quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: I personally would be gunning for control over the trigger to throw it out the window. One of my friends I saw the movie with said he would be the one to turn the key.
Just wondering: would taking it upon yourself to presumably doom at least one boat load of people against the wishes of the majority not have weighed heavily on your conscience?
I don't want to turn this into a moral debate or anything like it, but heck yes it would. However, given the option to either turn the key myself, sit by while someone else turned the key, or throw the key overboard, I'm reasonably confident now, sitting in my comfy chair in an office, that throwing the key overboard would weigh on my conscious less than the other two. For the short amount of my time my conscience existed before being blown to bits that is .
posted
Although I'm ashamed to say it I would be able to turn the key and It wouldn't way me down too much. Though from the starting I had the suspicion that the key blew their own boat.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
This is akin to saying "if terrorists came to my school I would grab the gun out of their hands if presented the opportunity" in reality the fight or flight response we will almost certainly never know.
I have a sneaking suspicion I would turn the key though, I'm like Achilles, I can't stand the thought of my fate resting in other people's hands.
IP: Logged |
posted
I like to think most of us wouldn't turn the key ourselves; the bigger question is, would you accept giving someone else the responsibility for doing so if you could do so annonymously?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to know why so many people are ready to believe something a known lunatic/terrorist says will happen. No idea what I'd really do in that situation, but I'd like to believe I'd toss it out the window as well.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's the real difference between turning the key yourself and letting someone else do it with your blessing? For that matter, I don't see much of a difference between turning the key and tossing it out the window. If you look at it objectively both actions doom at least one boat. The latter only appears more noble because you happen to be among the people who you decide to kill, so no one can say you did it just for self-preservation. But assuming the Joker was telling the truth, turning a key at least saves one boat while tossing it doubles the chances that BOTH will be destroyed.
Ignoring the chance of rescue, every choice results in at least one ferry being destroyed, and turning a key is the only choice that guarantees that ONLY one is destroyed. So I think I would have turned the key and slept soundly.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose the difference is whether you choose to accept the situation at your killer's level or refuse. The discussion seems to make a strong case that one can't take it as a given that throwing the switch will do what the Joker says it will, but putting that aside, there's the argument that the only person who can really judge the value of a life and whether it is acceptable under the circumstances to end it is the person who has lived it.
If you reduce it to a simpler level: "Here's a knife. Your friend has a knife. You have one minute to kill your friend, or have your friend kill you, or I'll kill you both", on a realistic level you have no reason to believe the person offering you such terms intends to let you live no matter what occurs. But on a moral level, even if you can accept the situation at face value, you still arguably have a moral directive not to kill- to refuse to accept responsibility for taking another human life, and refusing to accept that the killer's willingness to take both lives is tantamount to your unwillingness being complicity in both murders.
The difference between mass complicity in a murder and direct responsibility may be more psychological than real, but human nature seems to drive home again and again that people would rather be indirectly responsible for death- or be willing to believe themselves responsible for 1/128th of a death, or some such, than the striker of the killing blow. I'm told that real-world firing squads often have a large number of the shooters firing blanks, and gas chambers, hanging posts, and electric chairs are often rigged with multiple switches so none of the switch-pullers or shooters necessarily knows on whom the actual responsibility falls.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just wondering: would taking it upon yourself to presumably doom at least one boat load of people against the wishes of the majority not have weighed heavily on your conscience?
But see, throwing the detonator out the window isn't what dooms anyone. The Joker putting explosives on the boat with the intent of murdering people is what dooms everyone. NOT turning the key and murdering the other boat is not the same as dooming your own boat. The Joker is doing that.
Personally if the other boat was *only* fully of convicts, I might be able to buy the "they're criminals anyway, let's just blow 'em up" argument, but since there are cops and crew there that point becomes moot. Turning the key is killing those people.
Is not turning the key killing everyone, when the Joker blows them up at midnight? No. Because that responsbility rests with the Joker.
I guess it depends if you believe in maximizing moral behavior (people die, but at least we aren't murderers) or lives (we should blow up one boat, to save the other, no sense both boats blowing up).
The former decision is actually easier in this case because the latter decision might result in one boat blowing up only to have the Joker blow up the other anyway. So you have multiplication of murderers and no lives saved anyway, a complete failure.
Personally I figure there's no point in playing the games of people that setup the "you kill this person or I'll kill both of you" scenarios. If they are setting that up anyway, they are already evil murderers so why believe anything they say about the outcome? I wouldn't murder someone if I *knew* it would save my own butt so I'm certainly not going to murder someone based on the *chance* of surviving.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen the film yet, mind, but is there any particular reason why everyone stayed on the boats?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I haven't seen the film yet, mind, but is there any particular reason why everyone stayed on the boats?
I forget, but Joker was watching the boats pretty closely, from a pretty high vantage point. He might have mentioned a stipulation that if anyone thinks of escaping, he'll blow both boats. But, I forget.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I haven't seen the film yet, mind, but is there any particular reason why everyone stayed on the boats?
I forget, but Joker was watching the boats pretty closely, from a pretty high vantage point. He might have mentioned a stipulation that if anyone thinks of escaping, he'll blow both boats. But, I forget.
He did indeed say that. Or at least, that's what I remember. It might have been "Anyone tries to escape, I blow both boats." Something like that.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm starting to think that this discussion needs its own thread. Anyway...
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
quote:Just wondering: would taking it upon yourself to presumably doom at least one boat load of people against the wishes of the majority not have weighed heavily on your conscience?
But see, throwing the detonator out the window isn't what dooms anyone. The Joker putting explosives on the boat with the intent of murdering people is what dooms everyone. NOT turning the key and murdering the other boat is not the same as dooming your own boat. The Joker is doing that.
I think the difference between how I see this and how you see it is that you're thinking primarily of responsibility and I'm just thinking of results. No matter who dies or who does what with what key it's the Joker's responsibility. Nobody in either boat asked to be in the situation. But the fact remains that eliminating one switch increases the odds of everyone dying for the sake of somebody's clear conscience.
Objectively, I think that blame and responsibility shouldn't be considered. The best choice is the one that minimizes lives lost. Throwing the detonator away is like saying "I don't care who dies so long as it's the Joker's fault, not mine".
However, my views are based on the assumptions that the Joker is telling the truth and there is no chance of outside intervention. I wouldn't make either assumption in reality.
quote:If you reduce it to a simpler level: "Here's a knife. Your friend has a knife. You have one minute to kill your friend, or have your friend kill you, or I'll kill you both", on a realistic level you have no reason to believe the person offering you such terms intends to let you live no matter what occurs. But on a moral level, even if you can accept the situation at face value, you still arguably have a moral directive not to kill- to refuse to accept responsibility for taking another human life, and refusing to accept that the killer's willingness to take both lives is tantamount to your unwillingness being complicity in both murders.
In this situation if you throw you knife away then you've decided to forfeit your own life. That's fine. With the ferries, if you throw the key away you've chosen to forfeit the lives of hundreds of people without their consent. I think there's a difference.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Watched it again today. The Joker definitely says that if anyone tries to jump ship, he'll just up and destroy both boats.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I saw the movie, and thought it was excellent. But I'm not quite at the level of fanboy love that the rest of the world seems to be at.
I thought it was very cool. But I think I liked Batman Begins better.
I'll probably see it again, so maybe seeing it knowing what's going to happen and not having whatever expectations i had coming in will change things. We'll see.
Though I will say the magic trick was brilliant.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This isn't just me jumping on a hype train, but this was one of the best movies I've ever seen.
I was tense for about half of the movie. I didn't breathe for the last fifteen minutes. When the movie was over I just sat there, dumbfounded. I didn't know what to say. That has never happened to me.
I know some of you will just regard that as stupid fanboyish hyperbole, but it's not. I've never really liked Batman (besides Batman Begins). I didn't have great hopes for the movie. This wasn't confirmation bias.
Honestly, after watching the Dark Knight, other forms of entertainment seem flat by comparison. It'll wear off eventually, I know, but right now it's about all I can think about. But still, there were certain scenes and themes of the movie that are pretty much permanently burned into my mind.
Posts: 290 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw the movie tonight, I have to say I was enthralled. Other than that, everything I can say would pretty much echo what Strider said.
I would definitely say the last two movies have been excellent, where as the previous two have been horrible. Arnold as Dr. Freeze? Clooney as Batman? What was hollywood thinking?
Apparently somebody got their crap together with these movies.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, was I the only person who didn't laugh at the "magic trick"? Maybe I didn't catch what really happened, but from what I saw it looked like the Joker slammed the guys head right into the top of the pencil, probably entering his brain and killing him. That seemed more grotesque than funny, and I just couldn't bring myself to laugh.
Posts: 290 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I really liked the movie. Bale and Oldman were really good, Gyllenhaal and Eckhart were even better, and Ledger just stole the show.
Here's my question - did anyone else find the themes in the last half of the movie unsettling? Particularly the "if you really need to, it's just fine to lie to people" and "people are sheep whose spirits are easily crushed without handsome, charismatic leaders" bits. It was disheartening, in retrospect, to see them spend all that time with the two ferries, leading up to the idea that the people of Gotham are ready to stand up for themselves in terrible times and make the right choice, only to have the good guys so severely underestimate thems.
In terms of story telling, it was all masterfully done, and the decisions the characters make are all very believable. I just disagreed with those decisions.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gordon and Batman's lines at the end pointed more towards them worrying that all those criminals Dent charged would be released if word of his post-explosion activities got out. Yes, they were worried about what the people would think, but more about what this would do to Harvey's legacy. I did not find their words gave the impression that they thought it was fine to lie, or that they felt the people of Gotham were stupid...more that having all Dent's works undone would have been far worse than having Batman seen as an outlaw.
Whether or not they were right (I think) is left neutral. The film is left on an open note, no conclusive "This was the right choice!" given. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was Dent corrupt at all before the explosion? I don't remember exactly, but when Dent was talking to the mob guy in the car after the explosion I thought I heard something that suggested they had already been doing business.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:all those criminals Dent charged would be released if word of his post-explosion activities got out.
Can anyone expand on this for me? I understand that they were worried about it, but it seemed like very little explanation was provided about why. I took it as demeaning to the citizens of Gotham because they spoke about it like the entire criminal justice system died when Dent became Two-Face.
quote:Was Dent corrupt at all before the explosion? I don't remember exactly, but when Dent was talking to the mob guy in the car after the explosion I thought I heard something that suggested they had already been doing business.
I don't think so. Dent and Meroni would have been pretty familiar with each other though. Dent was prosecuting Meroni at the beginning of the movie.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I took it as demeaning to the citizens of Gotham because they spoke about it like the entire criminal justice system died when Dent became Two-Face."
Nor was it realistic. All the cases that Mike Nifong prosecuted didn't automatically get reversed just because he got fired for his behavior in the Duke lacrosse scandal. It would be like saying that because a prosecutor, out of nowhere, rapes and kills a child, that all of the cases he prosecuted will automatically be overturned. That's not realistic. Those cases might be more vigorously appealed, maybe.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That movie was so good. I hope Watchmen is 1/4 as good. Now to decide if I will see it again today.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: So I really liked the movie. Bale and Oldman were really good, Gyllenhaal and Eckhart were even better, and Ledger just stole the show.
Here's my question - did anyone else find the themes in the last half of the movie unsettling? Particularly the "if you really need to, it's just fine to lie to people" and "people are sheep whose spirits are easily crushed without handsome, charismatic leaders" bits. It was disheartening, in retrospect, to see them spend all that time with the two ferries, leading up to the idea that the people of Gotham are ready to stand up for themselves in terrible times and make the right choice, only to have the good guys so severely underestimate thems.
In terms of story telling, it was all masterfully done, and the decisions the characters make are all very believable. I just disagreed with those decisions.
I think the theme about Harvey Dent is that he is only the beginning of a reformation in Gotham. It's not as if he is the only person in Gotham capable of doing what hwe has done (There was Batman, after all).
Now that you mention it, I do find it troubling that Dent is the only person expected to be the reformer. If Gordon had said something simple near the end along the lines of "Dent is only the beginning. Gothamites can win if we keep fighting." then I would feel different. And you're right about the lying. Gothamites deserved to know the truth, and also why Dent went mad.
IMO, Dent was on the edge of madness anyway. His devotion was becoming an obsession, as shown by his kidnapping of a criminal and flipping a coin to decide that man's fate.
Harvey Dent's decent into madness is amazing. Someone who was once a golden boy has his faith in the law crushed, and his reaction is to become a vigilante. Unlike Bruce Wayne, Dent (as Two-Face) has no code of honor. We get to see how dark and corrupted human nature can become when it is unconstrained by morality.
I don't believe that Batman could really exist, but I do believe the Joker could. He is a rational psychopath interested only in chaos, not money. That's why he is so terrifying. We all understand the desire for money, but not the desire to cause chaos for it's own purpose.
This is the best movie I have seen in a long time. Heath Ledger deserves an Oscar nom and Aaron Eckhart deserves one for best supporting.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I imagine the public would feel sympathetic towards him if they knew, at least some of them. The rest of them would be like, *Gasp* how terrible.
Should i see the Dark Knight on IMAX even if it means going all the way to reading and having to pay 11 dollars?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen it twice now. And I wouldn't mind seeing it again. Because I had just as many chills go down my spine the second time as the first. I felt emotions more powerfully. I jumped. I laughed. And, at times, was sincerely scared.
I think the cast was definitely stellar. Bale did, in my opinion, a great job playing the emotionally tortured yet restrained Batman/Bruce Wayne. Especially at the end when he confronted Dent after Rachel's death.
Eckhart was really quite good as the shining beacon that slowly began shining more dimly. I found his descent into insanity totally realistic.
However, I agree with most who said that Ledger stole the show. Best Actor material no doubt about it. He was barely recognizable. A number of his scenes were just chilling.
And I absolutely loved The Joker's final line. Something like: "Madness is like gravity. It just takes one little push." And then he swayed back and forth on the rope and laughed. That shot. That fade out. The line, the laugh, the shot. One of the finest moments of the movie for me. It's burned into my memory.
I also was continously impressed by the musical score. It built intensity and tension so thoroughly. And seemed to be a key part of the film.
I can honestly say that it is one of the best movies I've seen in a very long time. And I will be buying it the day it is released.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:IMO, Dent was on the edge of madness anyway. His devotion was becoming an obsession, as shown by his kidnapping of a criminal and flipping a coin to decide that man's fate.
Not quite.
"Heads you live, Tails I shoot you."
When both sides are heads, the criminal was safe.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
I think what they worried about was not that Dent's fall would somehow cause the chaos that the Joker desired, or that all people would somehow lose hope. What they didn't want was the message to leak out that the Joker had proved what he believed. That any man can be corrupted and brought down to the depths of despair and depravity.
Are people stupid? No...they aren't going to all lose faith in everything because Dent went mad and killed people. But then they might begin to realize that the Joker DID win. He proved his point. That's not an idea that they wanted infiltrating Gotham.
Also, I think there was also more to it. Wayne didn't want to be Gotham's symbol any longer. He felt that his way of inspiring people was not what Gotham needed right now (see his reaction to the fake Batmen). He wanted them to look up to a real MAN and not some superhero. Somebody that they could aspire to be. Somebody that was human, like them. Batman isn't a man. Dent is a man. He's somebody they can look up to, have faith in.
Like he said at the end, sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded. I think it might have been less "what happens if we let the truth out?" than "how might it help if we don't?"
But...whatever it is, the ending still hit me like a ton of bricks. Gordon's monologue at the end of the movie pierced right through, and put tears in my eyes. They certainly weren't happy tears. Bittersweet, maybe, but that isn't even an adequate description. They didn't feel good, but they felt right.
You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize that the Dark Knight is probably the best movie I've ever seen. Now, granted, that certainly doesn't mean it's the greatest movie ever made! It has a lot of flaws. But the (subjective, naturally) experience I received from this movie is unlike any other I've ever had. I'm not kidding here, and I'm not exaggerating. I'll probably be ridiculed for saying that. But the way in which this movie hit me was unlike any other.
Maybe "best movie I've ever seen" isn't a good descriptor, then. Something more like, "movie that has affected me like no other".
quote:IMO, Dent was on the edge of madness anyway. His devotion was becoming an obsession, as shown by his kidnapping of a criminal and flipping a coin to decide that man's fate.
Not quite.
"Heads you live, Tails I shoot you."
When both sides are heads, the criminal was safe.
I didn't catch that. I must be used to coins having two sides.
Still, he did have the man tied (or was it handcuffed?) to a chair.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aragorn64: Also, was I the only person who didn't laugh at the "magic trick"? Maybe I didn't catch what really happened, but from what I saw it looked like the Joker slammed the guys head right into the top of the pencil, probably entering his brain and killing him. That seemed more grotesque than funny, and I just couldn't bring myself to laugh.
About half the theater did a sort of gasping laugh when I saw the movie last night. I was one who did laugh. I think we laughed because it was really unexpected and shocking, yet an extremely clever, although brutal, way to get the attention and respect of the mob bosses in the room. And a great demonstration of the Joker's character, too.
There were a few flaws in the movie - Bale's surprising ability to make his rasping Batman voice completely nasal sounding and annoying is one of them - and the logistical impossibilities of the Joker's schemes another - but the movie was highly impactful and one of the best I've seen in a while. Probably the best action movie I've ever seen.
I didn't see "Batman Begins" until last week, and I thought it far better than any preceding movie about Batman, but not great (the ninja thing was dumb, IMO). However, "The Dark Knight" was a great movie. Although it was long I was engaged and tense throughout most of the movie, and I even kind of liked the bat pod thing even though it was the most impractical looking motorcycle ever conceived.
Ledger's performance will be legendary and I'm deeply regretting that he won't be around to do any more creepy characters.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did anyone besides me feel sympathy for the Joker when Batman is beating the hell out of him in police custody, and the joker doesn't react as if he's in pain? The whole scene was structured to simulate a child being abused by a parent, which is one of the stories Joker had told about where he got his scars. The Joker had to have come from somewhere, and regardless how evil he is now, I found sympathy for his origins in that scene.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
about what? My point isn't whether he was telling the truth, it was about the behavior in that scene. Batman is acting like an abusive parent, becoming violent because he has a need to be in control of his situation, while the Joker was responding by not showing any reaction to Batman's violence, which is a standard defense mechanism for victims of abuse.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well.. Maybe not in the case of the Joker. he can't be bullied, he can't be bribed. He's not like normal men who would be intimidated by something like that, so that's why he's laughing and amused. Plus he sort of WANTS Batman to beat him up. Then he can get a shard of glass to threaten the next person with. So I don't really agree with that point of view. Especially since the only reason Batman is beating him up is because two of his friends have been kidnapped and he has no idea how to find them before they die.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe not in the case of the Joker. he can't be bullied, he can't be bribed. He's not like normal men who would be intimidated by something like that, so that's why he's laughing and amused.
The question is why is he not like normal men? Do you simply assign the label of "Evil" without recognizing that it has a cause?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Plus he sort of WANTS Batman to beat him up.
This is the idea I got too. The first time I saw it, I noticed the little part in the middle of that scene where Gordon says, "He's losing control." The second time I saw it, I thought I heard Gordon say, "Who's in control?", which I think is a better line. Even though he's getting the crap kicked out of him, the Joker's in control.
When the Joker was getting beaten up, did anyone else think of Tyler Durden getting beaten up by Lou the mafioso?
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe not in the case of the Joker. he can't be bullied, he can't be bribed. He's not like normal men who would be intimidated by something like that, so that's why he's laughing and amused.
The question is why is he not like normal men? Do you simply assign the label of "Evil" without recognizing that it has a cause?
Honestly, the Joker has gone beyond having a cause. Everybody has "causes". I don't know what the Joker went through to get where he was in the movie, but that certainly doesn't excuse him. A reason != an excuse (and I know you weren't saying that).
Anyway, yeah, I think the Joker most definitely wanted Batman to lose control. He's not afraid of pain, clearly. One of the Joker's main objectives is to show people that by pushing in just the right spot he can make them forget all of their "principles" and essentially become animals. The Joker showed a really sick pleasure while Batman was beating up on him. In his mind, the worst that he could do would be to kill him, which would accomplish his purpose anyway. (Remember the scene with Batman speeding towards him in the Batpod yelling "hit me!".) The Joker thrived in seeing Batman begin to lose control.
Posts: 290 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Not everybody is evil, though. To me, this is sort of related to the idea of empathizing with terrorists, because unless we are capable of understanding them, we can't stop them. Likewise, you hear police detectives saying "you've got to think like a criminal to catch a criminal."
It seems to me that this is why villains are so interesting in the first place.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, that's my point. People can -- in general -- choose what to do with their lives despite their circumstances and their lives experiences. The Joker is evil because he choose to take those things and become what he did.
Posts: 290 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know what the Joker went through to get where he was in the movie
quote:The Joker is evil because he choose to take those things and become what he did.
How can you claim it's just a matter of personal choice if you don't even know what he went through?
Regardless of which story Joker tells, he indicates that he was wronged and abused. We do know that he does bear the scars, we just don't know where they came from.
And BTW, I don't agree that people can choose what to do with their lives despite their experiences. That's just too similar to the myth that anyone can rise from poverty if they just make the right choices. It's not that simple.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Regardless of which story Joker tells, he indicates that he was wronged and abused. We do know that he does bear the scars, we just don't know where they came from.
...but he was lying. I don't know why you are so eager to make the Joker a victim.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
I didn't catch that. I must be used to coins having two sides. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
