Saw this movie today, and it was super creepy. That wasn't the reason for my post though. I saw something in it that made me cringe. When the Joker was talking to Two-Face trying to convince him to go bad, he gave a speech about how everyone was trying to make them play by their rules. Then he said something like "Time for a little anarchy". Apparently to most people anarchy is synonomis with mass killing and lunatics. It reminded me how uphill the battle really is.
Stolz2525: Saw this movie today, and it was super creepy. That wasn't the reason for my post though. I saw something in it that made me cringe. When the Joker was talking to Two-Face trying to convince him to go bad, he gave a speech about how everyone was trying to make them play by their rules. Then he said something like "Time for a little anarchy". Apparently to most people anarchy is synonomis with mass killing and lunatics. It reminded me how uphill the battle really is.
I actually had quite the opposite reaction; I thought this movie was the most blatant case of anti-statism the mainstream has seen in quite a long time (as far as a movie goes). The entire movie is so grey, in this respect, it might as well be a monochrome rainbow What the Joker said concerning anarchy isn't entirley something to facepalm at, as there are various definitions of anarchy; from a systems point of view, although disorder could be more represented by the term "entropy", anarchy could be used as a more familiar term that audience could identify with.He also makes a point about "when you upset the plan, people go nuts." Instant hit against central planning right there; I also thought the boat dillema was an excellent case (that managed to avoid sentimental self-rightesouness, amazing considering it's a mainstream movie) against altruism. and a strong case for an alternate set of ethics than what many may populary ascribe too (in other words: a strong case for an atypical set of ethics that does not wallow around in altruistic nonsense).Granted, you can interpret easily that this is misrepresentation of anarchy, but I think this was unintentional, and it's obvious the audience can make a distinction between a criminal who claims anarchy, and a non-criminal who claims anarchy. If anything, Batman could represent a non-criminal anarchy that could server counter to the violence laced intentions & claim to anarchy the Joker clearly has. In any case (:puts on subjective movie critic opinion hat:), the movie was absolutley incredible; Ledger swept the joker from the shadow of Jack Nicholson clear from his feet. The rest of the cast was pitch perfect, and the movie even retconned a horrible actress from a forgetable role into a noticable tragedy in the movie (Rachel Dawes). The story by itself is a competent modern crime film that easily spars with what some may claim to be among the best (Heat, Godfather II, etc.). Nolan's trilogy (after the TDK's success, yes a 3rd one will most likley be made), will probably be the odd one out concerning comic book movies widley regonized by non-comic book readers, but also by comic book readers as legitmate adaptions that go well above baseline mediocirty (Fantastic Four). Overall, this movie was the batman movie I had been waiting for since Burton left: where Burton's Batman films were gothic & theatrically dark, Nolan's Batman films offer the realism & indecicive morality that is absolutley partially required in order to tap into what makes Batman unique from all other comic book figures.
I guess people think that government is the only solution to providing peace and stability. I guess when people only see a coercive monopoly providing a good, they don't consider how much better it would be if people could freely provide that good, and they may think of it as much worse
Ledger immortalized himself as an actor in this Dark Knight swansong. His death only made his rendering of the Joker that much more eerie and maniacle.
Rumor has it, Johnny Depp may be the one to follow in his footsteps. I mean as the Joker, not overdosing.
Brandon:Rumor has it, Johnny Depp may be the one to follow in his footsteps. I mean as the Joker, not overdosing.
I think he'd make a better Riddler than a Joker.
Could be, but isn't the Joker sort of the mastermind behind most of Batman's enemies? I kind of thought a Joker would be needed in the next film. I wonder if they'll go the Pengiun route or the way of the Riddler. God forbid they do Cat Woman...
Brandon:God forbid they do Cat Woman...
I would have thought they'd learned their lesson about Catwoman from the earlier crapfest with Halle Berry. Of course whoever is casting the Batman movies hasn't been too impressive with the female roles, so who knows. I didn't think they could get any worse than Katie Holmes for Dawes but they managed to blow that theory out of the water.
Brandon:Could be, but isn't the Joker sort of the mastermind behind most of Batman's enemies?
I don't really think so. He is a nutjob who doesn't work too well with others. They managed to do the 3 or 4 sequels before without bringing Joker back for any of it so I doubt it would be a problem here. Batman has more villains than he knows what to do with, they shouldn't run short.
I haven't seen The Dark Knight, but I disagreed with the ethical points brought up in Batman Begins. For example, the DA lady that Batman has a crush on extols philanthropy exclaiming "people talk about the depression like it's gone but it's very real here" or something to that effect. Batman's parents were huge philanthropists giving out money to the unemployed. The entire movie has a very egalitarian bent that I don't agree with at all. This can even be seen in Batman's very existence, since he is the ONLY superhero who is also 100% human. No spider bit him, no intense radiation, no gamma blood, etc.
"There is only one innate right, freedom (independence from being constrained by another's choice), insofar as it can coexist with the freedom of every other in accordance with a universal law." - Immanuel Kant
krazy kaju:For example, the DA lady that Batman has a crush on extols philanthropy exclaiming "people talk about the depression like it's gone but it's very real here" or something to that effect. Batman's parents were huge philanthropists giving out money to the unemployed. The entire movie has a very egalitarian bent that I don't agree with at all.
I had no problem with that side of it. That was private money and his parents were free to do whatever they wanted with it. The only time I cringed during the first one was when his dad said something to the effect of "Gotham has been good to us..." suggesting that success is a result of luck and the environment.
krazy kaju:This can even be seen in Batman's very existence, since he is the ONLY superhero who is also 100% human. No spider bit him, no intense radiation, no gamma blood, etc.
Funny, I think of this in a complete opposite light from the way you view it. With the other heroes being complete accidents or freaks of nature, to me it is saying that anyone would be able to do this if... (fill in your hero origin here). On the other hand, Batman succeeds with hard work and brains.
...I can't wait to have this discussion once Watchmen comes out. For those unfamiliar with this epic masterpiece, the slogan is "Who watches the Watchmen?" Yes, the implications are FAR, FAR bigger than the Joker's silly terrorist plots.
As for The Dark Knight and anarchy, while it did make anarchy synonomous with disorder, the Joker also stressed that he sought to violate any rule that was laid down. He was anti-order. Luckily, in history, such people have never become nearly as powerful as the Joker...while abusive statists have.
And we should understand, while we advocate peaceful, orderly anarchy, many periods of anarchy are simply chaotic struggles for survival, usually in the wake of a fallen monopoly of protective services and perhaps goods distribution.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
Stolz2525:I don't really think so. He is a nutjob who doesn't work too well with others. They managed to do the 3 or 4 sequels before without bringing Joker back for any of it so I doubt it would be a problem here. Batman has more villains than he knows what to do with, they shouldn't run short.
This is true, but I'm not sure I want them to do anything remotely close to the 3 or 4 previous sequels. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight have been better than Burton's Batmans, which were the best up until lately. I like the darker direction that Nolan has taken with the cartoon.
I thought the chick who replaced Katie Holmes did a respectable job. Perhaps it was the strength of the actors around her, but nonetheless, she didn't stick out like Holmes did.
Brandon: Stolz2525:I don't really think so. He is a nutjob who doesn't work too well with others. They managed to do the 3 or 4 sequels before without bringing Joker back for any of it so I doubt it would be a problem here. Batman has more villains than he knows what to do with, they shouldn't run short. This is true, but I'm not sure I want them to do anything remotely close to the 3 or 4 previous sequels. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight have been better than Burton's Batmans, which were the best up until lately. I like the darker direction that Nolan has taken with the cartoon. I thought the chick who replaced Katie Holmes did a respectable job. Perhaps it was the strength of the actors around her, but nonetheless, she didn't stick out like Holmes did.
Gyellenhal at least has the credentials of an actress, at least; subjective tastes for her as Dawes in TDK, aside. I disliked Holmes to the point where I hope they pull a Lucas edit in the DVD's & Blu-Ray's at some point, and edit Gyellenhal in. It didn't help that Dawes had some somewhat cringe worthy, sellf-righteous lines in Batman Begins, and Holmes had the superifical and wooden delivery to make that one scene the only sore spot of the entire movie, imo.From what I understand, they could easily bring Joker back & maybe end his character's reign in the story more properly in the 3rd film, by having him escape, be detained into Arkum Asylum (it would fit with the Joker's "game" with batman to allow himself to be captured; this is really reinforced in the animated series, which was equally as excellent as Nolan's films, imo).I predict Two-Face will be explored more in the 3rd film ( I could see him going to a counslor for evulation, flashbacks & monolouge by Dent filling out the transformation he went through in TDK, and flashbacks to him and Dawes', possibly to flesh out their relationship more than TDK did), Batman on the run, and the Riddler being brought in. Why? Because amid all of Batman's rougues gallery, The joker, Two Face, and the riddler are the more realistic yet also some of the more popular villians of the batman mythology. And while I appreciated Carey's take on riddler in Batman Forever, I think they could easily go over & make riddler more darker (more aligned with the animated series Riddler, and the comic book Riddler where it's revealed he has a pretty deeply rooted OCD about riddles). Riddler would also mirror the joker's approach, and could even have an origin where the Riddler is inspired by the Joker, further giving the joker's importance of getting the ball rolling of a counter-force to batman's appearence in Gotham.I've read rumors of the above, and even the Penguin making an appearence as the highest crime boss pulling all the strings in gotham (he would be referred to with his real name. Cobblepot, instead), in possibly treatements for the 3rd movie. In any case, I trust Nolan will be able to maintain enough momentum from the 2nd movie and end the trilogy gracefully.
As the joke goes, Superman is a left-wing superhero while Batman is a right-wing superhero. Superman was born an alien god, feels it is his duty to save humanity from itself, and works part-time as a journalist. Batman is an ordinary human who was born into a family of capitalists and decided to beat evil-doers on his dime using whatever gadgets he could put his mind to in order to clean up the streets of his city.
Minarchism failed because it is socialism || A challenge to minarchists || Private roads and cities || A two-stage strategy for freedom
Stranger: As the joke goes, Superman is a left-wing superhero while Batman is a right-wing superhero. Superman was born an alien god, feels it is his duty to save humanity from itself, and works part-time as a journalist. Batman is an ordinary human who was born into a family of capitalists and decided to beat evil-doers on his dime using whatever gadgets he could put his mind to in order to clean up the streets of his city.
Haha, not that far off of a comparison, I suppose. I never really cared for Superman (I view him among other certain comic book heroes as an earlier, more primitive hero); even when they tried desperatley to make Superman more interesting, it ultimatley fell flat (the only time I felt Superman was made more interesting was when he was playing off of Batman, and vice versa, in the JLA animated series & specials).Then again, I was always much more of a Max Headroom / Transmetropolitian / Deadpool / Solid Snake fan myself (including Batman).I also would like to second Watchmen; I have yet to read the entire comic (I read snippets ocassionaly, but recently lost my copy while re-organizing...), but I'll definitley breeze through the entire thing before seeing the movie.