I read tons of scripts and it's not always there, especially if the writer isn't the director.

I didn't say always. And fact is talli said 'never'. Point was this is an event so signifficant (especially compared to the stuff in the screen) that it would be stupid for it not to be present in the script

Not necessarily and the Christopher Walken video is a perfect example of that. Talli is talking about the actor taking certain liberties with the material. For all we know Christian could have, but Nolan opted otherwise, who knows.

RomanM wrote:Not necessarily and the Christopher Walken video is a perfect example of that. Talli is talking about the actor taking certain liberties with the material. For all we know Christian could have, but Nolan opted otherwise, who knows.

Could have as in 'had the possibility' or 'possibly did, but Nolan said 'no''?

Because in both cases we're still taking about Nolan and Co doing a Batman movie in the manner TDK develops. I understand everything he and you are trying to say and the Walken example is clear to me, but I've repeated enough already about what the movie matter dictates. And Nolan for that "matter". I doubt that even with what talli's suggesting the movie would've been much less colder. Even if the matter allowed that. Neither TDK nor BB and Inception leave much room for such stuff and that's for a reason. Argue about it and that means you're questioning a lot more than an actor's/director's decision in a particular scene.

prince0gotham wrote:

RomanM wrote:Not necessarily and the Christopher Walken video is a perfect example of that. Talli is talking about the actor taking certain liberties with the material. For all we know Christian could have, but Nolan opted otherwise, who knows.

Could have as in 'had the possibility' or 'possibly did, but Nolan said 'no''?

Because in both cases we're still taking about Nolan and Co doing a Batman movie in the manner TDK develops. I understand everything he and you are trying to say and the Walken example is clear to me, but I've repeated enough already about what the movie matter dictates. And Nolan for that "matter". I doubt that even with what talli's suggesting the movie would've been much less colder. Even if the matter allowed that. Neither TDK nor BB and Inception leave much room for such stuff and that's for a reason. Argue about it and that means you're questioning a lot more than an actor's/director's decision in a particular scene.

I'm not agreeing with his overall sentiment, but what I'm saying is it's entirely possible for voice changes to have been made and not occur in the script. It happens all the time. Scripts aren't there to tell actors how to act, it's a guide. The rest of your post, to be quite honest, I don't fully understand.

prince0gotham wrote:http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/9060/scriptb.jpg

show me where in the script for dark knight there was any indication for Heath to change up his voices through various scenes

RomanM wrote: The rest of your post, to be quite honest, I don't fully understand.

I said enough about how changing the voice or making the bat show emotion breaks the movie's logic. Therefore the movie's logic/matter doesn't allow what talli wants. Therefore Nolan wouldn't allow it. And even if he did it wouldn't make the movie much more emotional.

@talli - you really can't compare those. Tell me where in either one of the movies Batman spoke with his own voice while having his mask on. Even to Alfred. Jesus Christ, ofc Joker's voice wouldn't be described throughout the script, but you know what signifficance the bat's image holds to the plot. So anything that breaks the image is supposed to be included in the script. One would go nuts if he attempts to describe the Joker's manneurisms. In addition - they are the only thing in both movies that are supposed to derrive from some kind of improv and experimental character exploration and research. At least up to that extent. In other words Nolan gave Heath much more freedom to begin with than he gave Bale. Everything that Bruce/Batman does is solid and is supposed to be planned out. Nolan knew what kind of performance Bale gave in BB, so he had a pretty concrete idea what he was supposed to go for in TDK (pretty much the same acting-wise). He had little to none idea what the Joker should've been like BEFORE he started screentesting and shooting with Heath for real. That would mean Joker's performance/acting couldn't and wouldn't be planned out. Bale's acting would and should. Especially if it comes to an important event such as the voice. So you can't compare Batman changing his voice (which would require the addition of 'with his own voice' in the script) with Joker's voice and acting (which would require a lot of additions).

All in all you should understand the thin line between an 'event' and 'acting'. Some little things can be concidered as part of 'acting'. Batman changing his voice wouldn't. That's all.

prince0gotham wrote:

RomanM wrote: The rest of your post, to be quite honest, I don't fully understand.

I said enough about how changing the voice or making the bat show emotion breaks the movie's logic. Therefore the movie's logic/matter doesn't allow what talli wants. Therefore Nolan wouldn't allow it. And even if he did it wouldn't make the movie much more emotional.

@talli - you really can't compare those. Tell me where in either one of the movies Batman spoke with his own voice while having his mask on. Even to Alfred. Jesus Christ, ofc Joker's voice wouldn't be described throughout the script, but you know what signifficance the bat's image holds to the plot. So anything that breaks the image is supposed to be included in the script. One would go nuts if he attempts to describe the Joker's manneurisms. In addition - they are the only thing in both movies that are supposed to derrive from some kind of improv and experimental character exploration and research. At least up to that extent. In other words Nolan gave Heath much more freedom to begin with than he gave Bale. Everything that Bruce/Batman does is solid and is supposed to be planned out. Nolan knew what kind of performance Bale gave in BB, so he had a pretty concrete idea what he was supposed to go for in TDK (pretty much the same acting-wise). He had little to none idea what the Joker should've been like BEFORE he started screentesting and shooting with Heath for real. That would mean Joker's performance/acting couldn't and wouldn't be planned out. Bale's acting would and should. Especially if it comes to an important event such as the voice. So you can't compare Batman changing his voice (which would require the addition of 'with his own voice' in the script) with Joker's voice and acting (which would require a lot of additions).

All in all you should understand the thin line between an 'event' and 'acting'. Some little things can be concidered as part of 'acting'. Batman changing his voice wouldn't. That's all.

it would be consider an inspired piece of acting, if it happened in the moment, spontaneously without the direction of the script


which is what every actor hopes to do every time they get in front of the camera


you havent made one strong argument in this case....you keep saying what WAS done is what SHOULD have been done...thats circular logic....thats like proving the bible is real by quoting the bible

You also have to consider that if they devoted anymore character development to Batman, the movie would have been well over 3 hours. I would love that, but other than me, I don't know too many people who would want to sit through a 4 hour movie?

MSUspartans2211 wrote:You also have to consider that if they devoted anymore character development to Batman, the movie would have been well over 3 hours. I would love that, but other than me, I don't know too many people who would want to sit through a 4 hour movie?

i see you havent read the thread