The Dark Knight Biggest Disappointment

[Matt Murdock]

Your excuse for continuing a feud, which you deem pointless and astounding, is boredom?

 

[Crook]

Yes, precisely. Now what's your excuse for being perturbed by an argument that doesn't involve you and a discussion that you can simply ignore?

 

[Matt Murdock]

Who said I was perturbed? I just don't want anyone to get a probation. Nothings more entertaining than an interweb argument. Everyone takes everything so seriously.

 

[Crook]

No one's getting a probation here, at least not from this particular debate. It's been civil and abides the forum guidelines of discussion.

So unless someone starts throwing out personal insults, starts bashing people, or any other form of aggressive behavior...it's cool. There's nothing "too serious" here.

 

[Matt Murdock]

I'm not a dog person.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

you are all a-holes!!!!!! hoohahahahaeheheehahahahaheheehaha!!!!! obviously i'm joking, i love you all!!!!
"i like you clarence, always have, always will"

 

[Ayumi_Vasquez]

-it ended XP
-Heath won’t be able to reprise his role as the joker

I would’ve like to see the scenes that where implied and/or cut but then the movie would be 4 hours, haha. I wouldn’t complain. : ) There’s always the DVD release of deleted scenes and such.

Other then that it was done very well.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

i just watched the trailer again and i can't for the life of me remember in the movie when The Joker says " now......where do we begin?" i think that was completly cut from the film

 

[Showtime]

No one's getting a probation here, at least not from this particular debate. It's been civil and abides the forum guidelines of discussion.

So unless someone starts throwing out personal insults, starts bashing people, or any other form of aggressive behavior...it's cool. There's nothing "too serious" here.

That's our call.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Agreed.

you are all a-holes!!!!!!

Agreed.

That's our call.

LOL, yeah. Too true.

And to keep this thread on topic. I HATED THE BATPOD SPIN!!! No, seriously.

Spoiler

 

[the_scream]

You seem to be under the wrong impression. I have not insulted you and the only reason for my slight undertones of bemusement is because I can't believe an argument like this in particular, could be taken so far.

Fair enough. Yet, you are being condescending in tone which is pretty typical of internet boards. If that was my error then I apologise.

Of course I have seen the video. Wouldn't be smart of me to address your points without doing so.

Yet you replied to my comment about the magician's trick without paying reference to this. Sorry, but I don't expect you to actually read the link just as I wouldn't expect people to attend to the "Batman" when they are concentrating on the clown.

I know exactly the point of that visual experiment, and I flat out disagree with the notion that it was a mere minor diversion. I've shown that vid to plenty of friends, watching it with them, and it's easy to see how one could overlook an obvious addition to the scenery.

It is a minor diversion when you consider the people are normal and all they are doing is throwing a ball around. Don't you think a person walking out in a gorilla costume, beating their chest is completely salient in comparison? C'mon!

There are a lot of things going on that video, coupled with rapid movement that nearly blurs the entire event. The reason why it works is because of the speed and general chaos it causes your eye to follow the ball.

Sure, but the Joker wouldn't also represent the same kind of chaos and more so? I would think the Joker would be more distracting than a group of normal people throwing a ball. Please agree with this or we are done here!!

Even with such an experiment however, I doubt it'd yield success if partaken in front of a live audience.

Why? The principle is the same.

That is, no video and people are actually there watching it take place. This is purely a guess on my part, but the luxury provided by field of vision would greatly hamper the effectiveness of this technique.

Why? The gorilla is in the middle of the screen. I think you haven't actually looked at the video, sorry. Look at the image above. Why would field of vision affect something like this?

Again, I bring up the blank canvas analogy which I think is a better comparison to the TDK scene.

Sure, but there is no "blank" canvas. The room is filled with distractions. There is the psychotic clown distracting people and his men who would be drawing attention away from everyone.

I'm sure some people would. Not everyone in the vicinity however.

I agree with this completely. This is simply arguing the size of the effect rather than the effect itself.

This only serves to favor my point. 33% is significantly less of a result than the bear/ball experiment. As I've stated above, it is likely some people would be prone to missing it, but not everyone. In fact, the study even says the majority would notice it.

Yep. But the difference being is that those experiments were dealing with minor distractions. In this case, the Joker was a MAJOR distraction. The point was that it is probable that when someone's attention is directed at something, they fail to observe very obvious things even in their most immediate field of view. In this case, the Joker's crazy antics would have been enough to blind the party from noticing Batman until the very last moment simply because they would have been frozen, staring at the psychotic clown.

 

[the_scream]

BTW, anyone who is interested in seeing the gorilla video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX2BJC12uXQ&feature=related

As much as it is obvious, many people fail to see the gorilla. As you can see, it isn't a quick blur or a slight of hand. People actually fail to see a person walk out and see a gorilla in the middle of the screen!

 

[Ace of Knaves]

how could they not notice that? fooking idiots!!!! lol

 

[the_scream]

how could they not notice that? fooking idiots!!!! lol

lol. t: Yep. That's what most people say. However, I have seen this old video used time and time again. Most people in my experience don't see it! Goes to show that our assumptions about human attention aren't very accurate. Humans have a very limited attention. If you weren't told about the gorilla, there is a good chance you wouldn't have seen it either!

 

[Ace of Knaves]

yea i spose knowing its there before hand helps. i've got quite good awareness though, i do notice things others can't. well maybe thats just when we are all stoned!! lol

 

[Soender]

BTW, anyone who is interested in seeing the gorilla video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX2BJC12uXQ&feature=related

As much as it is obvious, many people fail to see the gorilla. As you can see, it isn't a quick blur or a slight of hand. People actually fail to see a person walk out and see a gorilla in the middle of the screen!

You pretty much ruined the video by telling wtf it's about.

 

[Crook]

It is a minor diversion when you consider the people are normal and all they are doing is throwing a ball around. Don't you think a person walking out in a gorilla costume, beating their chest is completely salient in comparison? C'mon!

If it was such a minor diversion, then this experiment would not be popular and we wouldn't even be discussing this. Fact is, obviously it's enough that it fools people into thinking nothing much is going on but a ball passing around.

Sure, but the Joker wouldn't also represent the same kind of chaos and more so? I would think the Joker would be more distracting than a group of normal people throwing a ball. Please agree with this or we are done here!!

That is not the kind of chaos I was talking about. I would have hoped you would be able to determine the difference between a rumbling in adrenaline from a psycho killer holding you hostage, with the focus and concentration you would need to follow a ball being passed around multiple people.

Why? The gorilla is in the middle of the screen. I think you haven't actually looked at the video, sorry.

Dude. Seriously? There is nothing special about your video. It has been shown to millions of people, and chances are if you're over the age of 17, it's probably been shown in one of your classes already. Why the hell would you assume something like this?

Look at the image above. Why would field of vision affect something like this?

Because you can see the gorilla coming from a mile away? The viewing box allows the gorilla to pass by your sight in a limited space. Notice how there's little to no room of empty space as the gorilla enters and exits. This experiment is not gonna work in an open area in front of people. Just won't.

Here's an updated video, of which more people are probably familiar with. Even in a widescreen aspect ratio which is closer to how our eyes work, the same constrictions apply in setting up the test:

[YT]Ahg6qcgoay4[/YT]

Sure, but there is no "blank" canvas. The room is filled with distractions. There is the psychotic clown distracting people and his men who would be drawing attention away from everyone.

This might hold true if the people weren't surrounding the entire area. Despite what Joker and his goons are doing, the center is essentially free to anyone's view. Just looking at the scene of Bats fighting everyone off, you can see just how large the room is and how far the crowd is from him. BIG area not to notice him. And a big difference from the ball experiment because Batman is not slowly seeping his way into your view via distractions that would conceal him. He just drops right into the center (read: NEXT to Joker and Rachel, not in-between them or in someone's inside pocket. NEXT to them) and stays there momentarily.

Even if everyone were blatantly staring right at Joker and being hypnotized, considering the circular formation of the crowd, Batman's position would've snapped someone's stare by coming in front of Joker. It's the equivalent of you staring at something, and someone waves their hand in front of you to shake you out of it.

I still say the only viable explanation is that the crowd kept quiet so Batman could save them. In fact, I'd be inclined to just accept this fact because now, even more than before, I can just see how ridiculous this argument is. I'll "concede" in the notion that some people may very well have been too distracted to notice Bats. However, the odds are in my favor by saying that someONE did notice him. More than likely, quite a few people. And this'll be my last say on the matter.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

i think that whole video is not to see if we see the gorilla but if the people throwing the ball around see the gorilla.

 

[M.O.Steel]

why do people want the joker back. even if heath were alive, i don't see the point of bringing back the joker. His story ended with 2. being in 3 would have just been repetitive IMO.

it's time for some one else,.............................like two-face?

 

[Freakzter]

why do people want the joker back.

what kind of question is that? people could probably fill pages of threads with reasons why.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

why do people want the joker back. even if heath were alive, i don't see the point of bringing back the joker. His story ended with 2. being in 3 would have just been repetitive IMO.

it's time for some one else,.............................like two-face?

i dont wanna get into a debate about it because i have been for the last 2 days. but how can you say his story ended? he got captured by the swat team, that doesn't mean its game over for the joker, as we know he can escape captivity almost at will. and if you think a skilled film-maker like nolan couldn't come up with new purposes for the joker then well i feel bad for you.

 

[the_scream]

If it was such a minor diversion, then this experiment would not be popular

But that's the whole point. If it were a major distraction, it wouldn't be popular at all. People would be like "yeah, so what?".

and we wouldn't even be discussing this. Fact is, obviously it's enough that it fools people into thinking nothing much is going on but a ball passing around.

The fact is that the experiment was demonstrating one important point: people have a limited attention. You don't have to "fool" people. All you have to do is occupy that attentional load and people can't take in more information.

That is not the kind of chaos I was talking about. I would have hoped you would be able to determine the difference between a rumbling in adrenaline from a psycho killer holding you hostage, with the focus and concentration you would need to follow a ball being passed around multiple people.

Why do you persist in trying to make this personal?

There is a difference but one glaring similarity: both these things occupy attention.

Dude. Seriously? There is nothing special about your video. It has been shown to millions of people, and chances are if you're over the age of 17, it's probably been shown in one of your classes already. Why the hell would you assume something like this?

Because your description of the video doesn't sound right. I know it's old but many people haven't seen it.

Because you can see the gorilla coming from a mile away? The viewing box allows the gorilla to pass by your sight in a limited space. Notice how there's little to no room of empty space as the gorilla enters and exits. This experiment is not gonna work in an open area in front of people. Just won't.

Actually, funny you say that. I've been doing a lot of research into railway crossing accidents. Funny thing about them is that a driver quite often can't see the train coming even when they could have easily seen a large moving object way off in the distance. There a many examples in this context which show innattentional blindness is not undermined by a wider scope of vision.

This might hold true if the people weren't surrounding the entire area. Despite what Joker and his goons are doing, the center is essentially free to anyone's view. Just looking at the scene of Bats fighting everyone off, you can see just how large the room is and how far the crowd is from him. BIG area not to notice him. And a big difference from the ball experiment because Batman is not slowly seeping his way into your view via distractions that would conceal him. He just drops right into the center (read: NEXT to Joker and Rachel, not in-between them or in someone's inside pocket. NEXT to them) and stays there momentarily.

Even if everyone were blatantly staring right at Joker and being hypnotized, considering the circular formation of the crowd, Batman's position would've snapped someone's stare by coming in front of Joker. It's the equivalent of you staring at something, and someone waves their hand in front of you to shake you out of it.

You assume that someone's "stare" would have been snapped. The point of what we have been arguing is that people DO see the change in their vision but they don't attend to it, hence, innattentional blindness. But I do agree that although it is probable Batman could sneak in when everyone's attention was on the frantic situation with the Joker, it is likely some people would have seen Batman. Again, I said before, this is discussion the magnitude of the effect not whether it could have happened.

I still say the only viable explanation is that the crowd kept quiet so Batman could save them. In fact, I'd be inclined to just accept this fact because now, even more than before, I can just see how ridiculous this argument is. I'll "concede" in the notion that some people may very well have been too distracted to notice Bats. However, the odds are in my favor by saying that someONE did notice him. More than likely, quite a few people. And this'll be my last say on the matter.

And I will concede that someONE may have noticed him. My initial point is that it isn't that strange that Batman could just "appear" if you factor in innattentional blindness as an explanation. I never meant for this to turn into a technical debate over such an absurd topic anyway. And this'll be my last say on the matter.

 

[dodgers2213]

I agree with you Crook. But this current argument is so silly. The Penthouse scene could have been easily written around to make sense. So instead of giving a better thought out scene, which wouldn't have been hard to accomplish, here we are

just like the following scene with Rachel getting thrown off the building (horrible scene) could have been written around as well

 

[M.O.Steel]

i dont wanna get into a debate about it because i have been for the last 2 days. but how can you say his story ended? he got captured by the swat team, that doesn't mean its game over for the joker, as we know he can escape captivity almost at will. and if you think a skilled film-maker like nolan couldn't come up with new purposes for the joker then well i feel bad for you.

i don't understand this. what a strange insult.

the captured and escaped route was used within the film already. in the larger scope of the batman universe, no it's not game over, but in terms of the events in 3 movies, i think it should be.

ofcourse nolan can come up with an amazing story/purpose for the joker, but that doesn't mean i would want him to. I would rather he use that talent for two-face (if he were alive). we got an amazing 2.5 hour movie with the joker, i think it's time to move on.

\this is just my opnion. no need to feel bad for me.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

lol yea i understand your opinion. i meant i feel bad for you if you don't believe nolan could do something. obviously you do so no worries.