because he's following orders.
The expository and repetitive dialogue in these films was one of the many things that really annoyed the crap out of me.
For example, the word "fear" was repeated nearly thirty times in Batman Begins. How many times did the audience have to be told that Bruce had to overcome his own fear of bats and use it as a weapon in order to become Batman? It's unnecessary! We already get the idea once we watched the scene where Bruce gets attacked by bats when he was a kid. There's no need for this heavy handed dialogue. It's not clever, and it's only slowing down the film to a snail's crawl.
Look, exposition has its place and it's unrealistic to completely avoid it. But it shouldn't take up screen-time away from the action either. B89 for example used exposition when it had to, i.e. Det. Eckhardt accusing Jack Napier for being a lunatic. But once Jack becomes the Joker, the exposition stops and then you see how insane he really is.
For all the talk about Batman and Harvey Dent being symbols, we don't really get to see what sort of impression they're having on the wider public. And this is one of the many reasons I say Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy is way better. When Peter Parker becomes Spider-Man, you get to see what sort of impact he's having on the public. He becomes so symbolic to Manhattan that you saw people promising to keep his identity a secret as a sign of gratitude for saving their lives from Doctor Octopus, as well as showing their appreciation for his return after a lengthy absence. Even the first Amazing Spider-Man movie had the hero inspired gratitude when those construction builders helped him up to reach the Oscorp building, because of their sons was saved by Spidey earlier on. If it was up to Christopher Nolan to direct the 2002 film, we would never have gotten that cool montage sequence of Spider-Man rescuing people while others on camera give their opinions about whether he is a hero or a menace. I bet the "great power, great responsibility" line would be repeated over and over again instead, and I can imagine that the second act would take up explaining every tedious little detail of how the Spider-Man costume is created.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 2 Aug 2015, 06:50
The expository and repetitive dialogue in these films was one of the many things that really annoyed the crap out of me.
For example, the word "fear" was repeated nearly thirty times in Batman Begins. How many times did the audience have to be told that Bruce had to overcome his own fear of bats and use it as a weapon in order to become Batman? It's unnecessary! We already get the idea once we watched the scene where Bruce gets attacked by bats when he was a kid. There's no need for this heavy handed dialogue. It's not clever, and it's only slowing down the film to a snail's crawl.
Look, exposition has its place and it's unrealistic to completely avoid it. But it shouldn't take up screen-time away from the action either. B89 for example used exposition when it had to, i.e. Det. Eckhardt accusing Jack Napier for being a lunatic. But once Jack becomes the Joker, the exposition stops and then you see how insane he really is.
For all the talk about Batman and Harvey Dent being symbols, we don't really get to see what sort of impression they're having on the wider public. And this is one of the many reasons I say Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy is way better. When Peter Parker becomes Spider-Man, you get to see what sort of impact he's having on the public. He becomes so symbolic to Manhattan that you saw people promising to keep his identity a secret as a sign of gratitude for saving their lives from Doctor Octopus, as well as showing their appreciation for his return after a lengthy absence. Even the first Amazing Spider-Man movie had the hero inspired gratitude when those construction builders helped him up to reach the Oscorp building, because of their sons was saved by Spidey earlier on. If it was up to Christopher Nolan to direct the 2002 film, we would never have gotten that cool montage sequence of Spider-Man rescuing people while others on camera give their opinions about whether he is a hero or a menace. I bet the "great power, great responsibility" line would be repeated over and over again instead, and I can imagine that the second act would take up explaining every tedious little detail of how the Spider-Man costume is created.
Tedious? I liked that part.
And we actually saw in TDK where the people on the boat didn't blow eachother up. I'd say we saw just as much reaction to Batman in Batman Begins that we did to Spider-Man in Spider-Man.
All three movies have an issue where certain words or phrases get said once early to establish a theme and get repeated ad nauseum it seems. It makes the writing seem lazy, or at least the editing. By the time the movie's over I don't ever want to hear that word again. In this one how many times did we hear war or rise or clean slate? lol
There's definitely some dialogue that made me cringe a little, like it was trying too hard to be Shakespeare or something. And Bats repeating a line uttered to him by a villain in his (supposed, in TDKR) moment of triumph is just...no. It's supposed to be badass but it isn't. "Then you have my permission to die" in this one, "You never learned to mind your surroundings" in Begins, I don't remember if he repeated anything Joker said those two were bad.
People said Bane was hard to understand, I could understand most of it but the way he would say a few of his lines, the tone and stuff just didn't fit together. It's like he was speaking off key or something. I did like the voice and accent, it was unique and chilling in its own way.
Another problem in all three movies is the way Gordon mumbled some of his lines where you couldn't understand them. I liked this version of him a lot but I had to read the IMDb quote page to figure out what the hell he said sometimes. Or wait for someone to repeat it later, lol.
So yeah, all in all dialogue wasn't a strong point for any of the movies. Some great one liners, a nice monologue or heartfelt dialogue here or there, but as a whole it was only decent at best, gouge my ears at worst.
Sometimes the "theme" thing is a little overbearing. Fear, terror, dread, panic, it was like Goyer popped open his thesaurus (why isn't there a synonym for thesaurus?!) searching for words to toss in.
I do think things legitimately got better in the sequels though. And there's also some thematic resolution going on too. "[We fall] to learn to pick ourselves up again". That found both literally and symbolic fulfillments in TDKRises when Bruce "fell" in battle against Bane, picked himself up (no helping hand from outsiders) and escaped from Pena Duro... or whatever that prison was supposed to be.
But yeah, clearer dialogue would've been most welcome in several instances.
There's an old saying called "Show, don't tell", and the Nolan Batman movies fail at it.
It seems like every five minutes a character will be telling me what I'm suppose to be feeling, and it gets really annoying very quickly.
Quote from: Vampfox on Tue, 14 Nov 2017, 19:27There's an old saying called "Show, don't tell", and the Nolan Batman movies fail at it.
We never see Ugarte kill the couriers and steal the letters of transit in Casablanca. Literally the entire movie turns on that one event. Is Casablanca a failure?
We never see Lex Luthor break into the museum, kill two night watchmen and steal the Kryptonite. The entire third act of the movie turns on that one event. Is Superman- The Movie a failure?
We never see Batman figure out the Joker's compound. The entire middle section of the movie turns on that one event. Is B89 a failure?
The rule, which can be broken and not kill a movie, is generally for dialogue that explains far too excessively to the point where it becomes disingenuous, particularly things, such as what a character feels or suspects, that can be communicated far more effectively through performance. Although, personally, I like to think of the rule as "show it, don't say it, but don't show us every little thing," because there are lot of things, especially the more tedious things, that are better left implied or communicated in way that is either more subtle or maybe even causal.
For me, it really applies to dialogue that overstates characters' feelings. For example, there is a scene in Attack of the Clones that really bugs me. Information management is a very important aspect of editing, writing, storytelling, etc., and there's a moment when Padme is talking to Anakin while she packs. She says Anakin matured. He says something to the tune of "Obi Wan doesn't see it that way," which says all it really. The rest, which is detailed in an excessive rant that follows, can be inferred and implied. And this can be done through dialogue, as well, just in a way that isn't too direct. It's a dance with the audience. They have to play a part too. If the movie is telling you everything front-forward, without visual implications, then we're not thinking, we're just listening and it becomes mundane, uneventful, boring. We don't just watch movies with our eyes and ears, but our mind's eye as well.
The fault of TDKR's dialogue was how awkward it was. The part that really bugged me was the scene with the two cops during the Batpod chase with Bane. One of the reasons why it bugged me was the editing. It killed the pace with little moments between the cops that seemed like it was trying to be funny, but wasn't, and, in the end, was side-tripping from what was important, and just wasn't worth the distraction. (In theory, having a plainsman view of what it was like to be just a normal guy and witness the return of Batman seems interesting, but it can be done without dialogue. Either way, it doesn't work for me.)
The lines about clean slate come to mind, as well. There's like two explanations for the thing during the same scene. Ben Mendelsohn might as well had a Power Point prepared...
Plus, bad dialogue is bad dialogue, no matter the purpose.
Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Wed, 15 Nov 2017, 01:38
The lines about clean slate come to mind, as well. There's like two explanations for the thing during the same scene. Ben Mendelsohn might as well had a Power Point prepared...
I still find that bearable compared to being constantly told that Harvey Dent is "Gotham's great hope" or Blake is a "hothead" without these characters doing anything that justify these reputations. When it got to Blake looking confused when he was berated for being a hothead by Foley, I was convinced it was intended to be a joke.