Wouldn’t keeping the Joker alive jeopardize the Dent cover-up?

Started by The Laughing Fish, Mon, 23 Mar 2015, 11:22

Previous topic - Next topic
Fri, 3 Nov 2017, 23:42 #50 Last Edit: Sat, 4 Nov 2017, 00:40 by The Laughing Fish
Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Fri,  3 Nov  2017, 14:23
But another thing that really bugs me about the final confrontation is everyone ignores the elephant in the room. Two Face is blaming Gordon and Batman for Rachel's death. These are the people who tried to save her. No one addresses that.

From what I can remember, Two-Face blamed Gordon for ignoring him about the corrupt cops working in his task force, like Ramirez, earlier on in the film. Gordon continued to have blind faith, which backfired because they were apparently instrumental in Rachel's demise. Which paints Gordon in an even worse light in addition to his involvement in the cover-up.

The only reason why Two-Face would blame Batman is because his ineffectiveness and willingness to turn himself over to the police till Dent intervened, paved the way for the tragedy that unfolded afterwards. Beyond that, I can't think of a reason why.

This is only goes to show that all of the "good" guys in this movie were tainted by their own incompetent buffoonery. Of course, we can blame the writing for that.
QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri,  3 Nov  2017, 23:42From what I can remember, Two-Face blamed Gordon for ignoring him about the corrupt cops working in his task force, like Ramirez, earlier on in the film. Gordon continued to have blind faith, which backfired because they were apparently instrumental in Rachel's demise. Which paints Gordon in an even worse light in addition to his involvement in the cover-up.

The only reason why Two-Face would blame Batman is because his ineffectiveness and willingness to turn himself over to the police till Dent intervened, paved the way for the tragedy that unfolded afterwards. Beyond that, I can't think of a reason why.

This is only goes to show that all of the "good" guys in this movie were tainted by their own incompetent buffoonery. Of course, we can blame the writing for that.
The writing in constructing flawed characters capable of making big mistakes that the movie calls out as legitimate mistakes. Good guys are just as capable of making the wrong choices, as bad guys are at making the right choices. We, as normal humans, are fallible. Harvey actually never shows anger towards Batman for the situation in trying to kill him. He only shoots him because Batman takes responsibility and Harvey accepts that. But if there would be a reason, Harvey would likely be angry that Batman saved him and not Rachel. When Batman enters the warehouse, Harvey yells at him, "No! Not me! Why are you coming for me?!" Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Characters make decisions that nobody would and that's okay. It happens all the time. A lot of times, it works because while we're watching the movie, it makes sense emotionally. The problem with The Dark Knight's ending is that their decision didn't feel right and that what it did feel like was a movie forcing its point.

Characters make decisions that no one would in real life and that's okay. It happens all the time in movies. A lot of times, it works because it makes sense emotionally. The problem with The Dark Knight's ending is that their decision didn't feel right and that what it did feel like was a movie forcing its point.

Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Tue,  7 Nov  2017, 02:31Characters make decisions that nobody would and that's okay. It happens all the time. A lot of times, it works because while we're watching the movie, it makes sense emotionally. The problem with The Dark Knight's ending is that their decision didn't feel right and that what it did feel like was a movie forcing its point.
Emotionally, for Bruce, it makes perfect sense. Bruce throughout the movie expresses guilt for the actions of the Joker and a self-loathing for his identity of Batman in the belief he has in Harvey Dent's approach, along with his belief that Harvey is the key to the city's hope and positive change. The end is him reinforcing the ideas that he's developed throughout the whole movie. Bruce sees Batman as a negative thing, so he literally makes Batman seem like the villain, sees Harvey as the pure hero and key to the city's hope and tries to make him a martyr for the city to rally around, along with him seeing himself as the cause of the Joker's mayhem, so he puts himself as the literal cause of Harvey's death in the mind of the people. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

It's about making emotional sense to us, not the characters. A character's illogical decisions, rationalizations, that's the only way they work. It's not enough to put in themes, ideas, motivations, you have to make them resonate. This scene didn't do that.

Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Tue,  7 Nov  2017, 15:22It's about making emotional sense to us, not the characters. A character's illogical decisions, rationalizations, that's the only way they work. It's not enough to put in themes, ideas, motivations, you have to make them resonate. This scene didn't do that.
That's an opinion. Emotional resonance is an opinion. We can't base it off of what we feel in the structure of those things, because emotionally our perception can shift and it's not a reliable indicator of it's or quality.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue,  7 Nov  2017, 21:38
Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Tue,  7 Nov  2017, 15:22It's about making emotional sense to us, not the characters. A character's illogical decisions, rationalizations, that's the only way they work. It's not enough to put in themes, ideas, motivations, you have to make them resonate. This scene didn't do that.
That's an opinion. Emotional resonance is an opinion. We can't base it off of what we feel in the structure of those things, because emotionally our perception can shift and it's not a reliable indicator of it's or quality.
I don't think I agree with that. Like, at all. A movie's structure, conflicts and resolutions need to grab the audience on a visceral level. If it fails to do that, it may be otherwise well-constructed on a technical level but it failed in its mission.

Plus, your thesis doesn't allow for changing perceptions. Take me, for example. I'll never be confused with being a fan of the movie Superman Returns. There's just too much water under that particular bridge as far as I'm concerned.

But I caught some scenes from it a few months ago and certain elements made a bigger impact on me than they did ten'ish years ago when the movie came out. The movie itself obviously hasn't changed. But I have. I'm in a different phase of life and have been shaped by different experiences. Specifically, fatherhood.

That gives me a perspective that I lacked previously. The movie itself is no different now than before. But I am different on a personal level and connect better with some of Superman's issues in that movie.

I should say that I'm also the same guy who took his jolly sweet time to accept Nolan's Batman. And it was TDKRises and the prospect of giving Batman a The End which he'd never had before that really turned me around about those films. They're the same now as they've always been. But my perspective has shifted and that's made a difference (a bigger difference for Nolan than for Superman Returns, obviously, but still).

Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue,  7 Nov  2017, 21:38
We can't base it off of what we feel in the structure of those things..

The point of art is to illicit an emotional response. So, yes we can.

Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Wed,  8 Nov  2017, 04:21The point of art is to illicit an emotional response. So, yes we can.
Then now we're just arguing our emotional opinion. Which is pointless, because they're different. If we're not discussing facts, then this conversation means nothing. If we're gonna discuss a movie, then our feelings about it can't be relevant, because then we have nothing to discuss, just talking about how we feel about it, which means nothing to the development of the story or the characters, just our feelings about it.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue,  7 Nov  2017, 22:48I don't think I agree with that. Like, at all. A movie's structure, conflicts and resolutions need to grab the audience on a visceral level. If it fails to do that, it may be otherwise well-constructed on a technical level but it failed in its mission.
Who decides what grabs an audience? What if it grabs one group, but doesn't grab another? There's no meaning to visceral-ness, because it's just another emotional reaction to something. And that doesn't equal anything. Some people think the ending of TDKR is garbage for the reasons you say you came around to it. Whose right? If the answer is both, then there's no point in having a discussion about any of these things.
QuotePlus, your thesis doesn't allow for changing perceptions. Take me, for example. I'll never be confused with being a fan of the movie Superman Returns. There's just too much water under that particular bridge as far as I'm concerned.
I said that perceptions change. That's why it's a very flawed way for humans to view fiction. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!