The Dark Knight Rises Batman 3: Where does the story go from here?

[Mr. Earle]

LOL, I doubt anyone in the general public would say "let's put it to a vote" in a life or death situation where the guys on the other end of it are criminals. Someone would grab that thing and push the button ASAP.

Well yeah. In real life there is no way that nobody would blow the other up.

Eh, I don't buy this. The Joker was right about human nature regardless of whatever hokey scenario the Nolan brothers come up with. Extreme situations call for extreme actions to survive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party

They ate the dead to survive. As long as they didnt kill them, i'm fine with it. Survival is the most important thing here.

 

[raybia]

Someone would pull the trigger before the guy even gets halfway through "let's put it to a vote."

But then it wouldn't be the story that Nolan wanted to tell.

 

[redfirebird2008]

But then it wouldn't be the story that Nolan wanted to tell.

Of course, but the other guy was arguing that this scene/dialogue added "realism" to the story. I don't think so.

 

[RustyCage]

Of course, but the other guy was arguing that this scene/dialogue added "realism" to the story. I don't think so.

Your fluctuating expectations of the moral resolve of people in such a situation has no impact on how realistic or unrealistic it is.

But yeah, I was initially referring to the dialogue itself. Technically, the overall response is completely happenstance and could have gone either way, winds up being irrelevant.

 

[The ?ion]

Someone would pull the trigger before the guy even gets halfway through "let's put it to a vote."

Just for the sake of the argument, I suggest you consider the cold war. It was a very large scale version of the boat scene. You had two parties armed with the ability to destroy the other. Both parties understood that the other party was considering their destruction. Yet, here we are, still alive. It isn't as crazy as it sounds to think that there are those who would hesitate. Ethics may not do much, but many people still have a moral code. I appreciate your skepticism though. I'd say six times out of ten, people would destroy the other party without hesitation, but at the same time it is poor logic to assume that 100% of the time, the outcome will result in people automatically forsaking the other party.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Just for the sake of the argument, I suggest you consider the cold war. It was a very large scale version of the boat scene. You had two parties armed with the ability to destroy the other. Both parties understood that the other party was considering their destruction. Yet, here we are, still alive. It isn't as crazy as it sounds to think that there are those who would hesitate. Ethics may not do much, but many people still have a moral code. I appreciate your skepticism though. I'd say six times out of ten, people would destroy the other party without hesitation, but at the same time it is poor logic to assume that 100% of the time, the outcome will result in people automatically forsaking the other party.

No matter how serious the threat appeared to be during the Cold War, it was still politics and a disagreement between two parties. That's not quite the same as having a gun to your head at the 7-11 or something. The Joker was effectively putting a gun to the heads of the people on the ferry boats, which is a different situation than a political argument. I think when it comes to ideological disagreements, there is always hope that people can compromise. But when you literally have a gun to your head, it's a different story altogether.

 

[RustyCage]

No matter how serious the threat appeared to be during the Cold War, it was still politics. That's not quite the same as having a gun to your head at the 7-11 or something.

Neither was the boat scenario.

I'll also add that just because something isn't typical doesn't make it unrealistic.

The Joker was effectively putting a gun to the heads of the people on the ferry boats, which is a different situation than a political argument. I think when it comes to ideological disagreements, there is always hope that people can compromise. But when you literally have a gun to your head, it's a different story altogether.

There was more to that situation than just the Joker having the bomb to blow them both up is the point. You can't ignore all the other things going on. The scene was literally dealing with the kind of ideological dilemma you're describing, and it was completely reflective of and relevant to the rest of the things that had happened to the city in the film. The state of the people.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Neither was the boat scenario.

Yes it was. Joker was holding a gun to their heads by telling them that both boats would be blown sky high if neither acted. That's a third party creating a conflict between two parties whereas the Cold War was simply two parties disagreeing over ideology. I added this in my post above, but I think there is always hope for compromise when two parties strongly disagree on an idea or policy. But that's not what was going on in the ferry boat scene. It was closer to the 7-11 situation. The only reason the people didn't get blown to hell is because the Joker's detonator failed. That's like if someone has a gun held to your head at 7-11, tells you to empty the cash register, you refuse to do it, and then they attempt to shoot you but the gun fails for some reason. You got lucky in that scenario rather than simply compromising on a conflict of ideas (such as the case of the Cold War).

 

[Mr. Earle]

The thing is that the Joker may have lied and pressing the switch could detonate your own boat, as punishment. Personally i would have tried to dismantle the bomb. I think pulling the wires off the barrels so that they dont spark a flame would be enough.

 

[redfirebird2008]

The thing is that the Joker may have lied and pressing the switch could detonate your own boat, as punishment.

Doesn't the same apply in a 7-11 situation? Gunman points gun in your face and tells you to empty the cash register or he'll kill you. You empty the cash register, but he goes ahead and kills you anyway.

As for your solution, I like the way you think. Then again, it could be rigged to blow up if someone tampers with the wires.

 

[Dark Knight]

Well, I'm not putting any money on anything besides Hardy being in this film and Catwoman being in it as well.

Otherwise, IF there is going to be a special task force set up to try and capture The Batman, then it's certainly possible Sara Essen may be part of that group, along with Strange, Sgt Lawton/Cort/Bullock, and Gordon of course.

I would assume that IF Essen does wind up in this film, there will be NO love affair between her and Gordon either. That little sub plot from the books would be a waste of time and uneccessary IMO on the big screen.

I also can see Essen possibly revealing herself to be Talia Al Ghul towards the end in some wicked surprise to the GENERAL MOVIE GOING PUBLIC/AUDIENCE.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Doesn't the same apply in a 7-11 situation? Gunman points gun in your face and tells you to empty the cash register or he'll kill you. You empty the cash register, but he goes ahead and kills you anyway.

Damn!

As for your solution, I like the way you think. Then again, it could be rigged to blow up if someone tampers with the wires.

It seemed like a very low tech bomb so i thought it might be possible. There is no way i would tamper with a more advanced one, cutting wires and all that.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Damn!

Seems like a very Joker thing to do. For practical purposes, I could see a criminal doing it to keep the store clerk from testifying against him by describing his voice or whatever (assuming criminal is smart enough to wear a mask).

A badass Joker scene with the ferries would have been for him to tell both ferries that one has to blow the other up and he'll let that boat live, but he fails to tell them that both boats have fake detonators. One or both boats attempt to blow each other up by pushing the button, which simply sends a signal to the Joker letting him know what they did. When he gets the signal, he comes on the intercom for both boats and says, "Looks like you both tried to blow each other up. Just as I suspected. Thank you for participating in my social experiment. Unfortunately for you, the detonators failed...which means I have to blow you both up!" Boom. Joker FTMFW. t:

 

[BestGirl]

Why, because it wont be the Joker again?
I never got that from Begins. The film didnt have a cliffhanger, nor did it mean that the sequel would be about the Joker. Nolan himself said that he wasnt sure that he'd use the Joker in TDK. It was just a way to show that batman villains are coming up.

I don't believe that for a second. There's no way you tease audiences with the Joker and then not follow through.

 

[BestGirl]

I do not agree. I think this is exactly what happened with Ledger and Gyllenhaal. Fanboism taking over critical judgement. Hardy was in Inception and now Batman, therefore he is teh awesome and teh best actor ever. If anything i think Leo, Page and JGH were the best. Hardy's role wasnt that hard.

I mean no offense. I just think that Hardy is overrated around these parts.

I loved Hardy in Inception long before he was cast in TDKR. He was better than Levitt, IMO, although he did have a more interesting character to work with. When a lot of people in this site were hoping for JGL as the Riddler I secretly hoped we'd get Hardy instead.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I loved Hardy in Inception long before he was cast in TDKR. He was better than Levitt, IMO, although he did have a more interesting character to work with. When a lot of people in this site were hoping for JGL as the Riddler I secretly hoped we'd get Hardy instead.

I like JGL but Hardy has shown more range and charm in his career.

 

[raybia]

I loved Hardy in Inception long before he was cast in TDKR. He was better than Levitt, IMO, although he did have a more interesting character to work with. When a lot of people in this site were hoping for JGL as the Riddler I secretly hoped we'd get Hardy instead.

It was a safe bet that someone from Inception was going to make it into TDKR...other than Michael Caine of course.


raybia

 

[BestGirl]

It was a safe bet that someone from Inception was going to make it into TDKR...other than Michael Caine of course.


raybia

Yep. That's why I thought that, if we were going to get an Inception actor, I'd prefer Hardy to Levitt.

 

[RustyCage]

Yes it was. Joker was holding a gun to their heads by telling them that both boats would be blown sky high if neither acted. That's a third party creating a conflict between two parties whereas the Cold War was simply two parties disagreeing over ideology. I added this in my post above, but I think there is always hope for compromise when two parties strongly disagree on an idea or policy. But that's not what was going on in the ferry boat scene. It was closer to the 7-11 situation. The only reason the people didn't get blown to hell is because the Joker's detonator failed. That's like if someone has a gun held to your head at 7-11, tells you to empty the cash register, you refuse to do it, and then they attempt to shoot you but the gun fails for some reason. You got lucky in that scenario rather than simply compromising on a conflict of ideas (such as the case of the Cold War).

Your analogy is still off, you're demeaning the situation. First, let me address this a second time since you seem to have missed me reply to your edit with an edit of my own: Ideology was still heavily at play here. The Joker made that 100% clear when he said they were all part of a 'social experiment'. They were being tested and they knew it. He told them. The entire situation was based on ideologies butting heads.

Secondly, there were four parties, and the detonator didn't 'fail'. You have to include the fourth party into your analogy: Batman.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Your analogy is still off, you're demeaning the situation. First, let me address this a second time since you seem to have missed me reply to your edit with an edit of my own: Ideology was still heavily at play here. The Joker made that 100% clear when he said they were all part of a 'social experiment'. They were being tested and they knew it. He told them. The entire situation was based on ideologies butting heads.

Secondly, there were four parties, and the detonator didn't 'fail'. You have to include the fourth party into your analogy: Batman.

The detonator did fail. "Sometimes you gotta do everything yourself." He pushed the button and it didn't work. As far as Batman goes, he was not a party to the situation when the Joker first announced the threat to the people on the boats. As far as this ideological clash that you're talking about, do you think anyone on the boats would consider the Joker a reasonable party for negotiation? Guy proved how crazy he was throughout the story leading up to that moment.

 

[Gianakin_]

The detonator did fail. "Sometimes you gotta do everything yourself." He pushed the button and it didn't work.

I don't think he had the time to push it. He was about to when Batman shot the glove fins to his face.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I don't think he had the time to push it. He was about to when Batman shot the glove fins to his face.

Sure looked like he pushed it to me and then a look of "holy crap" came on his face when nothing happened.

 

[RustyCage]

The detonator did fail. "Sometimes you gotta do everything yourself." He pushed the button and it didn't work.

It looked to me like he was just turning it on (green light appeared), and went to taunt Batman more before actually detonating it. Which was when Batman, promptly, acted.

As far as Batman goes, he was not a party to the situation when the Joker first announced the threat to the people on the boats.

Yes he was, because he was part of Joker's test too. If we're still going with your 7/11 analogy, Batman is the off-duty cop that busts in and knocks the gun out of the burglar's hand before he can shoot the two victims. Batman choosing to act like this is representative of one of the ideologies at play here, and Joker was aware of it and testing it. This included the choice of whether or not Batman was willing to kill Joker to stop him. 'You truly are incorruptible, aren't you?'

As far as this ideological clash that you're talking about, do you think anyone on the boats would consider the Joker a reasonable party for negotiation? Guy proved how crazy he was throughout the story leading up to that moment.

Whether or not they thought he would negotiate has nothing to do with them standing up for their side of the ideological clash. This only bolsters the point, in fact. Like you said, he proved how crazy he was, and in the face of this, they still did what they believed was right.

It's baffling that such an obvious message could fly over someone's head, to be perfectly honest with you. Batman even spells it out when talking to the Joker within the same 5 minutes of the movie. 'This city, just showed you... that it's full of people.. ready to believe in good.'

 

[Gianakin_]

Sure looked like he pushed it to me and then a look of "holy crap" came on his face when nothing happened.

Let me check again.

 

[redfirebird2008]

It's baffling that such an obvious message could fly over someone's head, to be perfectly honest with you. Batman even spells it out when talking to the Joker within the same 5 minutes of the movie. 'This city, just showed you... that it's full of people.. ready to believe in good.'

The message didn't fly over my head. The Nolans aren't exactly subtle with this script. I simply disagree with how realistic the situation is.