Blow Tight and the Puntsman... wasn't that on Cinemax at 2am last weekend? Anyway... Yes, no question that 'mirror image' moment between Protag. and Antag. is a tried and true (and tired?) trope. I suppose it was used for good effect in The Dark Knight, since the only thing that really got The Joker's rocks off was tormenting his one and only "equal" in Gotham, Batman. "You're a freak...like me!" Still... I am finding that the more this little device is used, the less interest I have in it. No matter how much "human truth" can be found therein. There seems to be this attraction these days to making the bad guys likeable and overly sympathetic. But, like any plot device, overuse it and it spirals into cliche. And I fear if we're not there already, we're bloody close. Hell, the most revolutionary thing you could do currently? Actually make your antagonist a BAD GUY, not because his parents were mean to him or because society didn't understand him... no, he's just a mean muthaf#cka'. End of story. Lex Luthor, baby. SUPES: Is that how you get your kicks Luthor? By plotting the deaths of innocent people? LEX: No. By causing the deaths of innocent people. YEAH!!! (Jeff fist-pumps in the air.)

The Matrix: Reloaded (say what you will, the first one was excellent) Agent Smith: ...A new man, so to speak. Like you, apparently, free. Neo: Congratulations. Agent Smith: Thank you.

I encourage people to check out Jim Hull's excellent StoryFanatic article "Two Sides of the Same Coin" regarding this. Jim's article discusses this phenomenon through the lens of Dramatica story theory and includes a video montage of examples that runs over 7 minutes! http://storyfanatic.com/articles/story-structure/two-sides-of-the-same-coin

Raiders of the Lost Ark: BELLOQ: I know you despise me. We always hate in others that which we most fear in ourselves. And you and I are very much alike. INDY: Now you're getting nasty. BELLOQ: We have always done the same kind of work. Our methods have not differed as much as you pretend. I am a shadowy reflection of you. But it would have taken only a nudge to make you the same as me, to push you out of the light.

Blow Tight and the Puntsman? The one I saw was more like Blow Tight and the Puntsman Visits Narnia with the Fellowship of The One. Talk about tropes, I was bee-boppin' all over film history.

It is a standard in nearly every James Bond flick. I can’t believe I spent $3.99 to rent “Blow Tight and the Puntsman” on Cinemax on Demand last weekend and it was on air for free! Damn.

This is the very first one that comes to my mind. Dialogue like this (at least these days) rings a little on the nose to my ear. That's probably because we've heard it so often. Although, Indy's response is classic. I think this one, above all else, is a template for how to construct a great antagonist -- build a shadowy reflection of the protagonist. Two characters with similar goals, but different mentalities -- it's just ripe for conflict.

Luke, I am your father.

Once again I blame the influence of Joseph Campbell. The right way to do it is simply to leave the obvious unsaid. If you leave it unsaid then the hope/fear of the potential for the hero to turn bad happens in the mind of of audience instead of the mind of the movie exec. The problem is without that statement it's very likely the people who greenlit the pic won't feel that it's complete.

In one of the Austin Powers films Dr. Evil says, "We're not so different, you and I."

There's actually a really cool reason why this keeps showing up all the time. The Nemesis (or what I'd call the Influence Character) has to possess some of the same point-of-view as the Protagonist in order to pull him or her out of her justifications. Either they'll both have problematic points-of-view with fixed qualities ("We're all freaks" Joker, "I'm a symbol for rampant vigilantism" Batman), or they'll share problematic points-of-view with procedural qualities ( the institutionalized Red in Shawshank who thinks like a prisoner and the incarcerated Andy who acts like a free man). When one or the other shouts back "I'm nothing like you!" that's because in some respects they aren't. The difference lies in the fact that one's problematic point-of-view will be internal, the other external. Knowing why the "trope" exists can make it easier to craft around it, yet still have the same impact as far in terms of what the story means.

Cinemax at 2AM on weekends. Or what I heard called "Skinemax." That was an issue I had with Slow Blight and the Buntsman: There were so many major characters who were motivated and influenced by the death of someone near and dear to them in their backstory. Death is a big deal, no doubt. But when everybody is dealing with 'ghosts' [psychologically] from their past, it tends to water down the effect. That's why I'm looking forward to the sequel by one writer [David Koepp] as opposed to three [credited] for the original, although I'm happy all three of those writers are making $$ from the success of the movie.

Thanks for the link, Bark.

Well, here you go, Sean, perhaps the paradigmatic version of it right there. I mean, straight out of Carl Jung!

Michael, that's what I have to think. Studios and networks -- broad generalization alert!!! -- tend to want to cover the bases in terms programming for the lowest common denominator, the perception - basically - that viewers are not all that bright or aren't paying enough attention. Remember that famous memo from David Mamet to the writing staff of "The Unit" back in 2005 [featured here]. That was precipitated by network notes about having to include what Mamet thought was unnecessary exposition. You're right, Michael, about just leave the obvious unsaid. But I don't blame Campbell. Rather blame some corporate suits with MBAs overseeing the project.

Thanks, James. My point isn't about the underlying psychological connection between characters. That is critical to understand, develop and use as a narrative dynamic. My issue is literally with the line itself approaching, if not already passed, the cliche level of usage.

I think Charlie Kaufman roasted this convention rather tidily with his, um, "brother" Donald's script, "The Three." If you'll recall, Donald was quite excited about the fact that the protagonist, the antagonist, AND the kidnapping victim were all the same person... dealing with multiple personality disorder. DONALD: Mom called it psychologically taut.

The reason I blame Campbell is because that is who corporate suits read as a way to understand story and myth. I'm blaming his impact on folks that are not storytellers. The funniest writing advice I ever got applies to this real disconnect with producers that we face. When given notes about a script you can usually just change the description. Exec says "I feel like the character needs to be...more vengeful overall" Writer goes home and changes nothing but the description, while literally adding the word "vengeful" or variations of it here and there. A couple of weeks go by. Exec reads it, sees exactly the word he's looking for and is quite happy. I know - cynical - but it's actually worked in some cases where you just know you're dealing with an endless loop meaningless notes.

It was word-for-word in last year's "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy," which was nominated for the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar. George Smiley: "We're not so very different, you and I. We've both spent our lives looking for the weaknesses in one another's systems." The funny thing about this usage is that Smiley is recounting his encounter with Karla, not delivering it directly. Karla, whose face is never shown in the film, would be practically a cipher to the audience without Smiley's soliloquy. (Smiley is actually telling Guillam about his encounter, but it is delivered as near to a soliloquy as one can get). I haven't read the Karla trilogy, but of the adaptations of Le Carre's works I've seen (and in those of his I've read), there seems to be such an emphasis on the British intelligence agents that the Soviets generally appear to be ciphers who play the chess match of espionage against them. In the Le Carre universe, the real heroes and villains seem to be both on the British side. So, while this is another on-the-nose use of the line, at least it makes some sense that Smiley is more or less talking to himself when he delivers it.

Can't say anything about that line in particular, but I also found a few elements of Blow Pipe and the Bluntsman... familiar.

Hey Scott. Every single Vin Diesel movie has that line in it! Also, there is a very funny scene in Austin Powers where doctor Evil says to Austin, "Remember when I told you we aren't so different?" then they flash back a few years and doctor Evil say's to Austin. "We are not so different you and I!" Very funny play on that cliche. They get it in 3 times in one scene.

Funny, I just watched Finchers' "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" and there it is near the end when Skarsgård's character says to Craig's that they are not so different, but the satisfaction of his needs takes more towels (I watched it in German, so I don't know the exact quote right now) ^^ And off the top of my head, there is a moment in "Gladiator" (although it happens in the 2nd act I think): Commodus: You and I are not much different. You take life when you have to, as I do. Maximus: I have only one more life to take. Then it is done.

I saw this post on BATMAN'S villains awhile back and I can't seem to find it. It was an interesting piece that dissected many of BATMAN's main villains, pointing out that they were all shadow versions of himself. CATWOMAN and THE JOKER are obvious stand-outs. They are the embodiment of what he could become if he didn't fight "the good fight." However, the ones that struck me the most interesting were the ones I didn't see right away -- PENGUIN and POISON IVY. PENGUIN is a rival more for Batman's alter ego Bruce Wayne. He is the corrupt entrepreneur that Wayne could easily become. POISON IVY (this one is admittedly weird because its soooo backwards -- and great!) Bruce Wayne is a very globally conscious, altruistic, eco-friendly guy. Poison Ivy is the extreme end pushed to the lengths of obsession. BATMAN is also a detective, which makes sense why a character like RIDDLER could exist, and not seem redundant or a clone of JOKER. TWO-FACE is an obvious embodiment of Batman's own struggles with his duality. It's interesting to look at a character like Batman that has a MASSIVE catalog of villains and discover that the most popular ones tend to be those that most directly opposed some facet of Batman/Bruce Wayne's personality.