Ryan Covert at 2010-07-06 09:07:09:

Really, Ryan? By no means am I insulting your right to your opinion, but... well, I think he and his brother Johnathon pretty much have the craft locked up. The Dark Knight was one of the most genius plots I have ever READ, as well as the character handling... Not to mention, I thought The Prestige was pretty slick also.

"I expect nothing more than a complete mess of a narrative with unclear goals and motivations, unfinished scenes, needless scenes and manufactured emotions that fail to resonate in any way other than on a level of embarrassment."

Ouch. Wow. Can't say I agree with you. But then again, I'm 34 and probably wasted away my cognitive reasoning as well as emotional receptors in my cranium years ago.

I guess I must love cinematic drivel. To each their own.

Ryan Mullaney at 2010-07-06 13:15:27:

Ryan #2 - I have complied a small list of things wrong with TDK. It's a mix of my own thoughts with those of others, but I agree with all of it.

Ready?

- Lack of internal information. We don't know much about anybody's motivation.

Where was the scene that told us why Bruce Wayne desperately wanted to put down his cape and stop being Batman? Where was the scene that told us Bruce Wayne was desperately in love with Rachel but couldn't be with her because he was too busy being Batman? Where were the two scenes that told us 1) Bruce believed his only hope for no longer having to be
Batman rested in Harvey, and 2) Bruce felt all hope was lost for his goal of no longer being Batman when Harvey vanished from the Hospital to become a psychotic killer? Any information we receive is too little and too late. There's the letter to Bruce from Rachel, but that comes AFTER her death, which is too late to serve the function of telling us there was a great romantic bond between them that necessitated Bruce stopping his crusade as Batman so they could be together. Plus, it only tells us HER feelings and not Bruce's. Because the scene is done the way it is, it is impossible to tell if Batman is amping his assault because of Rachel or Harvey or the threat of their immanent death. We are left to assume.

If that is indeed the scene that tells us Bruce is deeply in love with Rachel, it is handled very badly to the point that it is virtually non-existent and comes far too late in the story to function properly. We should have known long before this that Bruce Wayne was deeply in love with Rachel and that his crusade as Batman was preventing him from being with Rachel. This is a common mistake in Nolan's films. He keeps his characters at a distance from his audience so we can't possibly know what they're thinking.

- The scene with the mayor being shot was completely unbelievable. It was all part of a grand scheme to get the Joker to chase Dent to get him out in the open so he can be caught. But the problem with that is in order for the plan to succeed, they needed to know the mayor was going to be shot at from the ground and who was going to do the shooting in order for Gordon to jump in front of the bullet. If they knew that much about the Joker's plan, why not just stop him? Plus, it's one of the cops who pronounces Gordon is dead after checking him
for a pulse. This wasn't Gordon's trusted partner with a shady past. This was an ordinary patrol officer. Since they already know much of the force is on the take, it seems ridiculous to make the plan hinge on trusting a random cop to be honest and play along with the plan.

Also, since Batman knew Gordon was actually alive, why did he need to go to Gordon's house to watch his wife and son learn the cops think Gordon is dead. That made no sense and was an obvious deceit to fool the audience, but severed no logical purpose for the character.

Continued...

Ryan Mullaney at 2010-07-06 13:16:48:

- Too many superfluous subplots. The expedition to Hong Kong to kidnap some random guy in a way that would make James Bond roll his eyes is one. What purpose did this guy serve in an already overlong film? He wouldn't be missed if that scene was cut. Then there's the nerdy guy on TV that says he knows who Batman really is, but that goes nowhere. Come
on, how hard is it to realize that it would take a billionaire to afford his own personal, state-of-the-art, custom tank? And the ferry boats. Don't get me started on the ferry boats.

- The ferry boats. Nobody noticed the THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF FLAMMABLE LIQUID IN THE ENGINE ROOMS?! Come on! Not only that, it's a huge departure from the main action to a bunch of random, unknown characters late in the story that served no previous purpose and then just ended. Where did that come from? I'd rather see what the main characters were up to at the climax of the film and not a bunch of anonymous strangers.

I'm also trying to figure out how the joker wired the largest hospital in the city to completely explode without anybody noticing. I might be a while with that one.

- The cell phone gag was insanely unbelievable and felt totally out of place, both thematically and in comparison to the attempted realism that Nolan was trying to evoke throughout the rest of the film.

- Too long for it's own good, yet simultaneously not long enough for the amount of material crammed in. It's another common mistake that Nolon keeps making over and over again with every film and he still hasn't learned. His stories have too much going on and not enough time devoted to each part.

- There are at least 5 or 6 extraordinarily violent vehicle crashes, and everybody involved in each one walks away without even a bump or bruise. Yeah, it's a nitpick, but it took me out of the story, so therefore, it's a problem.

- What happened to the Joker crashes the party scene? That just ends before it's over and leaves me wondering what the hell happened afterward.

- The climax felt completely out of place because it did not build from the narrative. It was manufactured. Everything about the end of this film is just wrong.

The ending only works if Bruce wanted to stop being an outcast only to be forced to continue to be an outcast in order to protect the greater good.

But where are the scenes that show us Bruce Wayne's desire/need to put down the cape and live a normal life? I don't understand why Bruce put down the bat suit in the first place. We were never given that information. And if he wanted to so badly, wouldn't now be the perfect time with all the police on the lookout for him? Seems like an unnecessary risk for him and a nice deterrent for petty criminals - having the police on guard as well as the idea of Batman being a murderer. But instead, Bruce keeps going as Batman even though Gordon knows that Batman is innocent? The ending of this film makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever.

I know people will complain about me being so harsh on a comic-book movie, but you wouldn't look at obvious mistakes in a children's movie and excuse them on the grounds that it's only a kid's movie, would you? Pixar wouldn't.

I could keep going about all the backwards logic in Batman Begins, plot holes in The Prestige, filler scenes in Memento...but you get the point.

Ryan Covert at 2010-07-06 14:10:58:

Ry --

First off, nice work on all of your examples. Obviously, a very critical, but highly tuned eye. But at the end of the day, which $1 Billion dollar movie would you prefer to give your money to -- AVATAR or TDK?

My money's on the Nolan approach making things blow up, which at least APPEAR smart. Suspension of disbelief allows me to enjoy even the appearance of something "smart," as it's such a treasure to find in movies these days.

I loved the Batman as James Bond scene. Granted it might be superfluous, as it was a giant set piece to extradite the guy -- but wow, man... Obviously you didn't but I for one had a blast. And watching Joker blow up that hospital was one of the greatest moment's I've ever seen. Who cares how he got the explosives in unseen? He's the joker! Better than doing a clown dance at the top of a bell-tower. Woo-hee-hee-hoo.

A friend of mine, after listening to me take the piss out of movies that he clearly was enjoying more than me, took out a sheet of blank paper and wrote the following phrase:

"SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF"

And then -- he GAVE it to me. A "pseudo-hall pass" to enjoy any picture regardless of logic incongruities. It's a movie after all, even if it's a perfectly constructed FILM, no story is ever going to be 100% hermetically sealed and air tight. There will always be something contrived to simply make the story work. It's how well you disguise the framework that indicates it's effectiveness. But I also believe that whatever takes you out of the movie (or the read) should be corrected and this sounds like it was in your case... But none of these examples removed me from the story.

Transformer II, now that's different. etc.

But, you're saying these moments were plot-holes for you, that it removed from the realism, and I say "okay, but we are talking about a character that dresses up like a bat." At the end of the day, that's what it is.... a dude in a bat-suit which I dug infinitely more than Cameron's latest.

As far as you want to see scenes where he thought about hanging up the bat-suit? I thought all that was pretty apparent -- from his interaction with Alfred that leads to Alfred's phenomenal speech and pep-talk. Etc.

Regarding his love for Rachel and his inability to be with her as a result of batman, I thought that was pretty apparent too... even if it's not stated... I mean, I found that thread to be a carry over from BAT BEGINS, and her telling Bruce she was going to marry Harvey seemed pretty much like "I know you're batman, so... I'm going to marry a man that's not." And his reaction got me there. So, again, I hear you... but none of this was a story issue for me.

An what happened after the Joker crashes the party? This one's easy: HE LEAVES. Rachel and the Bats were long gone, and the reason he was there. No need to show that.

In all good points, just differing points of view I guess. However, I can say that as a writer and a development guy, I wouldn't have necessarily had issues with any of these points. That's my take it least.

How cool is this blog, though Ry? Where we express the freedom to debate the ultimate in geek convo, and particularly, how it pertains to the craft of screenwriting/filmmaking.

Cheers.

Ryan Mullaney at 2010-07-06 15:54:40:

"I say "okay, but we are talking about a character that dresses up like a bat.""

This is where I fell you have gone astray, Ryan #2. What we are dealing with is a MOVIE. I don't care what happens in the movie, as long as it makes sense.

The writers of Pixar made sense out of a robot romance, talking toys, the ant version of Seven Samurai, fish traversing the ocean and an old man who turns his house into a flying machine. That's incredible! It's incredible because they structured those stories in ways that worked so well, you would be hard-pressed to find a single element in the film that was not working to the fullest extent possible.

You literally have to go out of your way to come up with ONE example where something in the story went wrong, where as I have provided a dozen or more examples from TDK on first viewing.

With Pixar, you never have to say "well, it's just a movie about fish" to explain a wayward story strand or a filler scene or an unclear motivation. The reason for that is because the films are so tight and well-written, you are given no moments where the story goes astray, or a scene is thrown in because the set-piece is cool, or the writers became lazy and/or couldn't find a proper way to communicate the inner feelings of the characters.

TDK has all those problems and more.

For me, suspension of disbelief goes away as soon as I see something that makes no sense in relation to the rest of the story. The ferry boats, the Hong Honk guy, etc. All of that had me sitting in the theater, scratching my head in confusion as to why those scenes existed in the movie. The answer is that they don't. You can tell the story of Batman vs. The Joker in a much more economic and effective way. Nolan thinks we need all the fancy nonsense, but we don't. He just throws it in to mask the shortcomings of the main plot.

He may have fooled you and a few million others, but he certainly hasn't fooled me.

Ryan Covert at 2010-07-06 16:31:21:

You're right about Pixar. They freaking nail it every time, and as Scott posited some time earlier, it would seem their lengthy and microscopic approach to development helps to ensure their stories full potential.

I agree... However, I have yet to find a fish that can talk. Or a mouse that can cook. Or toys that come alive. Et al. But I digress, and for what it's worth, your case is refreshing... At least some writers out there are really digging into their stories, such as yourself... and if your script's possess the same approach, (more than likely) then, honestly I'd be anxious to read your material, because although not my approach, your methods sound like it leads to some very promising work.

Break a leg.

RC

Scott at 2010-07-06 20:44:09:

@Ryan M and Ryan C: Thanks for the entertaining and informative discussion re TDK. Ryan C has done a good job responding to many of Ryan M's critiques. I just want to make a point Ryan C made with my own words.

Is a story's logical consistency important to a moviegoer? It can be. But in my experience, it is "entertainment" first and "emotion" second in terms of what a typical moviegoer wants out of a film. Sure, certain movies such as an intricate heist film or a mystery may put logic higher on the list, but entertainment and emotion trump logic in my view re most movies.

One of the things that Nolan does in his movies - splendidly I think - is create a world that sucks viewers into it. And in that world, he makes such fascinating and cool things happen that I am willing to suspend my logic. Rationally, do I accept that the Joker could have had his shit together to such a degree that he managed to anticipate everything and put explosives in both of those ferries? No. But that's not the point. For me, it's that I want to see how that scene plays out. That scene is at the moral epicenter of the movie and it's damned interesting. And I was willing to suspend the rationality of my world because the world of Gotham City that Nolan created in TDK completely sucked me in and I was willing to accept its rationality.

Ryan M, I totally respect the value you place on logic. Obviously you have that right as a moviegoer and storyteller to put that in a prominent place re how you assess movies. Conversely people have the right to slot logic below things like "entertainment" and "emotion."

Or as that sage philosopher Paul Simon once wrote, "One man's ceiling is another man's floor."

Ryan Mullaney at 2010-07-06 21:11:37:

Interesting thoughts, Scott. I totally see why people can enjoy a movie for its emotion and entertainment value, and I enjoy many films for the same reasons. However, I feel that if the relationships between the characters are not believable, or too much in the dark to properly understand in the intended context, I can't bring myself to fully experience the intended emotions.

This is a fascinating topic for me, since people like things for different reasons, and while you can't please everyone, this is a business where you want to please as many people as possible.

----------------------------

Is a story's logical consistency important to a moviegoer? It can be. But in my experience, it is "entertainment" first and "emotion" second in terms of what a typical moviegoer wants out of a film. Sure, certain movies such as an intricate heist film or a mystery may put logic higher on the list, but entertainment and emotion trump logic in my view re most movies.

I actually agree with this. The reason I'm not drawn to many heist films or mysteries or those of a similar nature is because they are inherently missing the emotional factor. Sure, they can be fun, but I want to care for the characters, too.

My favorite films are those that mix a dramatic concept with entertaining execution and pull it off well. I'm really hoping Inception is one of those films.