Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises
Don't let the recent overuse of that word make you think that. "Conjecture" implies a conclusion based on insufficient evidence. Sometimes films leave things out and we are in fact meant to arrive at conclusions on our own based on surrounding evidence. Nolan does this all the time, and sometimes invites actual conjecture in the process (ending of Inception for example) of interpreting his films.
ya, I meant simply in the way they were using the term, which would nullify any of their own arguments as well. Interpretation and vague information are a huge part of art in general.
And joker, the implied value is there. You saying that it's nullified because they don't give you proof is ridiculous. What they show you in the movie does not in any way contradict itself, it just doesn't give you all the pieces directly. They do, as we've discussed, give you insight into the surface level issues that certainly hint at injustice within the act. I have yet to see an argument from you that actively proves your point, you just use no evidence to say our view is wrong when nothing suggests our theory to be wrong at all. Not enough evidence in either direction for a concrete analysis (although that line from the novelization and the few hints from the film certainly point to our theory being on the right path).