So. About that "detonator choice" at the end of Dark Knight

[Orrex]

The film's climax features passengers on one ferry and convicts on another, each given a detonator rigged to blow up the other boat. If neither detonator is triggered, then the Joker says that both will blow up at midnight (about 20 minutes away).

People who didn't like the film were quick to attack this supposedly shallow moral puzzle because (in their view) it paints the convicts as somehow better than "normal" people, since one of the convicts throws the detonator overboard so that none of the other convicts can trigger it.

But I don't think it's that simple. It seems likely to me that the Joker rigged it so that either:

1. The person who triggers the detonator will blow up his or her own boat

or

2. The triggering of either detonator will blow up both boats


Choice 2 is supported by the fact that the Joker, seeing that neither boat has blown up, pulls out a single detonator with the intent of blowing up both; this suggests that both sets of explosives could be keyed to the same signal. Of course, it's possible that his "master" detonator is keyed to both, but that still leaves Choice 1.

The Joker lies when he gives Batman the addresses where Harvey and Rachel are trapped, so that Batman goes to Harvey's location thinking that it's Rachel's. From this, we can infer that the Joker might easily lie to the passengers and convicts, so that they'll make their choice based on false information.


I've seen a lot of people attack the film, and that's cool, because opinions vary. But this particular aspect of the film seems to have drawn more fire than just about anything else, and I wonder if the critics have considered these two possibilities in addition to the seemingly simplistic moral lesson implied by the sequence.

[Frank Cannon]

1. You've thought about this entirely too much

As much as I loved "Batman Begins", I just hated that drawn-out, relentlessly depressing sequel.

But I agree with your assessment of the boat thing.

[Orrex]

2. I've heard that complaint about how depressing it is, but I just don't understand.

It doesn't seem any more depressing than any other movie in which criminal activity features prominently, such as Heat, Goodfellas, or The Godfather. I mean, people might find that whole genre depressing, which is fine, but that's another example of varied tastes.

I also don't quite see how it's too drawn-out. I'd contrast it, for example, with Spiderman 3, which was already a long movie when they tacked on 20 extra unwatchable minutes. The Dark Knight maintains constant forward motion from beginning to end, and it was necessary to conclude the Dent storyline.

Different tastes, as I said.

[Taitertots]

3. Their blood would be on Batman's hands either way

Because instead of killing the Joker with his motorcycle he swerved to avoid him. Batman cares more about his ideology than about the lives of the people of Gotham.

Strange how a tool of the military industrial complex, war robber barron would be seen as such a savior. A tiny fraction of his personal wealth would ease the majority of the ailments of Gotham.

[DerekG]

4. Obviously, you weren't paying attention

First, the running theme to the Dark Knight is how actions yield unexpected consequences. Batman does have blood on his hands, and realizes this—-hence his decision to take on Dent's crimes and consign himself to the shadows. It's an exercise in self-flagellation.

Second, the Waynes never worked with the military. Rutger Hauer's character, the corrupt placeholder CEO, initiated this, which allowed the League of Shadows to take possession of the doomsday machine. When Wayne fired him, he put the kaboosh on arms manufacturing and used Fox's inventions solely for personal use.

Third, Thomas Wayne used his wealth to combat poverty, effectively pulling Gotham out of her depression; it stands to reason that his son followed in his footsteps.

[unpossibles]

5. in most Bat Man mythologies/worlds, Bruce Wayne is most definitely a philanthropist

He's always throwing charity galas, fund-raisers, and donating to various causes, as well as fighting crime behind the scenes.

[Taitertots]

8. As if the problem doesn't stem from rich oligarchs like Bruce Wayne in the first place

The city needs the rich savior Bruce Wayne to save them from the problems caused by excessive wealth concentrations. While Wayne siphons billions from the workers of Gotham he tosses them a pittance in charity and beats the criminals created by the inequality in their society.

His solution is of course luxurious galas for his rich oligarch friends and violent attacks against the disenfranchised residents. He is the perfect example of the capitalist overlord. Siphons off so much from the labor of others that they can't function without his help.

[unpossibles]

9. huh. I'm not sure I can agree with you completely

Normally I don't find myself defending the mega-rich, but in this fictional world, Wayne generally is not making ...

eh, never mind. Some people will get upset about anything. I prefer to stick to the real injustices in the real world.

[Taitertots]

10. I'd like to hear how you plan to defend him

When at best he fails to solve the problems he created.


The injustices of the real world. What is going to change them? The beliefs people have, which are unavoidably influenced by the things in movies. Why not question the foundations of these cultural icons?

[Orrex]

11. I'll bet you're a barrel of laughs when you go to parties.

Since you've apparently got it figured out, why don't you tell us about the foundations of these cultural icons. I mean, The Scarlet Pimpernel preceded Batman by several decades, so you can't single out Bruce Wayne as the first or the worst offender.

[Taitertots]

12. I'll bet you don't get invited to parties

You obviously don't want to discuss this like an adult, preferring to offer instead only thinly veiled insults and irrelevant comparisons.

Why don't you have a discussion about it? You obviously care enough to post about it. Lets hear what you have to say. Or do you prefer condescension without substance. That way your views can't be questioned and your get to stroke your ego, trying to make yourself feel superior.

[Orrex]

17. Because your analysis is pedestrian and retrograde

You've put a fictional character into a context of your own devising, and you're complaining that other people don't see it the way you do. Your argument is a tangential, generalized complaint shoehorned into a specific discussion about a specific scene in a specific film.

Hosnon and unpossibles have already provided responses to your objection that are completely satisfactory within the context of the character, the character's history, and the current film. Instead of recognizing that they've answered your complaint, you sit back and play armchair psychologist and post hoc socialogist.

I suppose that you are, after a fashion, correct; it would be much more entertaining to read "Bruce Wayne, the obsessive philanthropist who spent himself into bankruptcy." And I can't wait for the film version of "Superman, the man who did nothing but run the generators to make electricity for the entire world."


And you still haven't told us about the foundations of these cultural icons.

Party on!

[Hosnon]

13. Perhaps he realized he could do much more to help in a capitalist society by having

a shit-ton of money.

It's somewhat like "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime." He could set up a trust and siphon all his money to it but then he wouldn't be able to be Batman (fighting crime's being his other ambition).

[Taitertots]

14. So he is like a sugar daddy

He is just making all those profits to protect us from all the other slightly less philanthropic elitist billionaires. He could do much more real help in a capitalist society if he passed that wealth on to the people who created it, the workers.


"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime"
"Get a man to fish for you and pay him less than the fish he caught and you have capitalism."

[DerekG]

15. He ain't Robin Hood, but he hews close to FDR/LBJ

n/t

[Taitertots]

16. He is nothing like FDR

I think that is insulting to FDR. FDR was a person who led America out of the great depression, led us to defeat Nazism and Fascism, and created the social safety nets that are still in place today.

Bruce Wayne is a spoiled billionaire elitist, puts on a suit to fight the problems caused by the system he perpetuates. Bruce Wayne is neither FDR or Robin Hood. Rather than fix the problems of Gotham, he is puffing up his ego by dressing up to stop the problems he created.

[Orrex]

18. unpossibles already addressed this complaint

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=9144215&mesg_id=9144549

That means either that you didn't read his post or you're entirely unfamiliar with the character you're critiquing, or both.

[FlyingTiger]

20. This is probably no different than playing tennis against a brick wall...

...but, what the hell, I might as well ask. Would you be satisfied if someone who was Batman-nerdy enough to know the "canon" about this sort of thing could show you that Bruce was more philanthropic than Bill Gates? You know, the guy who has literally given BILLIONS of dollars to charity, because he had billions to give? Or does absolutely anyone who happens to make a certain amount of money offend you no matter what?

(Granted, I now prefer Mac over Windows, but Steve Jobs ain't no slouch, either.)

[ZombieHorde]

21. Almost everyone is better than FDR.

FDR's institutional racism was pretty fucked up.

[proteus_lives]

23. You've obviously never even read a Batman comic.

You have no idea what the character is about.

Your analysis is so shallow and simple.

[unpossibles]

19. ok fine, although I doubt it will do any good.

1 - he's fictional

2 - he's aware of his own tragic flaws, including that he is operating outside of the law, and is generally portrayed in modern stories as not being proud of that at least on some level. In short, the character sees his own mission as a necessary evil, and in more than one story line has attempted to quit before being dragged back into it, often by the authorities.

3 - he's fictional

4 - he is consistently portrayed as using his vast resources to help people, and despite operating outside of the law, still generally has a code of morals. He's never shown as having made money by screwing people over, but by inheriting old money. To say he's evil just because he's rich and does not give it all away shows that you have no respect for other nonfictional rich people who also use their resources for good, such as Warren Buffet.

5 - did I mention he's not real, and that the rich playboy of Bruce Wayne was basically a back drop for the character of a super hero vigilante?

Let me ask you: if Bruce Wayne gave ALL of his money to "the people" how would he distribute it, and would that actually erase the evils and injustices of his fictional world any more than if a similar scenario happened in the real world? Furthermore, would his sudden asceticism make for a compelling work of fiction? Would it stop other people in his world from being rich and using their resources against mankind/society?

I guess I just do not see the point of making this way more than it needs to be: a fictional superhero who is popular despite being "less of a shining perfect hero" than the Superman archetype. In fact, I'd bet his popularity, which has grown as writers have embraced and developed this other side of him, is BECAUSE people can relate to someone who has flaws, who does good and bad, often with the best of intentions.

[kentauros]

28. ^^^^^^

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:D

[keroro gunsou]

37. dude...

it's a fucking comic book. get over yourself.

[unpossibles]

6. I always assumed that the detonators would do just that

either blow up both boats simultaneously, or blow up their own. It's the Joker's SOP, really: he thought humanity would always sink to the lowest depths of depravity and selfishness because that's how his mind worked. This happens in real life too, where dishonest people I know always assume everyone (else) is a liar and a cheat.

[fishwax]

7. NEITHER of those detonators was wired to explode EITHER boat

Or, at least, not to cause an explosion so big that either ship would actually be lost. That would only put an end to the "social experiment."

The triggering of the fake detonators on either boat would blow up neither the other boat nor their own boat. Instead, it would trigger some mechanism which would reveal the decision to trigger the detonator. It might even be constructed in such a way that the other boat would be allowed or encouraged to trigger their own detonator as a chance for revenge. Or it might cause a destructive explosion somewhere along the shoreline that both boats could see clearly. The Joker could then see how the sacrificed would respond to the knowledge that they'd been sacrificed, and the killers to the knowledge that they'd sold their souls without necessarily saving their flesh (and perhaps by causing some unintended destruction).

In the end, of course, the Joker could still blow both boats up with his own detonator.

[ZombieHorde]

22. I loved Dark Night. Great movie. nt

[Orrex]

27. I think Gary Oldman doesn't get enough credit for his performance.

When you look at the breadth of his career and at some of the wild, over the top characters he's portrayed, it's impressive to see him play a more or less normal guy so convincingly.

Heath Ledger gets the headlines (and rightly so), and everyone talks about the pure fun of watching Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman onscreen, but Oldman provides an excellent grounding point amid the swirl of larger-than-life characters.

[ZombieHorde]

32. My wife and I talk about Oldman often when we talk about movie stars, he is one of our favorites.

We joke about how versatile he is. Common Oldman jokes for us go something like, "I bet that little girl is played by Gary Oldman," or "That car is actually Gary Oldman." I know those jokes sound dumb, but we laugh. Gary Oldman is one of the best actors alive and working today.

[Orrex]

34. This post is Gary Oldman

He can play such a broad variety of characters and such a diverse tones. He's one of few character actors who IMO truly "vanish into the role."

He gets better with each performance, even when the films aren't worthy of him (I'm looking at you, Lost in Space.)

[ZombieHorde]

36. Lol, Oldman rules. nt

[quakerboy]

24. My problems lie in other parts of the movie

In general, I agree with your assessment of the explosives. However, I am given second thought. If everyone dies, how will anyone ever know what happened? Everyone outside would either assume that the joker blew it all up, or at best/worst that the convicts overpowered the guards and blew it all. And where is the degradation in either of those scenarios?

Getting past the elements of unreality and accepting the situation of the movie, my real objection was the ending. Why would Batman have to take blame for Dents actions, when the official story could just as easily lay it on an anonymous joker henchman or mobster?

[Frank Cannon]

25. You point out just a few of the many WTF plot holes in this movie

The Joker's entire scheme is built upon one implausible coincidence after another.

[Orrex]

26. I've gone back and forth on that

I'd need to hear which "implausible coincidences" give you trouble specifically, but ultimately I see it as a good representation of the comic version of the Joker, who's typically portrayed as a criminal mastermind and brilliant--though insane--strategist.

I understand that this is a bit of a cop-out, but at least it's consistent with the character.

[Frank Cannon]

29. None of the implausible coincidences trouble me specifically

Because it's now been over a year since I've seen the movie, and I've forgotten almost all of its long, convoluted, and ludicrous plot. I'm sure you can Google a website that can go into all the implausibilities better than I can, but I'm sure you can also come up with some seat-of-the-pants rationalizations why they all don't matter--kind of like how some people go through the first three Star Wars movies finding the "clues" that Darth Vader built C3PO or that Leia remembers her mother, when the simplest explanation is that the filmmakers just fucked up in the last three movies.

I'm glad you liked the Dark Knight. De gustibus non est disputandum.

[Orrex]

30. No need to be like that.

I didn't snark you for your dislike of the film, but your first response is to jump on me with vague accusations of fanboy-ism. :eyes:

If you're going to do a drive-by dismissal of the film, then you might as well offer up a few points to contribute to the discussion, rather than simply saying "I don't like it, and you should Google it to find out why."


Have a nice day.

[Frank Cannon]

31. If the shoe fits, fanboy, wear it.

Just kidding. Seriously, I'm glad you liked the movie. There is no disputing matters of taste.

[Orrex]

33. Them's fighting words!

LOL!

I read your subject line and was ready to drive to your house with a big case of toilet paper, but then I read the body of the post.

:hi:

[Frank Cannon]

35. Gotcha

:rofl: