The Dark Knight (meaning)
- Thread starter Imitation Saccharin
- Start date
Recommended Videos
THEN HE IS FUCKING LOGICAL!WhiteFangofWar post=18.71970.744357 said:
Jesus christ I hate people who parrot that. Logic is a means to an end. That end can be anything. Diamonds, shoes, making everyone love bunnies.
As he wants something (anarchy) and pursues it with a pretty good plan, he is behaving logically. He simply has a bizarre end goal comparative to normal society.
Because it wouldn't have a point then. It would just be a confluence of scenes with no overarching emotion or intention that ultimately amounted to and revealed nothing.Taxi Driver post=18.71970.744802 said:
...wait hold on a sec!
See, Thats why somebody like the joker would be awesome. They would be uncorruptable, All they want is their dream. Now imagine somebody like him.(Uncorruptable, Not evil.) As the president of the world..(Or whatever.)Imitation Saccharin post=18.71970.745051 said:
crimson5pheonix post=18.71970.745092 said:
HuntingWolf_01 post=18.71970.743304 said:
Originality, you have it not.
That Batman is perfect, morally at least.
That's actually my biggest problem with the film, and Batman in general. Batman is too perfect, he has no flaws whatsoever except for not being good enough at fighting crime to stop all crime, and not being omniscient enough to know all his enemies tricks and schemes.
Basically, to Hell with DC comics, the only good that ever came out of them was Watchmen. Marvel is in all ways superior.
I mean, just that first sentence. Yeah, that's the moral.
That's actually my biggest problem with the film, and Batman in general. Batman is too perfect, he has no flaws whatsoever except for not being good enough at fighting crime to stop all crime, and not being omniscient enough to know all his enemies tricks and schemes.
Basically, to Hell with DC comics, the only good that ever came out of them was Watchmen. Marvel is in all ways superior.
I mean, just that first sentence. Yeah, that's the moral.
So? Do we all need to post a paragraph that can 4 meanings and teach us 7 morals? Can't we revel in our stupidity for love of a good movie? Quoting a good character?Imitation Saccharin post=18.71970.745106 said:
The Joker may use logic, but he's not driven by it- for him, logic is simply a means to his end of anarchy. Nobody said he doesn't *use* logic......Imitation Saccharin post=18.71970.745051 said:
Straw-man.Taxi Driver post=18.71970.745592 said:
The narrative contradicting itself is different then a character, and expressing a point of view is not equivalent to advocating it.
Well it is kind of the title of the thread!crimson5pheonix post=18.71970.745281 said:
It is impossible to have "logic" as one's goal in life, hence your defense is invalid.jamanticus post=18.71970.745447 said:
I thought it was about sacrifice, and about idealistic morons pandering to a populace who can't do jack shit for itself, so a lulzy guy steps in and does lulzy things 'cuz, well, he does it for the lulz and it's always fun to tell to someone "YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG!". Then, when the shit hits the fan and everyone gets splattered, the only quasi-moral character decides to keep pandering to people even more and runs from dogs.
That's the movie, laced with second hand memes, for ya.
Kinda reminded me of home(México), except the joker hasn't shown yet to fuck stuff up...but he will.
That's the movie, laced with second hand memes, for ya.
Kinda reminded me of home(México), except the joker hasn't shown yet to fuck stuff up...but he will.
EDIT:Taxi Driver post=18.71970.745640 said:
These things tend to drag on so I was trying to cut your next point off at the pass
the moral i think was that the good guys can some times get corrupted and that all good is not good and some good turns insane and becomes consider evil and ugh it's hard to say for me
Characters can express different points, the story can give and take away reprieves, subtle hints, clues. But eventually the story needs to stick to some point to advocate, like life is a chocolate cake or sex is fun with men.Taxi Driver post=18.71970.745668 said:
No Country for Old Men played with this beautifully, the story staying mum on its opinion until close to the end.
Batman on the other hand is schizophrenic, with the narrative at one point saying "people blow" (the entire city wanted to turn Batman over to save themselves) and later saying "people do not blow" (the ferry prisoner experiment). So which is it? Is the public at large evil or good? What, Gotham city is evil, but the ferry experiment happened to pick up only the most noble and exemplar humans? They really hate Batman? What the fuck was it saying? What was it trying to say?
If this was two characters chock it up to posing questions, all that. But the movie shows two vastly different traits for a heterogeneous population depending on the needs of the plot.
Irony. Oh sweet beautiful irony.Taxi Driver post=18.71970.745668 said:
I quite liked TDK, but I disagree with the political "sub-text" as I saw it.
The movie was about Batman, a Dark Knight who operates in the shadows to fight crime and do justice. (I've always had a problem with the vigilante ideal in parts of the american entertainment culture). However, Batman is not the solution to Gothams problems, they need a white knight to bring down the syndikates through legal means, and within the borders of the civilized society. Now, the joker is a menacing force, who work outside the logic of normal badguys, and the movie basically tells us, that we need a Dark Knight to fight the villains, we can't fight through normal means.
I draw a parallel between Batman and the sort of "secret services" in our world. And what I basically got from the movie was, that it's ok to suspend civil rights and the rules of the civilized society in order to catch the badguys. The movie advocates some views on surveillance and the need of "powers" that work outside the boundaries of civility, in order to "do justice" that I disagree with.
I loved the movie though, and I think it has many other interesting topics than the one mentioned, but this is just how I saw the movie, and especially the ending.
The movie was about Batman, a Dark Knight who operates in the shadows to fight crime and do justice. (I've always had a problem with the vigilante ideal in parts of the american entertainment culture). However, Batman is not the solution to Gothams problems, they need a white knight to bring down the syndikates through legal means, and within the borders of the civilized society. Now, the joker is a menacing force, who work outside the logic of normal badguys, and the movie basically tells us, that we need a Dark Knight to fight the villains, we can't fight through normal means.
I draw a parallel between Batman and the sort of "secret services" in our world. And what I basically got from the movie was, that it's ok to suspend civil rights and the rules of the civilized society in order to catch the badguys. The movie advocates some views on surveillance and the need of "powers" that work outside the boundaries of civility, in order to "do justice" that I disagree with.
I loved the movie though, and I think it has many other interesting topics than the one mentioned, but this is just how I saw the movie, and especially the ending.
The public of Gotham is central to every message the narrative makes. As the people shift arbitrarily, so to does the point. Ultimately revealing nothing.Taxi Driver post=18.71970.745879 said:
Your point that I jumped to an unfounded conclusion is humorous in that you proceed to do just that. With the conclusion itself being somewhat humorous in that you accuse me of egoism, when the attack itself is a product of it. Hence, irony.Taxi Driver post=18.71970.745879 said:
Irony is when an action produces a result opposite to what was intended.
Produce means to make, or create.
Or is a connective word, meaning alternatively.
Apples come from trees.