View Single Post
Old 01-14-2013, 12:13 PM   #123
Come what may..
RustyCage's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Gotham
Posts: 4,050
Default Re: Why did the League of Shadows want to destroy a peaceful city?

Originally Posted by Tequilla View Post
RustyCage i think it would be easier to just read my post a few pages ago , because i will repeat a lot of the same notions , but for the sake of the discussion
I'm not sure how I missed it, if I did.

You're confusing interpretation with filling the blanks.
In many cases, we have to go out of our way to make up a plausible backstory for certain things. That's filling in the blanks.

We can base it on crumbs Nolan gives us, but he didn't bake a whole loaf of bread, so we're doing that ourselves. That's all I'm saying. I admitted before this discussion began that this is all we would in effect be doing, so I accept that my view is also ultimately fan fiction.

The fact that our interpretations of those crumbs can differ so starkly illustrates just how unclear the film was on this subject, so it didn't do it's job very well.

If you think stories exist for mere plotting, then i don't see how you want to discuss anything.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Its not pretending. It's all there. You might not agree with it, its fine. Im not saying its canonical my view of the film (that is something only the writer and director can express) , but its certainly not deserved to be called fan-fiction.
I wouldn't say it's all there, but I would say there are elements that you might interpret it one way or another from. Those are two very different things.

You're taking my use of the term 'fan fiction' too harshly. I already said there's nothing wrong with it. It's not an insult, and I do it too, it's fun to think about these things, but I insisted that we didn't act like it was necessarily the truth. That's all.

I didnt said gotham is entirely corrupt. The decadence is something LOS identify in Gotham. That's crystal clear since Begins. Its still the same.
Decadence is decline, Gotham is by and large doing the opposite of that. It's been 8 years, things look much better than the days of Begins, the entire criminal underworld is behind bars, and now they decide Gotham is bad enough to strike again suddenly? Based on -what-? It's so backwards.

I have yet to see compelling evidence of what in TDKR would justify them still seeing it as in enough decline to try and decimate it again after 8 years of fiddling around watching from the shadows. The only reasoning for them returning that holds up is the concept of finishing Ra's work from before, which was based on the state of Gotham years ago.

It seems a little flimsy to me. It's a weak driving punch, a weak argument, for the villain to have compared to Ra's and the Joker in the previous films.

Same city , same conditions. In Rises they use a lie to clean the surface. To take joe chill's out of the streets. But the system that creates them is very much the same.
It's not the same conditions at all, unless I missed something. And, again, the League has no idea it was built on covering up the truth about Dent until their plan is well underway and Bruce is already long out of action.

You make an extreme suggestion that i said anything like that , but i didnt , much less i ever agree with the obliteration of the city.
This argument isn't about whether or not you agree with the League, it's about how competent the League's motive was based on their own principles.

What i said was the youth unemployment is a huge signal of decadence , distortion , stratum's of society that have grown in a non civilized way.
It's a problem that needs to be addressed, sure, but all I was saying was that that alone does not necessarily illustrate a city in utter decay beyond saving.

I chuckled the way you posed the question , kids having trouble with getting a job.
I fail to find that funny, personally.

I dont know where you're from , how old are you ,anything , but you certainly have noticed the huge crisis we are today. One of the , if not the biggest , challenge we face today is how to fight youth unemployment. A society without the capacity to absorb younger generations , doesn't exist . Its doomed. This is a problem western civilizations are starting to face , especially because of the major slow down in the industrialization by human labor.
I'm very politically studied and active, and I'm currently having to resort to trying to work for myself (not easy) instead of for an employer since jobs are so hard to find these days.

So, yes, I'm aware of (and effected by) the situation, and I'm aware the movie reflects that deliberately. I just don't see this point alone as compelling reason for the League to step in.

So I said I would pair it up with your other reasonings, suggesting the full picture you were painting would possibly be more compelling to me.

No , they use the resources of a well positioned man to infiltrate their infrastructures.
How is that any different from what I said? You gave me an example of Gotham being corrupt, but really, it's an example of the League deliberately breeding the corruption of Gotham themselves.

It's blatantly hypocritical of them, so it makes their motive seem even more flimsy as a philosophical argument to use against Batman's view.

Again, never said anything about entirely rotten.
Nor i agree with it.
This isn't about you. This is about the League's agenda.

Ra's explained this was the standard for striking in Begins. I believe the line was something like: 'When a city reaches the pinnacle of it's decadence...'

Correct me if I'm wrong. My speakers aren't working, so I can't double-check at the moment.

Still the city suffers from the same problems Los saw in Begins (and in the past).
I don't see that illustrated in the film at all.

Him being able to do all this , his a great image of how Gotham is still very vulnerable.
Vulnerable =/= guilty. If you can manipulate someone into being bad, or encourage them to be good, why would you go out of your way to manipulate them into being bad just so you can punish them for being bad? That's a silly motive.

They create corruption and then condemn it. That simply wasn't compelling to me.

If Daggett were anywhere near the level of Falcone, I'd maybe buy it, but things were way worse in Begins. Falcone made waves, he OWNED the city. Begins' Gotham was clearly a dirty, rotten, wreck. Daggett was just some chump in an otherwise decent community.

I've never made the assumption the entire police force is crooked. Just that it still exists.
Foley may be a little cocky, but he's not evil.

Do you have nothing to say about the true context of him chasing Batman? That it was because Batman was a fugitive who, as far as everyone knew, killed Gotham's hero and has been successfully on the run for 8 years?

It may have been a reckless call by one somewhat over-zealous cop, but that does not equate to a corrupt police force, or even a corrupt individual.

Why do you think he exists ? The simpleton Foley ?
To show that Batman is still perceived as an enemy of the public and the police, and rightfully so as far as they know.

No , the city reacts in complete apathy. They never try to fight back. Accept everything from him.
Not all of them. And again, in context, Bane manipulated them into thinking they were victims. He took advantage of poor, desperate people.

The league is responsible for the corruption ? What ? They might be catalysts to show the corruption , but i cant even grasp your concept.
I explained it clearly. You even seem to agree in your very next paragraph:

He wanted to poison their souls. But because he knew the social context , and took advantage of it. He used their own flaws against them. His plan is actually brilliant.
Well Ra's states clearly in Begins that Gotham is a symbol of western civilaztion. So yes , off-course Gotham is not an island isolated of the world. Its a representation of something much bigger. The development of 21st century societies.
Of course, but this is avoiding my point. My point was that Gotham was unremarkable in terms of corruption until Bane deliberately poisoned it himself.

RustyCage what i didn't understand from your post was your view of those situations ? Charecters ? Contexts ? They aren't there ? They certainly are. You think they are mere plotting ? Situations to advance the narrative ? Well that's where we have to disagree , and i think cinema would be a very poor medium if everything would be thrown under that bus. Yes usually the genre is pure fluff , even Begins and TDK dont explore so much , but that's why i think Rises is completely unparalleled.
I'm not saying Nolan doesn't give us anything at all to chew on. I'm just saying, in the case of TDKR, he didn't give us much in the way of impressive or conclusive evidence for various motivations in the film.

Maybe you misunderstood me, but I would appreciate not having my criticisms stretched out of proportion like that.

I still find TDKR rich and deep in other ways, and I adore the other two films almost completely. Don't accuse me of calling them fluff.

Why do we fall?

Last edited by RustyCage; 01-14-2013 at 12:19 PM.
RustyCage is offline   Reply With Quote