Comments on: Writing Excuses Episode 34: What The Dark Knight Did Right

By: Karl

Karl — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:16:09 +0000

Not like I’m expecting anyone to see this, with the amount of time that has passed. But I finally got to see Dark Knight on DVD. Had to wait for it’s release before I could listen to this podcast.

As much as it is an advantage to have actors who can breathe life into a script, some scripts that would make great films don’t necessarily look good on the printed page.

Two examples: first, when Eric Idle presented the ‘Nudge-nudge’ script to his fellow Pythons, nobody got it. But once he acted it out it was histerical!

Second, recently my nephew had the opportunity to do the Abbott & Costello “Who’s On First” routine for a class project. But when he read the script he didn’t get it. Only after hearing Abbott & Costello perform it did he understand it.

This is why I don’t always understand Hollywood productions where the screenwriter isn’t involved in the production or a director doesn’t consult with the writer. What ends up on the screen is usually mush.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:01:01 +0000

The only character who got a significant amount of screentime, survived, and didn’t really come up against the question of ‘Where do I draw the line’ was Alfred. Probably because he’d had the dilemma in the previous movie.

One of the biggest reasons, to me anyway, that the theme of ‘Will I cross the line when I get to it” worked so well was because we saw all three answers to the question. Gordon said no, Batman started to cross it but turned back once he realized just how much the ultimate price would be, and finally, Harvey shattered his line completely.

By: Dan Wells

Dan Wells — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:16:37 +0000

Don’t forget, one of those big “culmination of theme” moments in the movie was when the Joker turned out to be totally wrong, and was completely surprised by the fact that neither of the ferries blew up the other. That was not part of his plan, and it really shocked him, and it was (for me) a very big moment that said “even while heroes and villains are wrestling with huge questions, normal people are essentially good.” None of the people on the ferries broke any moral codes, and they all lived BECAUSE they didn’t break any moral codes. That was the turning point where normal morality started to win back the day.

By: WEKM

WEKM — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 13:21:34 +0000

And once again, as Howard pointed out in the cast, by not bending or breaking any of her own rules, she ended up dead.
I’m not sure how to take that. Are they implying that if you follow the rules you get run over? It certainly seems like that is the case with the government bailing out those who twisted and broke the rules to their benefit, while those of us who followed the rules are going to have to carry the load.

I’ll stop and go rant somewhere else.

By: Eliyanna

Eliyanna — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 05:08:56 +0000

Back to side characters, I was a really big fan of what they did with Rachel Dawes character. It’s too easy to make her a cookie-cutter damsel in distress or worse (heaven forbid) a quirky pretty girl who (surprise!) is smart.

She was a damsel in distress, but she didn’t get saved. She was smart, but she wasn’t smart enough to figure out what was up. She was really someone who had a very clear moral compass that I bought into and I judged the other characters using her as a sort of benchmark. She grounded the story’s sense of right and wrong and helped us see the real issues more clearly.

Dan/Howard?Brandon spent a lot of time on the justice/morality themes and arc so I don’t want to be overly repetitive – but her character centered the narrative for me. Even after she was killed off, I felt like we were supposed to see things through her eyes — a sort of “What would Rachel think?” coating.

By: Dan Wells

Dan Wells — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:33:46 +0000

onelowerlight:
The Joker was obviously the highlight of the movie for most people (myself included), but I think that was mostly an acting thing, and the point of our podcast was to talk about the writing. Anything I can think of to say about the Joker, writing-wise, is pretty much the stuff we already said about the movie in general.

In fact, in terms of prose, I would recommend that most writers DON’T model their antagonists after the Joker, because we never learn anything about him. He’s a powerful villain with no background or motivation, which works really well in a movie because it can be carried by the acting, but doesn’t work so well in prose for many of the reasons we discussed in our antagonist podcast. His dialogue is intelligent and quirky and awesome, but we already praised the dialogue pretty heavily.

By: onelowerlight

onelowerlight — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 07:14:53 +0000

Holy cow…you spent a whole podcast talking about The Dark Night and YOU DIDN’T TALK ABOUT THE JOKER??? How is that even possible? He carried that movie, by far! Unless, of course, you are planning on another podcast dedicated solely to talking about the joker and what he teaches us about antagonists and how to write them. THAT is the subject of a show in itself–and if you do that, I just might be able to understand. But…dude!

By: Mike Barker

Mike Barker — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 06:20:53 +0000

Some of the words, at least . . .

http://mbarker.livejournal.com/86987.html

By: Jen

Jen — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:06:03 +0000

Conyngham–Well, there’s your problem; you’re taking English linguistics! And, to quote H. Beam Piper, English is nothing more than an attempt by Norman men-at-arms to get dates with Saxon barmaids. Try historical/comparitive–it’s much nicer

By: WEKM

WEKM — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:37:31 +0000

YOU HAVEN’T SEEN IT YET!?! Get out there right now and toss your eight bucks onto the alter of the Dark Knight!
It MUST be seen!