How to be Omniscient
I wanted to do a little something different in this article. Rather than my writing about why something couldn’t have possibly worked in the storyline, or how ridiculous something was in the storyline, I’m swinging the door open for people to submit HOW they believe it could be plausible in the storyline. I will present an idiotic repeating aspect of the storyline, and the challenge is to share the MOST PLAUSIBLE explanation. That means, no responses like “Who cares? It’s a comic book.” (since the goal of Nolan’s vision was full realism).
In the storyline (which seems to have taken place within the estimated span of 2-4 weeks), The Joker seems to be able to get mass volumes of explosives seemingly wherever he wanted them. Literally hundreds of metal barrels filled with a liquid explosive of some kind and who knows what else (enough to blow up large buildings) in:
2 buildings (seemed like warehouses)
2 large boats
A major metropolitan hospital
- Where could he BUY such large amounts of explosives from, considering Homeland Security?
- How does he get such mass volumes of explosives into the buildings without anyone noticing? Especially the hospital? Considering he would need large trucks, dollies, drivers, and various henchmen to move it all in, and even more people and time to hook the explosives up to detonate in sync?
- How could he replenish his henchmen so easily and regularly considering that he killed so many of them? How does he generate and maintain loyalty, and how does he reward that loyalty?
- If he burned mountains of money and didn’t care about having very much, how did he pay his henchmen? Did they just work for free?
- How did he do all this and still be able to be multiple steps ahead of his opponents?
Responses have to be PLAUSIBLE, believable, and reality-based.
Filed under: Story/Plot Problems, Writing/Direction Tags: explosives, henchmen, Joker, money, The Joker
1) He didn’t buy large amounts of explosives he used gasoline and dynamite, both of which can be bought fairly easily since dynamite has industrial uses (I use dynamite in my job) and gas is gas. You also do not need a large amount of dynamite to make an explosion out of a flammable agent, my job uses about 0.5 lbs of dynamite to set off 200 lbs of ANFO which is gas and cow shit.
2) This I don’t have a plausible answer for in the getting it in aspect but I have seen crazier things in movies so I am willing to accept that from a movie, even one that wants to be realistic as possible, as for the setting it up part once it is in it is easy and quick, we rig up 90 holes at 10X10 space between holes within 30 mins so rigging up enough barrels to get a ship or hospital would be very similar to that minus the precision necessary to do a controlled blast b/c Joker just needed a boom.
3) He recruited crazy people, as was stated, which there will be a lot of in a big city with millions of people and he wouldn’t need to reward loyalty because he kills them so he has no need to reward.
4) Same answer as above, dead people don’t need money.
5) This is a stupid question because that doesn’t need an explanation because that is movie quality. Movies don’t need to explain things like that. To be honest I don’t think there is a movie out there that you couldn’t find something like that to ask about. For example how does Bruce Willis keep fighting throughout Die Hard or Rambo fight off armies without resting or people reacting exactly how Iago expects in Othello?
I think this post is a great attempt at civil debate except that last question.
Thank you for making my point with regards to the “Who cares? Its a comic book” answer. Fans of TDK will refuse to cede that basing a movie in “realism” flies in the face of going to the movies with the expectation to “suspend disbelief” for 2 hours.
Nolan made the simple mistake that “taking the material seriously” equated to basing Batman “in reality”. And that is not what I wanted and limits the franchise by forcing characters to take on personas and capacities outside of what would be “believeable”. It just makes any future films and villains used harder to stay true to what Bob Kane and the comics had in mind…IMHO
Ahem, let me try my hand at this challenge.
1) The Joker, despite being a looney who lives in a metropolitan city, maintains a long list of contacts including various US military members, Chinese military officers, 3rd world illegal arms dealers, ex USSR and KGB officers, and of course tailors that specialize in clown-wear. He met them all by causing chaos on the streets or….something. If he needs 100 lbs. of C4 or, say, 500 oil drums full of flammable materials, he simply calls them all up on their cell phones (or texts them) and has only a small amount of each (sort of like Batman with his costume in Begins) shipped to Gotham by boat, plane, train, whatever works. Fortunately, he is able to coordinate it so that they all arrive unnoticed and at the right time/place by using UPS, What Can Brown Do For You?tm. Luckily, even if one of these shipments were to be searched/siezed, which they wouldn’t, they could never be traced to him since he has no records and has never been arrested while living a life of causing chaos all day, luckily. Also, he has no permanent residence, but he DOES have a place to receive his supplies, just trust me.
2. In the hospital, for example, he just told his henchman to say that they were delivering pizza in oil drums, as a way to avoid using trees on pizza boxes and “stick it to the gas companies”. If any security or police asked to see, they would just say, “Sorry, no time. If I don’t get these pies up to the 3rd floor in five the boss is gonna have my ass!” If they persist, his henchmen are instructed to shoot the offending citizen with a silenced pistol and pour acid all over the body so it dissolves real quick and leaves no trace.
3. Natty Ice, that’s all I’m saying.
4. See #3
5. He keeps detailed records of his activities…in his head. Luckily, in addition to being so crazy that he can’t feel pain from a trained ninja punching him repeatedly in the face, he is also brilliant and has a photographic memory. Actually, it’s more like a movie memory, his mind records every second of his life and he can replay it at will, just like a movie. Kind of like a murderous Rain Man, only smarter. He is also really good with computers and haxxored into Batman’s BatSonar workstation without his knowledge….that helps.
the details, false or unbelievable, wouldn’t matter if it was either -
1.) mere entertainment
which it is
so who cares about the whatevers
or
2.) true
which it isn’t, so nothing applies because it isn’t art, nor is the
filmmaker a guru like godard, fellini, renoir, welles, tarkovsky, etc
he is a mere craftsmen of thrill…
people like a little thrill, but generally there’s not much to a roller coaster ride, though there could be i guess… i keep saying chan-wook park for the next batman and free crazy reign!
ha
be the day.
My answers to 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5:
Because it has been decreed by the almighty NOLAN. All of us must bow down to the great NOLAN. We are all insignificant before NOLAN, the man who has created the most unrealistic realistic Batman movie ever.
Let’s take a look at history:
The great Pyramids–built by NOLAN.
Stonehenge–NOLAN.
Northern Lights–directed by NOLAN.
Electricity–invented by NOLAN.
The Big Bang–NOLAN.
Doesn’t the Joker steal shit-loads of cash in the opening six minutes of the film? I think that explains how he pays his henchmen, rewards them, affords explosives etc.
Also, while I don’t think this film deserves to be considered the best piece of cinema of all time it does what it sets out to do and ENTERTAINS.
I’d like to see your references for where Nolan has said he wants to create a film that is uber realistic. We are after all, talking about a film about a man who flies around the city dressed as a bat. To me it seems Nolan wanted to create a film about Batman that was as realistic as possible, while still making it an entertaining action flick – reboot the franchise from the sickening days of Batman Forever, Batman & Robin etc.
Asking questions like “where does the Joker get his money from? why don’t we see the several hours that it would take to rig up explosives on screen?” are completely pointless, because answering them in the film would completely detract from it’s entertainment value. No one gives a shit about the scene where the Joker spends hours carefully wiring up an explosive.
If you want to see realistic crime fighting, join the police force. If you want to be entertained by a summer blockbuster movie for a couple of hours, go see the Dark Knight.
First, as much as I enjoyed the movie, I really like your site. I came across it as I was googling, trying to find answers to the wtf questions I had after seeing it. Yours is pretty much the only site that’s really breaking things down, and I appreciate it.
Regarding this particular post, my first thought about the hospital is that it wouldn’t take much to blow it up due to all the oxygen in use. A spark in the ICU alone would probably be enough to take out the whole wing. Har.
As to the Joker himself and his means, well, at the beginning of the movie he took off with $65 million. I was thinking that he was using the cash to bankroll the jobs in the rest of the movie. The officials of Gotham were venal, so it probably didn’t take much to buy them off.
I know, not really perfect answers, but I like having to think about this. ^_~
Maybe, just maybe, because it’s a film meant for entertainment purposes and not a docudrama?
Dude I’d write, but it would be like trying to explain to a monkey why we humans wear clothes. And plus my fellow sane members of humanity have probably already explained it for you. All I wanted to say is-GET A LIFE…..
Evening there, Just thought I’d have a quick look at the problems you’ve got here:
1) I think this has been answered pretty well already
2) The disused buildings for Rachel and Harvey I don’t see a problem with, with the hospital and ferries he had just gained a lot of manpower and connections by taking over the Russian’s business.
3) Considering the number of people that escaped from Arkham in ‘Begins’ and also the amount of people affected by the hallucinogen there were probably plenty of crazy people around, and its directly implied that these are the kind of people the Joker uses and attracts.
4) Like he said, he only burned his half of the money.
5) Although he is a consummate opportunist, he’s still a clever guy. He knows what he needs to, even though he uses overly destructive and violent ways to go about it. Its not until near the end of the film when his motives become clear that he truly becomes the ‘agent of chaos’ he confesses to be. If anything he’s more of a ‘planner’ than Dent or anyone else.
Seriously, the bottom line is he couldn’t amass all those explosives without anyone noticing. But of course, he’s omnipotent.
And another thing, why don’t you see The Joker going to the toilet in the whole film? Or eating? Or sleeping? Seems a bit unrealistic to me.
The whole point was NOT to answer, ‘oh, it’s just a comic book and it doesn’t have to be realistic.’
The great NOLAN was the one who said it would be realistic, and then he and his brother wrote it completely unrealistically.
Hi, my name is Marye, I’m new to this site and to the blogs in general and was just wondering how you got that picture by your post, it would be a great help to hear how!
Sincerely,
Marye Elizabeth
“Seriously, the bottom line is he couldn’t amass all those explosives without anyone noticing. But of course, he’s omnipotent.”
You must not have taken in what I said and I can explain further. When we fill a shot with 14000 lbs of ANFO and 50 lbs of dynamite, that is all carried in on a single truck. Now that is enough explosive to take down about 75000-100000 tons of hard rock. So think about this, how much does the hospital building weigh? I would guess that building was probably around 10000 tons maybe but please correct me that does seem low, so lets say it weighed 100000 tons, it would take ONE truck full of gasoline and two 20 lb boxes of dynamite to have enough to take down the building if it was a solid mass! So it would be even less then that to rig up a few areas to make a big firey boom with enough power to take it down. Once the boom went off the structure would be plenty weak to take down the building.
I would be happy to keep telling you about explosives if you like. People always GROSSLY underestimate the amount of explosive needed in situations.
Even more ridiculous than burning the money, was the fact that his goons were the ones actually the pouring petrol over the cash. If Joker has no need for the cash, I’m sure the people working for him would want to get paid, but no they’re happy to do all this work for free it seems.
Oh, I forgot, they’re crazy, crazy people don’t care about getting paid. But if they are so crazy, how are they able to pull off all of Joker’s meticulous plans without a hitch?
daniel marley
in what classic film
made by what world renown filmmaker
do you see a man actually shitting in public?
sprechen sie deutsches?
this batman plague.
it’s like listening to brittany/chesney your whole life and thinking you know what you like when you haven’t heard anything… so what do know anyway? it’s like a baby being chef in charge, we all eat goo, goo is what he likes and that’s that.
yes
this batman deal is entertainment
but people keep trying to justify their gooey thrill as something more
an excuse
lame
plainly
you should see more movies
ones you never heard of
thousands and thousands
made by dead foreign guys
new is not better
technology advances and retreats
gain some
loose some
but art doesn’t care
neither does entertainment
new and improved!
bigger better faster!
super size me!
The money he steals is probably the money he burns. How else could he make a 12 X 12 foot pile of cash that’s about 13 feet high? But, even though I really didn’t like the movie, I’ll join in anyway ;P
1. All the mobsters were still pretty rich, I’m sure they were able to find some offshore gasoline and dynamite for a cheap price. I mean there were like 30 guys at that meeting right? Even though you only see Eric Roberts for the rest of the movie…Plus, even in the real world…our world, homeland security isn’t that great.
2. He had the bus, probably without seats. Ambulances, maybe another truck like the one he used during the highway scene. Maybe the containers of gasoline were printed as being Jello? And remember he still had his lunatic henchmen and the ones from the other mobsters. Seeing as how he seemed to have the idea to blow up the hospital for awhile, they were probably all ready charged. How still no one saw them…that is a mystery.
3. After the Youtube video, I’m sure it wasn’t hard to recruit new people, (I mean, I’d probably work for him too!) even though there was certain death, which I guess none of the new henchmen considered.
4. yeah, they worked for free.
5. While all the people in gotham were so happy with Dent’s work, everytime the Joker did anything, they’d freak out, and he’d be onto his next plan…or maybe the next three plans. Chaos begets chaos, so when nothing the Joker did was “part of the plan” he was doing his own crazy plan. How he knew everything everyone else would do FOR his plan, well, that’s truly the omniscience.
I have the privilege of having a long time physicist friend who is chronically incapable of suspending disbelief to the point of pathology.
I think you and he would have a grand old time.
The truth is what is possible and impossible is constrained by our pea brains. Sometimes it is not belief we are suspending; it is our limited view of reality.
“I have the privilege of having a long time physicist friend who is chronically incapable of suspending disbelief to the point of pathology.
I think you and he would have a grand old time.”
Not sure who you’re intending that comment for. Me? If so, I’m a bit unsure why I need to state this more than a couple times but it’s not about suspension of disbelief or not. I’m perfectly willing to suspend disbelief, and do so regularly when watching movies that are actually good.
HERE IS THE PROBLEM:
* It’s like watching a movie about aliens and it’s implied the aliens can’t breath our atmosphere… and then it shows one of them walking around our atmosphere without a problem… and without an explanation of why.
* It’s like watching a movie where one of the characters is supposed to be able to read minds and then at some key point in the story where he might be able to use that power to solve a major problem he doesn’t and… it’s never explained why.
* It’s like a movie that’s supposed to be real and intelligent, but constantly uses cheap plot devices with no explanation to move the story along when, with good writing, it could have very well been properly handled.
This is not about suspension of disbelief and anyone’s lack of being able to suspend disbelief when watching a movie. It’s about implying to the audience that only a certain amount of disbelief needs to be suspended, then expecting them to increase their suspension, then hitting them on the head that they don’t need to because it’s “realistic”, then requiring them to suspend disbelief again, then making up ridiculous unexplained solutions to move the protagonist or antagonist along without any depth to the storytelling… and bouncing back-and-forth in this process so many times as to make the whole thing convoluted where the only consistently recognizable elements are the few iconic “dark” moments which help lend to it’s title and the reason to be applauded by armies of sycophants.
Good to know you still have nothing to rebut me, seeing as you ignored the only plausible argument here and wrote about something which is not in this article. (Suspension of disbelief)
The answer’s for 1, 2, and 3 is the teamsters. By that point of the film all of the mafia, and other organized crime bosses or whoever had took up his offer to get rid of the Batman. Explosives can be disquised as a bunch of things, not to mention the many explosive gases that are already in a hospital. And there’s nothing to say that they might have just rigged a few key points in the hospitals gas lines.
Number 4 is that he had a bunch of money from all the banks he robbed leading up to his offer to kill Batman.
And 5, the dude is “just-incase” kind of person. He had Batman pegged all along. He knew how he’d react and how he’d think. The entire scene in the end with the hostages was there if Batman figured out where he was hanging out at. He really doesn’t seem to make plans as much as just thinking as he’s going and workin with what he has. History is full of strategic genius.
1. He’s a criminal. In Gotham City. The police are always busy.
2. The hospital bombs could have been planted by hospital workers who were paid to plant them by the Joker. Or the hospital workers could be working for Joker in a secret society or something (much like Fight Club, also directed by Nolan).
3. His henchmen were insane. The Joker must be a master of psychology to convince many people to join him.
4. His henchmen were insane. The Joker must be a master of psychology to convince many people to join him. Also, considering they were originally jailed in Arkham Asylum, I think they’d rather be out and about, than in the asylum.
5. The Joker is a very smart person. Knows all too much about the human psyche.
But despite me saying this, I hate the film.
nolan did not direct fight club
“Good to know you still have nothing to rebut me, seeing as you ignored the only plausible argument here and wrote about something which is not in this article. (Suspension of disbelief)”
It’s good to know that you can’t read for content. Listen, man, your inability to comprehend basic statements of fact is your issue not mine.
W/E you wanna say is fine but I would like to know your thoughts on my original post, and I want a rebutal in number form.
Please keep in mind, Responses have to be PLAUSIBLE, and believable.
I am sick of you sidetracking comments that give you the answers you say we can’t produce.
roger can you tell me where you get the stuff you smoke? O.o
Yea…ummm..John DEFINITELY answered # 1 reasonably well…(good point but the rebuttal kinda wins here)
2…The Warehouses were abandoned…The hospital and the Boat are a bit tricky…the boat especially…problematic but not “teh wurst m0vee evar” problematic. (and perhaps your only good point on your list btw)
3. He lost what? 10 henchmen in the entire film…and KILLED 4 people who weren’t even his Henchmen just some people he called up to pull off a job to gain the mobs attention. The Narrows are full of crazies who this sociopath could easily manipulate, and the Mob pretty much gave him free reign…(VERY weak point)
4….He burned half of the money he gained from Lau…he didn’t burn all of his money from all his capers…(weak point)
5….(a decent point) But I choose to assume the joker plans for failure and success. But doesnt have a goal…and also the Joker simply said ‘I’m like a dog chasing a car, I wouldn’t know what to do if I actually caught the thing’ (i think he mentioned him not having plans but that is a character mistake considering we can’t take what the joker says as law…if batman believed the criminals should die does that make batman right?) I think moreso he doesn’t have solid goals…each lil thing he does is just part of a larger goal. Like I want to be a physicist (hypothetical) THAT is my true goal…graduating HS with good grades and getting into a good college are simply…road signs. not destinations.
“W/E you wanna say is fine but I would like to know your thoughts on my original post, and I want a rebutal in number form.
Please keep in mind, Responses have to be PLAUSIBLE, and believable.”
What exactly am I expected to rebut? The whole point was for people to contribute plausible explanation for seemingly unrealistic plot points in a story that’s supposed to be realistic. I wasn’t even replying to you, someone else brought up suspension of disbelief and I replied to that.
1. Fair enough, he bought thousands of gallons of gas (cheap) and small amounts of dynamite, plus cheap detonators and people with the know-how on how to make it all blow up right who happen to also be insane (since they work cheap or for free and don’t mind potentially dying randomly at The Joker’s hands). OK, fine, so where does one pick up thousands of gallons of gasoline (or hundreds of drums) discreetly? Did he show up to some gas station with makeup on his face, pointed to a few hundred barrels sitting in a truck and say “Fill’er up!”.
2. This one you clearly side-stepped. The explosion shown on the building in the movie showed a fuel-based explosion (one that would generate huge balls of flame) which indicates some form of fuel rather than just dynamite. Lots of fuel.
3. So crazy people will be sane enough to hook up large amounts of explosive fuel, detonators, remote triggers, etc, yet be crazy enough to work for The Joker for free (or near-free) with the constant risk of being killed by him?
4. Side-stepped since you have the same answer as for 3.
5. Movies that are implied to be realistic DO need to explain that. Otherwise people are left thinking “WTF”?
“For example how does Bruce Willis keep fighting throughout Die Hard or Rambo fight off armies without resting or people reacting exactly how Iago expects in Othello?”
I don’t give a shit about issues with those movies or that play, we’re talking about TDK and we’re ALSO talking about how much people are praising the movie as being a “masterpiece” or some form of “high art”. Die Hard movies are entertaining but nobody is touring the as the upper echelon of film-making. In Die Hard 2, when Bruce Willis FAXES a fingerprint as part of the plot, that pretty much kills plausibility for the rest of the movie but … WHO CARES? … because the masses weren’t running around cuckling on & on about how much of a masterpiece Die Hard was.
I don’t care if people don’t agree with me that the movie sucked. I’m taking the extreme position. The goal is to get people at the very least agreeing that calling this movie a “masterpiece” (or similar) when it has so many issues with it (some small, many typical, and some big) is ridiculous.
no
too bad huh
yoko yes is another story
know that one?
“As to the Joker himself and his means, well, at the beginning of the movie he took off with $65 million. I was thinking that he was using the cash to bankroll the jobs in the rest of the movie. The officials of Gotham were venal, so it probably didn’t take much to buy them off.”
That’s perfectly plausible except it looks like they only grabbed 4-5 duffel bag size stacks – $65 mil would probably take about 40-50 bags presuming all bills were $100. Anyway, it’s plausible.
There is one point in the movie I don’t recall exactly which might refute this – I seem to recall he offered to return the stolen $ to the mob guys if they agreed to give him 1/2 of all their “bank savings”, and if Im correct then he basically gave that $65 mil back before gatting the huge stack that he … burned.
tdksucks: Would it be okay with you if we all consider it to be a masterpiece of action/comic book filmmaking?
I’ll wait for your response before forming my own opinion.
PS: thanks for your contribution to society, we all know it is a lot more difficult to destroy than create (or was it the other way around? I guess I should ask you…).
whistle, I’ve probably done more for society (and you) in the past decade than you could possibly realize. Just a wild guess, but probably more than you ever will your whole life. If you want to categorize me as a “destroyer” of things based on the fact that I’m running an opinion blog that happens to have had tens of thousands of people visit, hosting opinions that you don’t agree with, then you’re truly borderline retarded. If you actually do believe TDK was a masterpiece, then that just confirms your mental condition. You don’t need my permission to be stupid.
hey mr tdksucks
responding to morons is moronic
fyi
also
details suck
why argue them
the ‘movie’ in question is a stupid mainstream blockbuster
check out the list of top grossing movies of all time
a long list of pointless hype and horrid tripe
Ok, here’s my answers (and i apologize for poor spelling and punctuation)
1) John’s already explained this in pretty good detail, but heres a few more points. The storyline may only occur in a timespan of 2-4 weeks, but at the of Batman Begins, Gordon tells batman about a bank robber with a taste for theatrics, who leaves behind a joker playing card (the obvious deduction being that this is the joker). BB takes place, if memory serves, 6 months before TDK. More than enough time to get his hands on large amounts of gasoline and explosives. Now im no expert on theft, but he could possibly have just stolen the gasoline from a warehouse or whatever (heck, he could have carjacked a couple of gasoline tankers). And seeing as the joker had been robbing mob banks (the bank robbery at the start wasn’t the only one he commited, plenty of characters mention this), and was active for (depending on the BB-TDK time gap) six months, money wouldn’t have been a major issue. Finally, gasoline isnt illegal, hence the homeland security issue really isnt an issue at all. And he could have just stored it all in a warehouse to avoid detection (heck, could have used the same warehouses he kept rachel and harvey in). As for the explosives, theft from a demolitions company is one method, as well as D.I.Y. explosives (such as ANFO which was used in the Oklahoma City Bombing).
2) Harvey and Rachel were stored in whats looked like warehouses. The main purpose of a warehouse is to store things. Large amounts of gasoline in a storage warehouse would hardly look suspicious. And seeing as the warehouses looked pretty run down anyway, its unlikely anyone would search them. The hospital could have been done in any number of ways, but seeing as most hospitals have gas lines, he could have just rigged explosives at strategic locations and let the buildings gas lines do the heavy work. the bombs could have been placed well in advance by men disguised as gas maintenance people (could have kidnapped/killed actual gas maintennance people, like he did with police officers for the funeral) Once his men got access (pretending to be performing maintenance or whatever), they could have placed detonators/explosives and just left them there for later use. They could have easily pulled this off in a short period of time, thus reducing the chance off the bombs being discovered. Also, the joker could have just filled a truck or two with explosives (obviously buying/ stealing the trucks in advance) and parked them at the hospital (assuming it has an underground car park, which wouldnt be beyond the realm of plausability) If he did this on the same day as he made his threat, no one would become suspicious of the truck(s) as they’d be too busy evacuating. this method has been used before (again, i refer to the Oklahoma City Bombing) to devastating effect, so its not unreasonable to believe the joker could do the same thing. As for the boat sequence, i admit that it is slightly unlikely, but it wouldnt be impossible to do. Given that the city of gotham was in a state of panic at the time, there is a chance that the people responsible for searching the boats just rushed them into immediate service without properly searching them. He could just kill the people responsible for searching the boats, replace them with his goons, and smuggle the explosives onto the boat in boxes or whatever under the pretence of engine parts or cargo. If he did all this a day or so before the city went into panic mode, (prediciting the likelyhood of evacuations), and assuming that the ferries where rushed into service, its not implausible that he could have put explosives on the boat.
3 & 4. At the end of Batman Begins, Gordon remarks that they’ll have their work cut out for them rounding up all the crazies that Ra’s al Ghul released from Arkhm Asylum (obviously these are not his exact words).
Batman later remarks to dent when dent is interoggating the fake officer that the officer is a paranoid shcizophrenic (and yes, i probably spelt that wrong), the type of personality that the joker attracts. Given that a massive amount of asylum inmates were released in BB, the joker could simply have recruited from the inmates, as well as other mentally ill people in gotham city (its not as though every single crazy person is put in an asylum). thus he would have a large supply of henchmen. How could he maintain the loyalty? well, as ive stated before, he was active for at least six months, and the bank robbery at the start of the film was not the only one he commited (a fact that is mentioned by both the mob, batman and gordon) So he already would have had a large war chest to pay his men with. on a side note, its possible that he wouldnt even need to pay some of them. i refer to a superb line from the movie. “Because some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.” If the jokers men were of a similar mindset to him, its likely that at least some would have been motivated by desire to kill/destroy & burn/sheer hatred of the world. not all acts of terror are motivated by money. and as for the whole “he kills his men” issue, he only killed like 8-9 men (and im not counting the bankjob guys, they were quite happy to kill each other). For a start, the joker had a lot of money; the less men, the bigger the paycheck. the joker could have lied about killing them eg informants, killed by cops, etc. and assuming that the core of his men are inmates, these people (aside from being insane) are working for a man who kills for sport and likes to blow s**t up. Im guessing that the henchmen who assist in these crimes dont have high moral standards.
5. The joker wasn’t working to acheive some grandly orchestrated scheme. he simply wanted to break Batman through a series of terrorist attacks and random killings. granted, he would have needed to buy his explosives/guns/ make up in advance. but he had no real coherent plan. so he could stay ahead of his opponents because there was no real plan for them to anticipate. To use an example, the joker turned harvey dent, the white knight, into a killer. yet another way by which the joker could break batman. but the joker couldnt have known in advance that what would happen to harvey would…happen. sure, harvey was always going to survive the blast. but the point of the blast was to kill rachel to get to batman. harveys disfigurement and insanity were never part of the equation. but because the joker had no coherent plan, he could adapt and change on the fly, and so he turned harvey into a “freak” like himself and batman, as another way of getting to batman. One of the main elements of the jokers character in the cmics is that his plans dont make sense to anyone but himself. likewise, in the dark knight, the joker is all about anarchy and chaos. the joker could have stayed ahead of everyone because no one could have predicted what he would do next. To use a real life example, richard kuklinski (better known as the ice man) killed over 200 people. he had no pattern, and many of the killings were spur of the moment. but because he wasn’t a moron and because there was no real plan or order to the killings, he went undetected for decades. the joker was, much like the ice man, to chaotic to really be predicted by anyone.
anyhow, theres my opinion (yes, i know its long). Feel free to argue with it, ill happily respond.
jimmyboy
what an epic
i took one look
read two tired sentences
fuck
why bother
the only reason i post is to keep pushing the big picture
and common sense
which is
this is a dim amusement for the ignorant masses
it is a safe sterile thrill for the dull
it is a dumb pointless lifeless distraction
for fuck’s sake
why bother with the silly plot, the bad acting, the cheesy dialogue
it doesn’t matter
the film was made to make money
goodie
Your really anal, the movie you wanted to see would be over 7 hours long. You want everything explained in excruciating detail that is not the point of ANY movies the point is to see the bigger picture and understand the whole concept. I must agree the theme a bit weak. But tdksucks guy Nolan did not want to make a movie that would be real in our world but in the work of movies. I also find it very interesting how you find the way in which the joker the most implausible part of the movie. The sonar plugged into everyones cell phone? That didn’t throw you off. Well I hope that you are able to get some sleep soon, maybe also broaden your horizons, get life, and a girlfriend. Cuz my friend you really need to get laid.
j.love, he already have a critic about the sonar plugged into everyones cell phone
You seam to be confusing `insane’ with `incompetent’. Plenty of insane people, with no moral centre and little fear of pain or death, are still good at physical/mental tasks. Heck a high percentage of stock brokers have been assessed as having mild sociopathic tendencies (it actually helps them in their job- making such big decisions without fear or emoitonal attachment). A friend of mine is a scysophrenic with a history of violence (when not on his meds) still manages to hold down a job as an electrical engineer at a design company.
And thus tdksucks succumbs to the weight of probable reality; unable to post a true rebuttal.
I’m sorry, tdksucks, but he had months to set up those explosives; have you handled any yourself?
In some cases, all you need is an electric charge to set things in motion. Like, say, a car battery. Now how long does it take to wire a car battery into a switch, and then route wires to several barrels of explosives?
And then you set a switch on the controlling device hooked up to any old TV antenna. That TV Antenna is bound to a frequency by a $2 radioshack-gotten chip and waits for -any- signal on that specific band. Doesn’t have to be -anything- could be you just saying ‘ah’. Whatever. And so the switch turns, electricity turns on, barrels ignite…
Time to create such a device? Less than an hour per ‘control box’. And considering how handy he is with explosives, I’m willing to bet he has extensive demolitions training or a really sharp mind.
Everything looked like it was cobbled together in under an hour or less in every instance. The most painfully obvious, smack in your face, about how quickly and utilitarian he builds his devices is when we get to see the remote detonators. A car ignition switch, hooked up to a radio transmitter, with a couple of pieces of IC board and two batteries.
I mean, c’mon, it’s obvious that he’s buying under-the-radar. Just look at the RPG launcher he’s got. That thing is a -relic-. If he had gone after a Javelin people would’ve turned heads. But who would notice a missing Panzershreck or a RPG-7 from an old armory; nevermind just buying them off the black market, where you could find them -anywhere-.
Also, the bat-radar is completely plausible. Very advanced stuff to render it that well, but 100% doable. I know someone who is working for EMFinders who are readying to deploy a device which relies on many of the principles the Batman’s ‘radar-vision’ comes from.
And it’s not a sonar built into your phone. It’s the signal it’s transmitting to the towers, which is being transmitted to multiple towers, so that they can adjust your frequency so that it doesn’t modulate onto someone else’s frequency while ensuring unparalleled call quality. Thus, if you could somehow crunch every ‘detected’ collision reported by those towers and boost their output, you could very well have your own Bat-dar.
Nolan did his homework, you did not. Your inability to understand the above 5 questions is merely due to the fact that you haven’t researched those topics and are too lazy to do so; thus you label them ‘unfeasible’.
rodger
learn to structure a sentence properly. it’ll help when you write your manifesto on the evils of captitalism. should be easy, seeing as you’ve posted over half of it on this site. yeah, my response was an epic. hey, i said it would be. why bother? you see, i have this weird thing were i give in depth responses to questions asked, rather than totally ignore the ongoing debate. Maybe you do only post to keep pushing the big picture. La-di-da. you seem to have this unqualified belief that the movie is bad because it was made to make money. well, allow me to retort. A) thats why all movies are made. B) maybe tdk was made to make money. but it was also an excellent movie. i wouldn’t defend it if it had been cookie cutter trash like fantastic four or your responses. your brilliant in depth criticisms:this is a dim amusement for the ignorant masses
it is a safe sterile thrill for the dull
it is a dumb pointless lifeless distraction
None of them are right. it had symbolism, it investigated themes that most movies wouldn’t touch, it had intelligent questions about heroes and villains. the majority of “safe, sterile, dumb, pointless” movies lack all of this. entertainment for the ignorant masses? no. sure, lots of people have seen it. that doesn’t make it a bad movie.
Yeah, i did like the dark knight. yeah, i WILL defend it at length. why bother? because thats what debate is all about.
Dear Firgof,
Our combined posts pretty much answer all the explosives question and who knows how long it will take tdksucks to post some reply that seems to prove us wrong but is really just well written bullcrap!
I don’t think tdksucks knows anything about explosives and is probably in teh mass that believes all explosives are complicated, expensive, and make BIG HUGE EXPLOSIONS! Not that there is anything wrong with not being an expert in something but when your making arguements it helps to be knowledgable.
I, for instance, would not argue the semantics of court room scenes as I don’t really know anything about law (outside OSHA/MSHA).
Yeah, you could retitle this entire site “my general knowledge sucks” and our esteemed host wouldn’t even have to change any of the content!
Well, I don’t really see why it really matters… it’s a movie. Simple enjoyment, doesn’t generally have to make sense. I mean, does it bother you that much? It obviously wasn’t going to be an intellectual inspiration. Really, when you take in to account how many other movies are soooo unrealistic but have a high grossing fanbase/community, why does this one stand out? Is it because it’s the most recent? Is it because you’re one of those right wing overzealous fans? Is it because you want attention? Or do you just not want to be another sheep following the heard? Maybe you’re none of these, but lets just remember: no one will care by 2009. =D
1. Where could he BUY such large amounts of explosives from, considering Homeland Security?
I don’t know…when you just stole 68 million dollars, you could buy what you want. Besides, buying a crap load of gasoline wouldn’t be difficult if you knew where to look…And who says in the Batman Movie Universe the homeland security is like it is IRL? Pre 9/11…well yea take a look at what happened so it’s possible.
2. How does he get such mass volumes of explosives into the buildings without anyone noticing? Especially the hospital? Considering he would need large trucks, dollies, drivers, and various henchmen to move it all in, and even more people and time to hook the explosives up to detonate in sync?
Warehouses aren’t usually under watch…especially in an apparent slum area… The hospital was clearly set up earlier to be blown up, and he used the Reese thing as a reason to do it. If you really think the Joker snuck in 100 barrels of gas to blow up the hospital then you are an idiot. He obviously used conventional explosives, he even states to using dynamite. He has tons of henchmen…if you paid attention to the movie it’s pretty apparent he has the resources to do this. Again, he is working with 68million dollars.
3. How could he replenish his henchmen so easily and regularly considering that he killed so many of them? How does he generate and maintain loyalty, and how does he reward that loyalty?
…So by killing the hired goons he had for the bank job means he kills all of his workers? Those were hired goons, not henchmen. It is basically shoved down your throat during the bank scene that they are all being killed so he can keep the 68million for himself instead of only having 11millionish. It is later heavily implied that his henchmen worship the ground he walks on. The look on his guys faces in the gamble seen show they are with him for the fun and power he has. To anyone with half a brain, it is clear the Joker is going to take control of the Gotham underworld, meaning he’ll have all the money he needs. To his henchmen by the time he burned the money, he showed he can handle the Batman, MCU, and the Mob all at the same time, i’d have confidence in my boss that he will make 10x that amount of money. “It’s better to be feared then loved.” Those guys are scared as hell, they aren’t leaving anytime soon. The Joker never displayed any kind of hostility to any of his men unless they were in his way.
5. How did he do all this and still be able to be multiple steps ahead of his opponents?
….Same way you win chess games, you anticipate what your opponent is going to do 10 steps ahead of what is happening. The Joker can say what he wants about not having a plan, but obviously he does. He didn’t wake up one day and say “im going to **** **** up”, no he obviously had a general plan he was following for a while back because you can’t outsmart that many people by the seat of your pants that effectively.
I’ve got to be a nerd here and admit that I have read the novelization of Dark Knight and while I can’t (and don’t want to) rebut all of the points I can add this: in the novelization Joker says that he had already given his henchmen “their share” of the money he burns. So, he does pay them.
1. The “Anarchist’s Cook Book” is very common and a well known cult phenomenon, however it is not necessarily useful when it comes to producing the kind of massive explosions that the joker wanted/needed. For a man working on a budget of almost zero, the “Terrorist’s Cook Book” is much more appropriate.
The Terrorist’s Cook Book is not a joke, it is a real manual that is heavily circulated in troubled regions around the world from Iraq, to Lebanon and Syria, and probably even places like Georgia. It is a guide to death and destruction that has been trading hands across religious and secular boundaries due to the sheer necessity that it addresses. It is a guide to the homemade production of C4, plastic explosives, mines, booby traps, anti-tank and anti-air weapons (requiring black market parts), and all sorts of mean devices any insurgent in Iraq or Afghani Jihadist could use. It’s real, and it’s very scary.
2. Another person has taken it upon themselves the ease with which one could move enough explosives to wreak havoc. (John, on August 3rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm) He does not explain how he could get the explosives in, so I shall. Remember that the Joker has already successfully taken half of a criminal enterprise’s fortune, as well as robbed a bank (one case we know of). Assuming he had any resources lying around the easiest system would be to bribe the right guards to allow a large number of delivery guys with boxes marked “patient records, or ‘hazardous waste’” into the hospital at least a week before the event and during a time (say 3 a.m. before the shift changes) that would arouse less suspicion. No one is going to curiously dig through boxes of old records or a box of medical waste to ensure that the contents are what they say they are. Only bribe the guards you need to, remind them that no one in the hospital will get hurt, and that you know what room their children sleep in.
3. Being the manipulator and eccentric celebrity criminal that he is, he has the power to both attract any criminals inspired by his deeds, and to recognize those who are like him. People who just want to watch the world burn. As long as his followers are compartmentalized and kept separate, how are they to know that he kills almost all of them?
4. He didn’t have to burn all the money.
And if they just wanted to create anarchy, or he was able to use them just long enough that he didn’t have to pay them (he could: kill them, disappear and cut off all contact from them, conveniently have the cops show up at a house full of henchmen with incriminating evidence so that they all are now in jail).
If the cops think they are closing in on the Joker’s trail, and the joker is never keeping company long enough to have a problem, it’s even better for him.
5. The same way Osama Bin Laden has.
Stay out of reach, let others take the shit for you, and make sure there’s always resources in place to make your next move. Just because he’s disinterested in keeping any money he steals for himself doesn’t mean that he has used none of it to further his own ambitions. While he could work on a dollar and a prayer, making the world burn goes faster when you make millions of dollars, and what use is a prayer?
If you find any errors, holes, or have any disputes with my arguments, please feel free to email me and I would be happy to discuss them.
Solaris_Prime:
“1. Where could he BUY such large amounts of explosives from, considering Homeland Security?
I don’t know…when you just stole 68 million dollars, you could buy what you want…”
Please correct me if I’m wrong (I don’t mind if I recant on factual errors): Part of the storyline was that Joker promosed the mob bosses to give back their $68 that he stole if they gave him 1/2 of their bank holdings in exchange for “killing The Batman”. Well, presumably (although it’s not shown), he gave the stolen money back and then… burned the cash stack of 1/2 the bank holdings. So that puts him square at $0. Unless there was another bank heist not shown in the movie? I know it was implied he might have been randomly robbing banks, but since it was never shown or never clearly implied in TDK, AFAIK, it puts him at $0.
It is a shame people bought into this scam post, since you’re obviously moving the goal post (logical fallacy). It was rather evident at the outset, since you made assumptions of Homeland Security, when there’s no reason to believe it exists in the world provided, and that the Joker had to accomplish everything he did within a scope limited to your own demands. Further proof of this fallacious approach is found within your response to Solaris_Prime, in which you make the audacious claim that the Joker had $0, when absolutely nothing about the Joker was revealed in any of the plot. If you are dependent on fabrications to justify your entirely subjective claim that the movie so-called “sucks”, then perhaps you should do so with respect to good reason.
So you’re willing to presume he gave $68 million dollars back to the mob, but not willing to presume he spent some of it first and deducted his expenses for the batman job up front?
Where would he buy mass amounts of “explosives” without homeland security getting all over him? He only uses gasoline, dynamite, and gun powder. You can buy as much of that as you want, no one will get suspicious over it.
I can understand if he said “im a man of simple taste, i like things like C4, napalm, and claymore mines” but he didnt, the things he uses arent suspicious.
tdksucks
“So that puts him square at $0. Unless there was another bank heist not shown in the movie? I know it was implied he might have been randomly robbing banks, but since it was never shown or never clearly implied in TDK, AFAIK, it puts him at $0.”
at the end of BB (six months before TDK) gordon shows batman a joker card left behind AT A ROBBERY. In TDK, batman and gordon discuss in the scene with the iradiated notes that the jokers has robbed multiple banks. in the scene were bruce is watching a vid of the joker with alfred, it is stated that the video is from ANOTHER BANK ROBBERY.
which would put him a a heck of a lot more than $0, especially if hes been active for six months
I really liked this movie……………it was one of the few movies which were supposedly not dialogue based but in which i was yearning for the characters to start talking again.
There are a few things i did not like about this movie….the love triangle(ugh)….. that some of the plot points were not fully explained (no, i perfectly understood this movie, it is just out of pity for the *ohh its a comic book movie, it can’t, just can’t be good* retards who consider themselves to be cinephiles but could not understand a perfectly well eschewed plot) ……the coleman reese part could be done away with (but only for pacing reasons, it was the only such ‘chunk’).
As u’ve seen, the last two reasons were just to appease the (ahem) critics.
To take some feeling of greatness away from the site creators, there are tons of pages on imdb, facebook, newspaper sites and random blogs where tdk is endlessly critiqued (and with worse arguments, if that were possible). But it is heartening to see much more worthy defenders here (especially Jimmyboy, who doesnt resort to jeers and abuses to prove his erudite points.)
I couldnt help laughing as i progressed through the posts….the ‘tdksucks’ guy disappeared after deciding to attract major rebuttals, thinking his opinion was foremost but retreating into a shell on being forced to view the harsh truth that it is shit…..well he did resurface, but only to attack the weakest argument, and that too partially, and that too poorly…..hahahahaha*infinity.
One of the commenters even dismissed the debate (which he himself had so vociferously fuelled) by stating that the above (excellent, IMO and NOT IMHO) post wasd too long (mine is too, and i ain’t apologizing, and i must say, all u guys hav ADHD and abysmally low reading speeds) and that this was a movie made only to create money and not worth discussion (its hilarious how people dismiss stuff they arnt up for)……well then, the site creators should not hav put so much effort into this site.
And b4 classifying me as an ignorant, ignorable fanboy; do know that i hav seen movies and read books (most of which ARNT comic books) u hav never heard of, some of which are from the1900s….
All said and done, i hope this site flourishes, if only for others lik me to be amused by Jimmyboy and his proteges hilariously reducing seemingly intelligent arguments to trash……
Think what you want, but coming here constantly to rebut insipid comments is pointless, when the points have already been made & backed up. I’ve just got a few more key points to add as articles and then there’s not much left to rip apart or dicsuss.
UrUnforgivenToo, i thank you
Every argument you’ve posted tdksucks has been ripped and torn apart, with the Batman voice ::shudders:: as an exception.
All your back up? I haven’t seen any please point out the back up. Do you consider rehashing the same argument into a new article using different words is considered back up? You challenged people in this topic and I started out with completely plausible arguments and all you said was how I side stepped the one, which I didn’t side step I said, “For the getting it in part IDK” In other words I straight up said I didn’t have an argument so don’t pretend like I’m doing the same thing that you are.
UrUnfogiven Too, I also thank you.
UrUnfogiven Too, i also thank you but…
ain’t up for? down for. more like it. not down. it’s fucking moronic. no fun. and NO ONE will talk about the film! everyone talks about nothing. stupid petty shit.
you say – “that some of the plot points were not fully explained (no, i perfectly understood this movie, it is just out of pity for the *ohh its a comic book movie, it can’t, just can’t be good* retards who consider themselves to be cinephiles but could not understand a perfectly well eschewed plot) ……”
read kundera or something.
i would love for it to be good. never said a film based in whatever couldn’t be good. have said it’s a comic book when everyone’s talking bullshit nothing, but a comic book can, of course, be genius. i wish some of Giraud’s work could be ‘live action,’ and be good.
anyway.
you are wrong, the film’s main problem, besides being dead, is that it’s too simple and expected, there’s not enough ‘eschewed’ plot points as you put it. and that’s why it’s hard to discuss the plot, writing, acting, subtext. it just doesn’t matter. the film is very basic. that’s why most long posts aren’t fun or worth reading. it’s blabber.
and finally, an ellipsis is always three dots
…
not fuckin …………..
or……
or….
it’s
…
of course all that shit got erased before by sir dumbass.
how’s the mirror coin?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..oh sorry…and ………………………………………………………………………………………………………
UrUnforgivenToo, don’t worry to much about rogers opinion. God knows, aren’t many ppl here who do. that includes both TDK lovers and haters.
roger, hypocrisy and outright lying impress no one. you have not at any stage said anything with relation to this movie being a comic book movie, so its dishonest to then say “said it’s a comic book when everyone’s talking bullshit nothing”.
but hey, this is the same guy who tells me off for DARING to comment on the details of the movie twenty something posts ago, who then turns around and says “and NO ONE will talk about the film! everyone talks about nothing” before then turning around on THAT opinion and saying theres no point in talking about the movie and that “it just doesn’t matter”
why so hypocritical?
Oh, and you have absolutley no authority when it comes to punctuation and spelling seeing as the majority of your posts look ike poems.
do you know WHY your comments got deleted by captain dumbass? (whom i assume is meant to be tdksucks) Because they are pointless, irrelevant and childish. the only “blabber” here would be your attempts to try and critique this movie. it’s not hard to discuss plot, writing, acting, subtext as you say it is. Proof of that would be the fact that almost all here have done so with ease.
and the mirror coin’s going just fine, whatever the hell that means
maybe that got erased. certainly you know what i mean anyway.
my punctuation/structure is somewhat consistent and therefore, at least, readable i assume. clarity is the aim. however, attacking my punctuation and structure is odd since yours’ is a mess. that’s called hypocrisy.
‘proof’ to you is people talking about tedious little things that don’t matter at all in reality. i want to discuss the film in the context of life general. this site was designed for people who didn’t like the film. i didn’t like the film because of its’ lack of heart. i would like to talk about that, you don’t want to. that’s fine. have a nice smiling time!
peace pie
ps. the mirror coin was for mr. dumbass
ok, im attacking you because you were getting all anal retentive over someoens perfectly redeable post when your osts aren’t briliiantly punctuated either. I’m saying that by doing that you’re a hypocrite. That isn’t hypocrisy on my part, thats me sticking up for UrUnforgivenToo. i know my punctation is ass-trocious. coudn’t care either.
Oh, and i’ve said this before, im sure, but ill say it again.
The entire point of this little forum is to discuss a particular detailed aspect of the film. which, for the most part, we have all done, bar you. Maybe the tedious little details DON’T matter in reality, but neither do most of your ramblings. So at least we who discuss the details are relevant.
“certainly you know what i mean anyway.”
um…no, i don’t. would have no idea what the hell you mean. but hey, you are the master of pointless dumb distractions right?
Goodie
Are you kidding me Roger? “maybe that got erased” you are the most stupid type of liar. The only posts of yours that got erased were your multiple one-letter comments that eventually spelled out only two complete words. And now you give tdksucks a childish name like “mr. dumbass”? You can’t be serious. Oh and by the way, what happened to the whole “im not gonna argue with the ‘kids’” thing? And now your criticizing somebody else for supposedly only saying “bullshit” about the film when all you’ve done is repeat your same default comment over and over again on multiple topics and when you werent doing that, you were acting childish and trying to start something with tdksucks for deleting your idiotic comments. You’re one big joke.
whatever this is a waste
i give you info to check out and talk about
you don’t
See roger, thats just it. You don’t give us info to checkout and talk about. Thats the point jac and i have been maing the whole time. when your not rambling incoherently eg
“new and improved!
bigger better faster!
super size me!”
or posting single letters and mirror coin trash and ripping off other peoples poems, your rambling on and on and relentlessly on about not bothering with details and how its made to make money (brilliant deduction there einstien, ya really think directors make movies with the aim of losing money?) and its a rollercoaster.
The only info you give us is repetivitive and skindeep. why would we bother responding to the cliches you serve up? you say one way, we say another. where to then, hmm? thats why we argue details on this site, they allow an arguement to go places rather than deadlock.
I’ll agree with you on one point, you posting on this site is a waste. So don’t
Long Live The Dark Knight
silly boy
fast food movie fanboy
i held out an olive branch
you’re as ass
an ass
sorry
yeah, thats REALLY great info for us to check out and talk about…
an ass…sorry? wtf is that meant to mean? you’re sorry that we have posteriors? or sorry that you are an ass?
I Rest My Case…
i had typed ‘as’ instead of ‘an’ beforehand
‘you’re an ass’ not ‘you’re as ass’
regarding stuff to check out/talk about… i’d just brought up moebius (giraud) and kundera a few posts back. they are new talking points and/or points of reference for the ongoing discussion, etc.
you see, that unforgiven guy was talking about the batman plot being too tricky for everyone that doesn’t like it or something. so i mentioned kundera since his novels are so involved and deep and layered that they’re nearly impossible to turn into films (though they’ve tried). he’s about as far from a batman comic as you can get present day. unlike mccarthy for example. ‘the road’ reads like a script and could be a cool comic book. it’s good. clean. simple. poetic. poignant. bleak. terse. but the novel can exist in a place where nothing else can, and kundrea goes much further in that direction than mccarthy. so the point is, the batman plot ain’t tricky at all, but it does play off the leap of faith often required simply moving from one panel to next in many comic books.
the mention of moebius can take us from comics/comix all the way out there to his collaborations (failed and otherwise) with jodorowsky if so desired. circling back to film you see. you ever see el topo? zippy sez pop some peyote first.
so there’s lots to discuss, even in that single mad meager post.
now back to kundera for a sec., but this time an essay of his, ‘testaments betrayed’ -
“Kafka insisted that his books be printed in very large type. These days that is recalled with the indulgent smile prompted by great men’s whims. Yet nothing about it warrants a smile; Kafka’s wish was justified, logical, serious, related to his aesthetic, or, more specifically, to his way of articulating prose.
An author who divides his text into many short paragraphs will not insist so on large type: a lavishly articulated page can be read rather easily.
By contrast, a text that flows out in an endless paragraph is very much less legible. The eye finds no place to stop or rest, the lines are easily “lost track of.” To be read with pleasure (that is, without eye fatigue), such a text requires relatively large type that makes reading easy and allows one to stop anytime to savor the beauty of the sentences.”
that may help explain my writing style. i think it’s much easier to read than those huge blocks of tiny type. though i have tried to observe the same conventions as you lately out of courtesy, though not always.
here i’m starting to feel like that dude on the old 70s show, “connections,” because i caught some of “annie hall” on tv last week or so, not the whole film, just the funny scene where he (woody) breaks the plain, plane, or whatever it’s called, and speaks right to camera about marshall mcluhan, then suddenly, mcluhan’s right there with him. it inspired me to get down my copy of ‘the medium is the massage.’ inside, i found, not a poet, but a philosopher writing like i sometimes do. the same style much maligned by you and your tenuous cohorts.
here’s a couple laid out exactly as in the book…
All
media
are
extensions
of
some
human
faculty -
psychic
or
physical.
and next…
there
is
absolutely
no
inevitability
as
long
as
there
is
a
willingness
to
contemplate
what
is
happening
also in the same book, McLuhan quotes A. N. Whitehead -
“In the study of ideas, it is necessary to remember that insistence on hard-headed clarity issues from sentimental feeling, as it were a mist, cloaking the perplexities of fact. Insistence on clarity at all costs is based on sheer superstition as to the mode in which human intelligence functions. Our reasonings grasp at straws for premises and float on gossamers for deductions.”
that’s what i’ve been saying all along about the tiny details of tdk, though never as deftly of course.
“The poet, the artist, the sleuth – whoever sharpens our perception tends to be anti-social; rarely “well-adjusted,” he cannot go along with currents and trends. A strange bond often exists among anti-social types in their power to see environments as they really are. This need to interface, to confront environments with a certain antisocial power, is manifest in the famous story, “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” “Well-adjusted” courtiers, having vested interests, saw the Emperor as beautifully appointed. The “antisocial” brat, unaccustomed to that old environment, clearly saw that the Emperor “ain’t got nothin’ on.” The new environment was clearly visible to him.” – Marshall McLuhan’s “The Medium is the Massage”
and that’s exactly what i thought the site would be – a place to interface and confront the evil emperor with antisocial power etc. – oh well, it ain’t. it’s a let-down just like the film it mocks. one dimensional. few here including the site creator talk smart shit. maybe i don’t either, but at least it’s something other than cutting you down or talking nonsense about what is and isn’t possible within the framework of a ridiculous piece of pop-poo.
there’s a few more things to talk about and to check out for yourself. cheers!
“silly boy
fast food movie fanboy
i held out an olive branch
you’re an ass”
You’re a moron. im just logical. i quote from tdksucks’ about segement: “If you haven’t already figured out, this site is focused on explaining why the movie “The Dark Knight” (2008) sucks.”
and later in that post: “Each article posted here will point out a specific problem with the movie.”
read those sentences. understand them. because you clearly haven’t figured it out. THE POINT OF THIS SITE IS TO DISCUSS VARIOUS DETAILS OF ONE FLM AND WHETHER THAT FILM SUCKS. THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE
Maybe the details dont matter in the grand almighty scheme of things. maybe none of us do. thats not the point. i know my posts aren’t going to change anyones opinion. idc either. live and let live. i post to argue over the details. which is really the point of this place. discussing details. if you wants to talk about cormac mccarthy and kundra, go right ahead (im more of a Lee Child fan. His books aren’t groundbreaking but i dont read to have my perceptions altered. i read to get away from the rut of school life).
but not here. because it serves no purpose here. because here, we esentially fall into two groups. Fanboys or anti-fanboys. were not looking for something bigger or grander. we’re quite content to, as you put it “talk nonsense about what is and isn’t possible within the framework of a ridiculous piece of pop-poo.” thats what we do, thats what we like to do and thats what we will do.
i defend this movie for many reasons (those who hate this movie and everything it stands for should look away, following fanboy rant may induce nausea) Because the acting was good. Because it was realistic. Becuase it was faithful to the comics (not in details, im talking tone and overarching themes). but mostly because it tried to be more than just a comic book movie.
Think. Most comic book movies are fairly standard, with little depth and a whole lotta bang for your buck. thats not to say that thats always a bad thing. Escapism is one of the main reasons cinema has such a universal appeal. but rarely do comic book movies try to elevate themselves, to give themselves depth and themes. i can think of one example other than tdk and bb, ang lees Hulk, which tried to do this. the problem wasn’t so much the movie itself (i actually loved it) but the fact that few hulk fans were ready for a deeper interpretation of the hulk (the hulk comics, from memory, arent as in depth characterwise as batman comics tend to be. may be quite wrong there).
i salute TDK because it took a comic book and made a comic book movie which wasn’t just some popcorn thriller. It had themes, it was in depth, it was more than just some skin deep summer roller coaster. Was it perfect? no. but it was original. it did what few comic books have done, indeed what few summer blockbusters have done. it acheived more than mediocrity. it actually had something to say about the world. and thats why i salute it. Becuase if a summer blockbuster can top the box office and yet still manage to be in depth and thematically deep, there is hope still for hollywood.
but its not good enough for me to repeatedly post stuff like that in evey article. if im going to defend the movie, i have to argue what you call the petty shit. and so i will. becuase thats why we are alll here. not to make some glorified social commentary backed up by god knows how many writers. but to argue whether it sucks or does not suck. by arguing the petty shit.
welcome to the party pal
roger, great to see you’re finally trying to communicate, rather than just being a dick for being a dick’s sake.
In the fable the emperor really did have no clothes. The sycophants didn’t see the emperor as beautifully appointed, they just told him he was. All the anti-social brat, as you’ve named him, did was say aloud what everyone else was already thinking.
McLuhan changed the plot to suit his argument.
Furthermore, the analogy completely falls apart if the emperor (say in this case The Dark Knight movie) actually does have clothes on (maybe not the finest ever, but some fairly nice threads), in which case the brat who says his naked isn’t being astute, but merely exaggerates his own opinion (that the clothes aren’t as good as everyone says they are) with hyperbole.
Sound familier?
forgot to reply to this part where you say i say – “…its made to make money (brilliant deduction there einstien, ya really think directors make movies with the aim of losing money?)…”
however, in fact, there are hundreds of directors over the years who couldn’t care less about their film making money… eisenstein for one “einstien” (you meant einstein). the long list would include films made by true artists and films made in communist countries, a large portion of cinema. even hollywood copolla has stated as much, read this article -
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/12/coppola200712
it also talks about, for one, the hell welles went through trying to get money to make anything. crazyness. yet another reason to loathe this 200 million dollar jack-off.
“yet another reason to loathe this 200 million dollar j***-off.”
what, because it got money? You’re going to hate a movie because it got money? Look, so what if it got money…look what it did with it. a summer blockbuster with brains, depth and themes. how many of them were there in recent years? let alone an original summer blockbuster, not to mention A SEQUEL, which is usually an indication of crappola abound. a masterpeiece? maybe not when compared to other movies, but in terms of blockbusters and comic book movies, it is.
Oh, and on a side note, Earlofthercs….I Salute You
yes jimmyboy i agree. however, my point is that too much money and attention are given to this sort of thing. just look at the list of welles’ unfinished films, there must be 50 to 100. can you imagine if 50 to 100 more films of orson welles to see! but there are only 14.
Earlofthercs, sorry if i offend, mainly it’s just play, but more offensive are the personal attacks and name calling that’s been way more prevalent on the fanboy side. and, oddly, you’re presently doing exactly what woody allen was so upset about in ‘annie hall.’ you are, ironically, speaking for mcluhan!!!??!! it’s pretty damn weird since i just posted it and now you’re doing it?! did you see that film? are you really reading???
?
Ta, Jimmyboy. Straight back at ya, chief.
“too much money and attention are given to this sort of thing”
id say the more publicity to films that dont rigidly adhere to the norm the better (as was done to No Country). its a shame that there are 50 to 100 orson welles films out there unfinished, but they aren’t going to be finished (unless someone tries to malign them). so if we give more publicity to films that aren’t brainless stock standard fare (eg TDK) filmakers like welle will be able to make more movies. Granted, TDK isn’t on the same level as alot of the filmakers you list elsewhere, but as a comic book movie its IMO the best out there by far. And in its own right its a damn good movie. so if movies like this get attention, doors will open for other more creative insightful movies in the summer period. hence an improvement in the usually dire summer movie period (zohan, love guru, etc)
maybe so
Jimmyboy, exactly! To compare a summer blockbuster to an `art’ film and say it doesn’t measure up as art is a bit disingenius, but when we compare TDK to other summer blockbusters it comes up quite well, in many ways because it tries to incorporate some of the elements used in `art’ films. If these efforts on the film makers behlaf help brouden the hozirons of the decision makers and the money lenders, film (and the audience) is the ultimate winner.
roger, on the IQ72 thread I think I went a little too far into the ad hominem, sorry.
Also, you said something about my grammatical inconsistencies, I address that here:
http://thedarkknightsucks.com/2008/08/01/these-legos-dont-fit/#comments
cheers
earl/jimmy
but the site states right off -
“If you haven’t already figured out, this site is focused on explaining why the movie “The Dark Knight” (2008) sucks. Part of the reason for putting this site together was to counter the seemingly unquestionable hype surrounding the movie. The viral marketing campaigns, the massive buildup, the fanboys… all leading so many movie-goers to pause critical reasoning and tout the movie as some kind of masterpiece. Further, whenever a dissenting voice is heard to even question such blind praise, it’s as if a blasphemy has been uttered.”
people are saying it IS great art etc., and so let’s just see is my pov
roger,
while people cling to their right to a point of view like a liferaft in a storm, its not as if two coutnering extremists points of view balance each other out. Calling TDK the greatest peice of cinima ever is most certainly a unsupported naive viewpoint and hardly valid (of equal worth to any other as it it), but my contention is that turning around and saying `no it sucks’ is as equally a misinformed and invalid possition (many of the points tdksucks raised in these various posts; particularly ones in regards to science- an area which he clearly has little to know grasp on-have been refuted with actual facts rather than opinon or hyperbole).
If the centrist nature of my politics has effected my approach to arguing on a blog, so be it.
Read “No Man’s Land” for the inspiration of the Joker putting bombs in ferries.
Nolan has never said these movies are realistic. Heck it’s about a man who dresses as a bat to fight crime, like holy shit people what the hell?
ying yang
word
up
wtf is that meant to mean?
Well, allow me to respond.
criss cross
peace
out
jb
you are scarily dense. i give up trying. i thought i could help. it makes me sad. i have been working in film and comics (illustration) for over 30 years. i mentor interns from college on music videos and commercials, etc. if you can’t figure out what ying yang is or how that obviously relates to the previous post then it’s utterly pointless. that comment about the brain and the skull on the other thread was so dim i was shocked, as usual, and then it just kept getting worse. you have almost no understanding or anything whatsoever. i’m sorry. bye.
So roger, do you perhaps for once have any further “evidence” on why Jimmyboy is scarily dense, dim, or doesnt understand anything whatsoever? Of course not, just another not thought out comment to attempt to demean the person it is targeting through opinion alone. No one cares if you supposedly mentor interns on music videos or commercials, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Just another one of your random egotistical comments to try to prove you are better than us. Get over yourself.
roger,
Jimmyboy is 16 years old- I believe he stated elsewhere. If you honestly think he hasn’t shown himself to be quite a thoughtful, competent young man, I’ve afraid for all the students you allegedly mentor.
I understand the yin yang reference- Taoist proponents believe in the art of living requiring a balance of male and female energy forces. And I’m glad that you responded to my post in a relatively thoughtful manner. But applying that belief system to countering viewpoints is a bit of a ham fisted analogy, mate, and you can’t really blame someone else for not getting it.
Besides which, I don’t believe you. No one who has comics (let alone film and music videos) for 30 years could possibly be so ignorant as to the conventions of the medium and incapable of expressing himself. So, unless you pony up some actual evidence I’m going to have to infer that you’ve actually just been trolling and that I’ve been suckered into trying to establish dialogue with you at all these last few weeks.
Jimmy & Jac, swing by my blog sometime, http://www.cookfocus.com, and we can chat like civilised people. About food.
E.
Earl
demeaning!? that’s all i get from fanboys, although earlo has, of late, been a bit more civil (you know, not demeaning).
if you need proof of what’s clearly dense regarding the ‘debate’, then you’re in the same lifeboat as jb (using earl’s good metaphor). but really, how can you not know?! the ‘evidence’ is before you. for one, who cannot grasp the use of ying/yang regarding the post in question? (i certainly hope earlo did). it was, of course, a simple way of acknowledging his comment about balance while also pushing the idea on, suggesting that you do indeed need opposing forces to maintain balance (i am speaking, mostly, of ideology, though it could be anything i guess). or previously, in the other heated topic (low iq), who can’t realize the post of timothy was born in both jest and in defense of the movie itself? yet somehow it inspired an arrogant, ignorant, DEMEANING post from jb!? vicious ‘friendly-fire.’ once again, this is ‘dense’ because timothy was certainly making fun of the site and topic, not the film, and thus, a fanboy himself! there, i’ve said it twice. do you see? and then there’s the recent comment of jb’s about where his brain is actually located?! is it incredibly stale, no no, more like really really moldly sarcasm? or what the hell is that!? it’s silly. the main thing is, these are just the most recent posts, but they’re exactly like the ones way before, all of which serve that topic’s point – tdk fan iq = no good.
sorry.
next you say, “get over yourself.” that is demeaning. and my demeaning reply might be – is that from “idiocracy?” but yeah who cares, why go there unless it’s fun. anyway, when you demean others while accusing others of demeaning you, it is both hypocritical and demeaning at once, it’s sort of double demeaning. in fact, your entire post is demeaning in and of itself. there is nothing else to it. my point was that i am trying look past the haze of a pop wasteland. so i say look, you’ll see stuff i won’t so look, would ya fucking look! and that i, in real life, help others like you so i’m not trying to be an asshole or anything, maybe a thorn when i must, no more. but if you don’t what to see, you don’t. i can’t make you. but yelling at me for trying to show you something is ridiculous. you react as if i’m attacking your religion or race or nationality or family or something. i’m not. it’s a silly movie.
i am no better than you. i do know many things you don’t, have experienced much much much more scary wonderful fucked-up good bad crazy sane life shit heaven hell, have lots more ‘official’ education, and decades of work experience (film biz) BUT i never meant that i am better than you or anyone. sorry if you felt that. if i really am doing that, i will try to correct it. no one is better or worse. and knowledge is over-rated. but seeing isn’t.
one heart
cheers
ps – whoa, hey, HEART! that’s exactly the point i keep saying about this film, it has none, and ultimately that’s the only thing that matters. by ‘one heart’ i mean ‘one heart.’ you know, ONE HEART. if you don’t know what that means (like jb didn’t get ying/yang), it’s basically we’re all the same but it’s much more of course, something felt, abstract but tangible. and, oddly, it can also be used as a somewhat ‘vaguely gut’ universal response to the question posed in this topic – how to be omniscient.
I have no understanding or anything whatsoever? Im scarily dense?
Uh-huh. You care to back that up with anything or is this a reversion to the old roger we all knew and loathed who posted opinions of little substance?
Ying-yang: symbol related to Taoist philosophy. represents two opposing forces, and from memory, the fact that each has a part of the other (hence the little dots). always in a state of competition. its a symbol for duality. I know what ying yang is (more or less).
But just saying those two words isn’t enough. Saying yin yang is meaningless in context to the conversation. Did you mean that the fans and others are constantly in competition? That they are on a certain level all the same? Were you suggesting that there are no degrees, and that we are all either fans or non-fans? Were you just trying to sound smart by stating Taoist philosophy?
See, earl had a stance on the issue. He stated that in a post that was insightful and in-depth, detailed. You responded with what could barely be qualified as a sentence. And because, once again, you fail to use details, your post held no real meaning. The failing isn’t in my understanding; its in your ability to construct and express and opinion in detail.
And once again, you cite the fact you’ve worked in the industry. So? Firstly, that has absolutely no relevance to anything we’re discussing here. And secondly, the best thing about cinema is that anyone can watch it and appreciate it. You don’t need a degree to appreciate good acting. You don’t need to have traveled the world to understand themes. All you need to analyze, understand and appreciate cinema is some intelligence, a reasonable vocabulary and some understanding of the world around you.
Thirty years in the industry doesn’t make you the be-all end all when it comes to movies. If anything, (based on what you’ve stated in previous posts) those thirty years seem to have left you bitter and perpetually resentful of that industry. Which leaves me worried, especially if you are educating the next generation.
And my post on TDK Fans IQ=72 wasn’t dim. Timothy’s posts are dim. Your early posts were dim. Tdksucks trying to credibly use a “batman loves Harvey” argument is dim. Me saying you’re a hypocrite for saying that defending a movie is less good and productive than attacking it isn’t dim. The argument you were trying to run with was certainly dim. But you seem to be confusing attacks on stupid, demeaning, petty generalizations with dim.
And my remarks about the brain were a flippant response to your typically half formed attempts at meaningless questions. Which you should fully appreciate, seeing as you seem to pass of the majority of the intelligence deficient remarks you make as being flippant.
Actually, what offends me most is that you seem to think that you needed to help me. So not only do think your god’s gift to the film industry, you think we need help. I don’t need help, least of all from you. And my understanding is in no way deficient. I UNDERSTAND what the movie was about. I UNDERSTAND the gist of your intelligent comments. I DON’T UNDERSTAND foolish posts and sentences, which are poorly explained, barely thought out, and for the most part, meaningless. That, once again, is not a fault in my understanding, but a fault in your ability to argue points.
“I give up trying”
Please. You gave up about three weeks ago, if your posts are to be believed. Which, as per usual, they aren’t.
“Scarily dense”?
Wrong again. I’m guessing this is just your way of trying to hide the desperate inadequacies of your arguments by demeaning mine.
But, even so, I’d prefer being scarily dense to being as egoistical and as full of hot air as you.
Oh, before I forget, you seem to appreciate saying and quotes in relation to arguments. Here’s a famous one, describes your posts perfectly:
“Full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.”
@ rogers most recent post
where do we begin?
“or previously, in the other heated topic (low iq), who can’t realize the post of timothy was born in both jest and in defense of the movie itself?”
Ok, not everything has some hidden magificent subtext. timothy’s post(s) were attacking the movie. they weren’t some subtle sign of both appreciating and disliking the movie. he was outright attacking it. Which is inherently not a bad thing, we all have an opinion. but when someone, in what is meant to be a site for discussing why a movie does/does not suck intelligently, posts gibberish, i will feel no qualms in attacking them.
“but yelling at me for trying to show you something is ridiculous. you react as if i’m attacking your religion or race or nationality or family or something. i’m not. it’s a silly movie.”
you have labelled us dumb, hypocrites, ignorant, without understanding or comprehension, book burners, people burners, totalitarians, Nazis, typical american mindest teens, morons, sheep, liars, fox news aspirees, silly, fast food movie fanboys, said we need to evolve, accused us of not doing things for the world around us, called us crazy, blind and made assumptions about our political ideologies. and told us to “jac off”
People tend not to really be receptive to your “teachings” when you are derrogatory, demeaning, condescending and outright rude to them. When you weren’t we did manage to have an intelligent debate.
“i’m not trying to be an asshole or anything, maybe a thorn when i must, no more.”
not only do you acheive being an a$$hole on a regular basis, you take to previously unreached heights. with large doses of hypocrisy.
Take your most recent post. the second paragraph is basically you labeling fanboys as dense and unable to understand things. and you mock them.
In the next paragraph, you state that we’re being hypocrites for being demeaning and that you have never personally attacked us. what, i suppose the multitudes of insults in the first paragraph were more encouraging/flippant remarks?
First paragraph: demeaning fanboys
Second paragraph: criticisms at fanboys for being demeaning hypocrites.
Riiiiiiiight. See the slight problem there?
duh
my god and you still believe timothy was attacking the film!?
it is beyond belief.
if you got ying yang why did you make a stupid comment that you didn’t get it.
and even when i spell everything out for you still you try your hardest to look past what is. amazing. you pull what you want and take everything out of context. remember… faux news tactics?
hopeless. bullshit.
it’s sick you spew ego poo after yet another offering… one heart.
read and comprehend. you keep missing the boat.
I think you made many good points in your post. Normally, I would not watch such a film, but I was indeed attracted to watch it because of the hype surrounding it and the glaring critic reviews.
I was expecting a good action movie with a dark edge/feel to it. I enjoyed the movie “The Crow” which I rate a much better film. The fight scenes and action scenes were completely incomprehensible. The “machine gun type” editing during such scenes looked like it was done by MTV twenty-somethings who had overdosed on some bad Red-Bull.
The soundtrack was also poorly done and over done. In a nut shell, I hate action movies that take themselves too seriously. This is not Citizen Kane for God’s sake!
I felt terrible watching great actors like Bale, Ledger, and Eckhart being reduced to psycho-babble. Bale sounding like a bad Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry wannabe and carried on in a “make my day punk” voice for two and a half hours. And as much as I admire Ledger, I was not too impressed with what he came up with as far as the Joker persona, including the obnoxious and fake sounding voice/accent, ugly suit, and creepy washed-out make-up.
Once again, I did not expect to see a Kurosawa, Bergman, or Kubrick film here. I wanted action and entertainment, and I feel I was badly let down in that regard. What I found was a complete train-wreck and disjointed mess of a film, with pretentions of being in the category of such directors and world class cinema that I mentioned.
I very much liked Nolan’s previous work such as Memento and my only explanation of what happened here with Dark Knight, was it was a brave and bold experiment in film making, that just went horribly wrong.
benson
yes, but…
it was not a brave and bold experiment gone horribly wrong
it was a tired old ploy that always works
work for hire
work for cash
not for the ‘work’
just work
any pretense otherwise offends
it is, more than anything else, about making money
that’s why it’s so utterly lifeless
yum goodie, more readily-digestible-slop, easily-pooed baby-food
lord keep us hopelessly numb and always led by petty fools, amen
And the old roger is back!
Wow, he’s back. again. Never would have seen that one coming.And look! the same old song and dance! (actually that is a bit of a shock. i was expecting the loathsome hypocrite rather than the cliche)
dearest roger
@ your second most recent post (becuase your first one warrants an entire post of its own)
“my god and you still believe timothy was attacking the film!?
it is beyond belief.”
I read timothy’s explanations after i posted that. do i still beleive it now? no.
that said, earl posted some excellent reasons why i would be misguided by the satire. Majority of them were true. not gonna go into it here because, heck, Earl did it better than i would’ve (thanks for that btw, Earl)
“if you got ying yang why did you make a stupid comment that you didn’t get it”
If you could “read and comprehend” as you said in your post, you would understand that i did not get your post. Because, well, to be frank, it was stupid. I could say a string of random words to you. You understand the individual meaning of these words, yes. Just like i understoodthe term ying yang. But without a clear meaning and structure (something your post lacked in spades) the sentence becomes goobledegook. Meaningless. you might think my comments are stupid. but at least im capable of writing posts which people understand.
“it’s sick you spew ego p** after yet another offering… one heart.”
well, firstly, i wasn’t spewing ego p**. actually, if my memory serves, vomit is something you spew, and p** is something you…well, im sure you get the concept. But aside from the mixed metaphors; lets focus on your ridiculous concept of offering…
okay, firstly, you cannot feasibly claim to be trying to make the peace when you insult us at the same time. it’s like declaring a cease fire by emptying mortars on the opposition.
the “ego” comment. well, if your saying my posts are egotistical, they aren’t. If your unhappy i’m attacking some of the egotistical tripe you came up with well…aren’t egotistical people generally unhappy when they are attacked?
and the one heart. well, quite frankly i didn’t comment on the philosophy junk because the “were all the same at heart” was not really relevant. and i hate philosophy. spend more time on the actual living then wondering why you do, imo.
the comment about the movie being heartless has been addressed by me before, so why bother doing it again. and the attempt at linking the one heart concept to the topic was (aside from being very very very thin) laughable. so i just ignored the junk and focused on the far meatier, far more ridicule worthy offerings further up the article. but seeing as you have taken issue with this, ill attack the one heart stuff too. becuase all poor arguements are, i suppose, equal:
the joker was at heart totally different from everyone else. because he was heartless. Surely the “watch the world burn” part gave that away?
an understanding of the human psyche (and an inherently flawed one at that) is different to “one heart”. The joker had an understanding of the human psyche. Not “one heart”. such a thing as “one heart” would have enabled such feelings as empathy and sympathy. and even if his ability to predict peoples actions stemmed from the heart, and perhaps the greater linked concept of “soul”, it was clearly different from others hearts. Because he was sure those boats were gonna go bang.
“you pull what you want and take everything out of context”
Well, I can’t possibly take EVERYTHING out of context if I only pick and choose, now can I? Literary contradictions aside, i dont pull what i want. I only quote a few sentences, sure. why bother copying and pasting paragraphs? its painful for the people who read this to have to scroll through what they’ve already read.
Besides which, they can get the picture from those sentences usually. and if you read the posts i address numerous points later in those paragraphs. I didn’t pick and choose in my last post. i attacked every worthy point you brought up. Sure maybe i attack the big picture rather than constantly picking at specifics. But I seem to remember you advocating pushing the big picture, so surely your not saying this is a bad thing. i mean, if you feel im not going in-depth enough, tough s**t. Neither did you when it came to discussing the film.
But what am i blowing out of context exactly? i mean, i know you don’t bother with the details, but care to explain where i’ve done that? (Or is it another one of your generalisations to deflect from your own inadequacies?)
If you thought i was blowing your insults out of proportion, i wasn’t. i actually went over all your posts looking for the various things you have labelled us as. If anything, its more likely i missed some of the insults.
As i’ve said before, you give me more than enough to write about without the need to take things out of context.
But if your going to insult me, try to at leat be somewhat specific. don’t use fox-worthy generalisations and make stuff up. It should, judging by some of the intelligent stuff you’ve said (yes, it can happen. shame it didn’t here), be beneath you.
but, i mean, look at you. Yet to list why you thought the movies i listed elsewhere were bad, totally ignored my point that you cant have it both ways, namely, kiss and make up and insult us. totally ignoring the fact your hypocrisy undermines what COULD, just COULD, be semi decent posts. totally ignoring that you are the one who resorts to the fox type bs.
You pick and choose, ignore what i say and only address a few points while you totally ignpre others. But i guess you’ll justify that with “details dont matter”?
Oh, and at your final comment
“read and comprehend. you keep missing the boat.”
Well, judging by your lack of ability to comprehend what i say, id say its actually more a case of you not understanding that i’m not missing boats. Becuase i hate sea travel. so i use planes. Not my fault if you can’t get that.
and if you can’t get that metaphor, you only further prove it.
and continuing this epic feud of ours,
Roger, at your most recent post.
did the break from posting cause some form of degeneration? I could have sworn we’d progressed from this tripe. but clearly we haven’t, so rebuttal is neccesary.
“it was not a brave and bold experiment gone horribly wrong
it was a tired old ploy that always works”
Lets just see, a movie which, aside from the use of IMAX in a feature film (bold, bold move), has a fairly in depth social commentary, great script and acting, and confounds the usual types of genre expectations we see in cinema (the love interest died, unhappy ending, fairly effing bleak) is your idea of tired? nope. Brave and bold. definitely not tired. Because if it was tired and old, the same old same old, why are people still going to see it?
BECAUSE IT WAS DIFFERENT (and if anyone seriously thinks its because of all the hype and viral marketing, that died almost as quckly as the first bank robber)
“work for hire
work for cash
not for the ‘work’
just work”
If you read interviews with cast and crew, they all enjoyed it. they all loved doing it. and of course they work for cash and hire. we all do. It’s their job. people should get paid for doing their job. would you still stay in your job if your paycheck went away? no doubt you will in a self-righteous fury (and to save face) say “of course”. but no-one expects to have do something for nothing at their job. Actors, like us, have to make a living. They make a living by getting paid to do their jobs. and in this case, they did their jobs brilliantly.
“any pretense otherwise offends
it is, more than anything else, about making money
that’s why it’s so utterly lifeless”
uh-huh. well the pretense that copy pasting this tripe constitutes an answer certainly offends. Especially when this has been answered. So what if the big exec want the movie to make money? the cast, director, camera people, editors, stuntmen, all the people who contributed set out to make a good movie. Gave us a great one. and the proof of this is in the final product. If you think it sucked and was lifeless then really i pity you. Because you missed a truly excellent film.
moving on to more general less specific points, DIDN’T WE DO THIS ALREADY?!!! This type of copy paste clone response trash is ridiculous. Your “arguements” were already ridiculed and shut down hard over a month ago. the only “readily-digestible-slop, easily-p**ed baby-food” with any relation to this movie would be YOUR POSTS. I mean, if you were going to make the same point again, ffs, couldn’t you try a bit harder to do it better and slighlty more in-depth? Or original?
to paraphrase from one of my fvourite bands:
Meet the new roger, same as the old roger.
Oh, and because you like to end with pyscho-philosophical babble:
i have been considering this feud of ours and come to the disturbing conclusion that we need each other. allow me to ellaborate before any romantic conclusions are reahced: I’m the joker, your batman.
you just can’t leave and keep coming back for more because you want to prove a point (even though you can’t win). Me? I think your just to much fun! In all seriousness, tdksucks isn’t even trying to come up with good articles (or reply to good arguements against him) so really your the only enjoyable opposition left. Much more to sink my teeth into there. and without you its just not worth it. So in a sense we really do complete each other. As you said, yin and yang
“We’re just gonna go round and round, aren’t we?”
Yes, we probably will. So bring it.
Wow, he’s back. again. Never would have seen that one coming.And look! the same old song and dance! (actually that is a bit of a shock. I was expecting the loathsome hypocrite rather than the cliche)! Wait who are talking about? You or me?
Anyway, in short, the Dark Knight has no flaws, and I’ll prove it by writing whole paragraphs based more on subjectivity than actual facts because I can’t back up shit. Fear my longer paragraphs of drivel!
I love the way this cinematic masterpiece confounds the archetype of Girl inside the Fridge by playing it straight (Rachel Dawson: Sacrificial lamb), or my blindness over the fact that, had Heath Ledger not died and had Warner Brothers not used up a million dollar budget to overhype this movie, then this movie would be your run-of-the-mill summer blockbuster to the tune of “At World’s End.”
Case in point, if Heath Ledger were alive today, would there be this much hype to this movie? Also, whatever happened to the Oscar talk? Yes, this movie will stand the test of time; in a mere months it went from number one to number three, even faster than how Return of the King fell from its number one spot in the laughably shallow IMDB ratings.
Now see me talk about the cast and crew enjoying making this movie, which… really doesn’t address anything at all, but I’ll just mention it, because I’m that big of a ‘genius-and-totally-not-biased’ fanboy who loves to post novels in an Internet forum until I ‘win’ the debate not through my points, but by volume. It’s not the quality, it’s the quantity, and the Dark Knight is all about quantity. Quality, not so much, but who cares about that? It made money! Just like Michael Bay makes money! Just like Wall Mart makes money! Just like McDonalds make money! Why do they do it! Multimillion dollar propaganda that I’ve become a sheep to–I mean, high quality products!
So if you want to talk to me more about how much more Dark Knight balls I’m willing to suck till even I’m embarrassed with what I’m saying, Ronald–I mean, Roger, then bring it. And if you’ve read through everything written here, then you either have Aspergers or your handle is Jimmyboy.
I win the Internets! ^_^
@ the other Jimmyboy (now there’s an opening i never thought i’d type)
you do realise that i haven’t needed to actually bother bringing up actual facts because this conversation moved focus from facts to basically a feud between me and roger? i mean, if you actually were me and could read you’d know that.
but you want some facts so here goes:
Above poster: not me
Above poster: tool
Satisfied?
and of course what i type is subjective. so is what every person on this site types. we have an opinion we express, ergo we are in some small way biased and subjective.
but now to pull apart your attepmt at…whatever that was. an argument? satire? failed at both, but anyway…
“I love the way this cinematic masterpiece confounds the archetype of Girl inside the Fridge by playing it straight (Rachel Dawson: Sacrificial lamb)”
Using that as one small example of the ways in which it confounds the summer blockbuster stereotype. had you read my post, you’d have noticed others. i could have mentioned other stuff. but, because you’re me apparently, you’d know i already used that against roger a while back! but for your (my?) benefit, here goes:
character focus as opposed to action, questions certain aspects of society, deals with deeper themes than good/evil, actually deals with good/evil in an intelligent manner, good acting… get the picture?
“Case in point, if Heath Ledger were alive today, would there be this much hype to this movie? ”
nope. but it would still be a good movie. because hype is irrelevant to movie quality! so what if it was over hyped? doesn’t make it any better or worse a movie. just influences how many people see it in the opening weeks really. oh, and if the imdb ratings are so laughably shallow, why did you decide to use them to back up an argument in the other article?
“Now see me talk about the cast and crew enjoying making this movie, which… really doesn’t address anything at all”
It addresses roger’s above post. now, if you could read, you would know that. but seeing as you can’t even spell your own name, im guessing thats a little bit too much to ask of you. my apologies
and finally, the money argument! so not only do you use my name, your arguments are an amalgamation of rogers worst arguments and some unoriginal rehash of the communist manifesto. money=bad? c’mon. tall poppy syndrome isn’t an arguement. its a self esteem issue. oh, wait, almost forgot, you have lots of those dont you? i mean, someone who uses another persons name to “win the internets” clearly has problems.
So i’m a sheep am I? well, see, if i was a sheep i wouldn’t recycle other people’s arguements and other peoples names to prove other peoples already made points.
and you should fear my long paragraphs. clearly you can’t reply to them very well. anyways, nice talking to you. now go back to grade one, day one and learn your name. i look forward to the bleating that will constitute your next reply.
So in conclusion, I, Jimmboy have somehow figured out the one real and true opinion about TDK. Just how did I come to this impressive insight without being biased by my own personal opinions and points of view? Because I say so. By just saying like so many others only I know what is right and anybody that disagrees is wrong. Thank you.
first off, regarding previous posts about the ability of crazy people being able to function well enough to wire explosives, that just isn’t true. i am both a legal genius and certifiably insane. thankfully, i am in control of my mind for most of the time. and i can certainly function on a day-to-day basis. this proves that it is at least possible, though not entirely probablr, for the Joker’s henchmen to have rigged everything up properly to successfully blow up the hospital.
on a more general note, and as a message to tdksucks, what your hoping to accomplish, correct me if i am wrong, but you are trying to get EVERYONE to admit that The Dark Knight was NOT a masterpiece that some people are painting it. this goal is just implausible. i doubt that there has been a single person, event, or thing, in the history of mankind that EVERYONE has had the same stance on (again, if you have an example, let me know). furthermore, as a message to everyone leaving messages here, if you are trying to convince someone else on this thread regarding something, just scroll down the entire page. you should see everybody, whether for or against The Dark Knight, either attempting to persuade someone else to their point of view, or stubbornly refusing to listen to the other sides points, whether reasoned or not. there really is no reason to ridicule others, no matter what side they are on, for their beliefs.
final point— as i just mentioned, we really shouldnt be getting angry with others for their beliefs or thoughts. so if you really feel so strongly against what i am saying, try to keep it to yoruself. it isn’t getting anybody anywhere if we continuously bash each others views and opinions.
—Ben
The recent attack on Mumbai (India) is a prime example of how a well-planned and well-executed multi-stage terrorist operation can bring a city to its knees.
An apparently well-guarded city is persistently shaken by the many parts of a single, multi-part act of terror and brought to a grinding standstill (curfew was declared in the affected parts of the city and schools, colleges and most offices were shut) – just like in Gotham. And despite the presence of Federal personnel in both cases, the terrorist(s) continued with further violent acts.
Hell, the Joke had it far easier as he had immense indigenous support from the mafia men and the insane specimens who he seemed to attract (he certainly wasn’t doing this alone, as some seem to be thinking) to set up and carry out the terror pieces he planned. This goes against all those who claim that it is impossible to hold a modern city to ransom.
My heart goes out to all the victims of Mumbai’s attacks and roger’s rants.
To the webmaster of this site: I think you make a good point. I hadn’t thought about the realism that Nolan wanted to bring to the franchise until I was watching TDK on DVD ilast month. When I first saw TDK, I was wowed by it. Months later…I don’t know what happened. I suppose it was the seriousness of everything going on now. The election, the economy, the stock market. I just saw the movie differently. My thing was this: early in the film it was said that the Joker had ripped off five of the Mob’s banks. My thought was the Mob would have been on alert at their other banks after the first was robbed. That would mean, once the Mob saw a bunch of guys trying to rob their banks the mobsters would have been ready to kill them. So I agree that Nolan lost focus or something. I thought Batman Begins had a more plausible storyline but TDK’s falls apart immediately at the opening sequence.
Here are my responses in order:
1. I recall he stole over 50 million dollars from a bank at the beginning.
2. He could pay people to move them in in disguise, using the money he stole.
3. People are crazy, and once again, 50 MILLION DOLLARS.
4. *Sigh* 50 million dollars.
5. He thinks things through, unlike you and your questions.
how to be omnipotent? well if this movie teaches us something aside from the stupid and pretentious hollywood philosophy is that being skinny, crazi, having scars and use make up makes a person a demigod.
look, this is a movie, i mean for example, hulk, how could that be real… ahh its not , ironman FLYING faster then 5 F-22 Raptors, ahh its a movie, and batman, ITS A MOVIE!!!! i mean the way you look at movies, there all flawed, who cares how he got them, like the above comment, he stole millions from a bank, and ive never seen an actor be scary,funny and cool at the same time,i respect your comments on the movie but the truth is its great,its the 4th highest-grossing film ever,its the best adaptation of the batman and you got to remember its a comic,just like superman,thats like me saying how come superman looks soo human like, ITS A MOVIE!!!
you watched this movie wanting it to suck mate
it is a fuckin movie!!!!
nobody apart from a stupid douche like you would state all these, “where did he get this, “how did he do this” bla bla bla.nobody cares about them apart from you soquit being a smug idiot
It’s a movie guys! Shakespeare wasn’t realistic (witches etc) but he told good stories. Lets leave it at that.
Ps TDKsucks is a faggot
You mad?
“people like a little thrill, but generally there’s not much to a roller coaster ride, though there could be i guess”
These people saying it’s just the experience and crap are all IDIOTS.
Let’s use a good quote to make my point (the quote is about Avatar):
“so people say to me that Avatar wasn’t supposed to be about the plot. It was about feeling the experience of being on Pandora. Oh, is that what all this 3D shit is going to turn movies into? Like theme park rides? Like I probably wouldn’t bitch about the plot to ‘The Star Trek Experience’, or ‘Jurassic Park: The ride’, ’cause it’s like, a ride. Like, you know, Pirates of the Caribbean! Shit, that’s been in 3D for for 40 years!”
Ok, that was a long quote, but here’s the point:
It’s a movie. When it comes to movies, of all types, you have a RIGHT to complain about plot elements in the film, because movies are PLOT DRIVEN. If the plot is simple, the complaints won’t be that many, but if the plot is supposed to be complex like TDK is, then a LOT of room for problems will ultimately lead to a justified list of complaints.
TDK IS NOT A THEME PARK RIDE. DON’T PRETEND LIKE IT IS. It isn’t “just a movie”.
You can like it or dislike it, in fact, I liked it. But the facts remain: There are FLAWS in the movie, so don’t dispel any argument brought up simply because “it’s supposed to be entertainment.”