Those are some excellent finds (especially the Boston Occupier one, which goes back to what I was saying earlier about the distinction between "myth" and "doctrine" in the film
) and it goes to show that the idea of the Dent Act being believable and relatable to real-world mandates is firmly there. What I don't get (and why's everyone ignoring that part of my comments?!) is that this is a speculation thread, conjecture and speculation are part of the nature.
We all have different interpretations of this film -- it's what makes each of our points unique. What I don't understand is the extreme positions of something (like the Dent Act) either being a complete success or an utter failure. It's not. It works both ways.
That was the whole friggin point of it in the movie itself. A paradox.
what I want to add is this: the whole idea that some act gives the govt. more power than it previously had? That's true of any government acts or ammendments, doesn't necessarily mean it makes the Dent Act equivalent to the Patriot Act. It might be similar, and you can argue that, but not the exact same thing. The Patriot Act has its own share of elephants in the room.
Originally Posted by Fudgie
Best posts in the thread. All based on facts. Zero conjecture.
Except the movie never said any of that. Nobody said citizens were denied anything because of the Dent Act.
You're conjecturing. Normal for this thread though.
Which part of citizens not having parole is not part of the Dent Act mentioned in the film? Which part about the Dent Act being this omnipotent doctrine of decadence was not
implied in the course of the film?
At the end of TDK they made a point to show that both the criminals and the citizens make up the city, that "it's full of people ready to believe in good." In other words, criminals are citizens too.
I get that you hate the movie just don't act smug about it. Also, I don't see why you're hanging around if the only thing you have to say about TDKR is "it's a lousy movie." The Hype's got other threads mate, you don't have to stick around debating about a movie you didn't like.
Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises
I think so, absolutely. The key to understanding this is, in the beginning of the film he's seeking a way out by death (subconsciously). By the end, his way out is the very conscious decision of choosing a successor and finally living his life. His peace is in both being able to escape the cycle (pain), and finding a way to allow his symbol to transcend him and become something larger.
I also think we should make the Dent Act its own thread if that debate is to continue.
This thread has a place for the Dent Act if it has to do with Bruce's own characteristics, otherwise, yeah you're right.
So let's take it further:
Bruce has been crusading about justice since Batman Begins
, and his definition has at its heart this idea that you don't kill criminals. The Dent Act denies parole, something that I'm sure Batman would agree with. In NML he locked up the scum and separated them from the populace. Arkham's all about being imprisoned and not for capital punishment, while at the same time being this eternal purgatory sort of place. Imagine that without ever getting out (the Joker's said to already be committed to this fate).
What I want to know is that if Batman's idea of justice has been so well realised with the Dent Act, why do we have a movie that criticises that point and shows us how wrong it was to begin with? Or does everyone understand it as only that sense of relative peace that Batman, Gordon, and Harvey Two-Face established at the end of TDK and not Batman's own ideal situation?