The Amazing Spider-Man I don't know what troubles me more...

[The Joker]

Double post.

 

[chaseter]

Yeah, I wouldn't call any employee of Maroni's 'completely innocent' lol.



He did get a coin toss. Watch the scene again.

Dent: "You're a lucky man"
*Tosses coin*
Dent: "But he's not"
Maroni: "Who?"
Dent: "Your driver"

Yeah he did...you are right.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Good thing it wasn't just the scarring that caused him to turn out like that then.

Then it can't be all as psychologically deep as green gas that turns you schizo, or A.I. arms that warp your mind

It was drawn by McDaniel. I gotta remember what it was called or it's gonna drive me nuts.

 

[Dragon]

I don't think you get it, dude. When he said "They have the same chance she had: 50/50", he means they have the same chance of escaping death as she had. Fate will decide it, just like it decided it for Rachel when she was faced with death.

Okay. i just watched the frickin' movie again, because i'd admittedly hadn't seen it for a long time. First, there was no 50-50 chance of Rachel's survival. There was a 100% chance that one of them would die. It turned out that it was Rachel. Both bombs went off, which is why Harvey was scarred. The Joker didn't intend for either of them to live.

Second, when after the Joker's speech Harvey lifts the coin, it was utterly ridiculous and fake. Harvey hadn't shown any psychological unbalance or connection to the coin or fate. Especially since it was a double-headed coin. He was always assured he'd get the result he wanted.

Third, the Joker's comment about Chaos being fair was BULL. It's not fair when the chaos is created by someone's choice.

Fourth, the Joker's speech was bull. He clearly had plans and followed through on them. And Harvey knew this. So his buying into the Joker's BS was completely unconvincing.

Again you missed the point entirely. He was punishing Gordon by making him suffer the same loss he did: losing the person he loves the most.

Again, bull. Gordon didn't create the circumstances of Rachel's death, and neither did his family. The Joker did. And Harvey unbelievably decided to give the Joker the chance that the Joker didn't give him and Rachel.

Of course it does. They exploited their positions of power and trust, and used it against Harvey and Rachel.

Only at the Joker's behest.

They are accessories to the crime. The Joker couldn't have gotten his hands on them without their help.

Of course he could have. He didn't need their help to get to the Commisioner, the Judge or the Mayor. He didn't need their help to wire an entire hospital to explode. He didn't need their help to wire the ferries.

How could he have created a second chance to kill the Joker?

The real question is, why did he give him a chance in the first place, when the joker didn't give Rachel one.

I'm sorry, but I think you're totally wrong. If he was willing to abduct and terrorize a suspect in an ambulance simply because his precious Rachel was threatened, then it is absolutely no stretch to the imagination that being horribly disfigured, her being murdered, and it all happening because he was betrayed by people he trusted would push him over the edge the way it did.

Guilt, grief, and anger make the sanest people do the most shocking things.

When he kidnapped the henchman that wasn't at all insane. Police do that. The military does it. Batman does it. It's referred to as a "Ticking time bomb" scenario. He clearly didn't intend to harm the crook. He (And we) knew the coin could only come up heads. He only wanted to scare him. Not at all the actions of someone insane.

 

[Eddie Brock]

Okay. i just watched the frickin' movie again, because i'd admittedly hadn't seen it for a long time. First, there was no 50-50 chance of Rachel's survival. There was a 100% chance that one of them would die. It turned out that it was Rachel. Both bombs went off, which is why Harvey was scarred. The Joker didn't intend for either of them to live.

Um...the Joker clearly sets it up so that Batman will have to make a choice between the two. Batman could've easily gone to the other location and saved Rachel while Harvey died. 50/50.

Second, when after the Joker's speech Harvey lifts the coin, it was utterly ridiculous and fake. Harvey hadn't shown any psychological unbalance or connection to the coin or fate. Especially since it was a double-headed coin. He was always assured he'd get the result he wanted.

No psychological imbalance? So hijacking an ambulance, kidnapping a man, and holding him at gunpoint screams "perfect mental health" to you?

Third, the Joker's comment about Chaos being fair was BULL. It's not fair when the chaos is created by someone's choice.

Fourth, the Joker's speech was bull. He clearly had plans and followed through on them. And Harvey knew this. So his buying into the Joker's BS was completely unconvincing.

That was the point where Harvey made a choice. He chose to let fate decide. "Buying into the Joker's BS" had nothing to do with it.

Again, bull. Gordon didn't create the circumstances of Rachel's death, and neither did his family. The Joker did. And Harvey unbelievably decided to give the Joker the chance that the Joker didn't give him and Rachel.

Only at the Joker's behest.

Inaction can be as bad, or worse, than action. By knowingly working with crooked cops, Gordon knew he couldn't trust his men. It led to his department being compromised by the most powerful crime boss in the city.

Of course he could have. He didn't need their help to get to the Commisioner, the Judge or the Mayor. He didn't need their help to wire an entire hospital to explode. He didn't need their help to wire the ferries.

A. You think the Joker walked right into the police station, marched into the Commissioner's office, and poisoned his liquor without anyone seeing? He used his men within the GCPD to do it.

B. Again, the Joker didn't walk right up to the Mayor. He sent two crooked cops - people the Mayor would trust - to set her up.

C. The Mayor was in a public place, and everyone knew he was going to be there. Any idiot with a gun could have "gotten to" him.

D. Once again, the Joker utilized his mob ties to get access to the ferries long before the police ever found out.

The real question is, why did he give him a chance in the first place, when the joker didn't give Rachel one.

Because he's not a killer. He never was. Again, what do you think it's like staring a man in the eyes with a gun to his head? It takes a certain type of person to pull that trigger, and Harvey's not that type of person. The only way he could convince himself to go through with it is if he convinced himself that the choice was out of his hands.

When he kidnapped the henchman that wasn't at all insane. Police do that. The military does it. Batman does it. It's referred to as a "Ticking time bomb" scenario. He clearly didn't intend to harm the crook. He (And we) knew the coin could only come up heads. He only wanted to scare him. Not at all the actions of someone insane.

Know what the difference with the police and military is? They're trained professionals with authority granted to them by the state. Harvey Dent is just a citizen - and an upholder of the law, at that. It doesn't scream insanity, but it clearly shows the lengths to which he's willing to go.

 

[The Joker]

It was drawn by McDaniel. I gotta remember what it was called or it's gonna drive me nuts.

Crime and Punishment: http://www.amazon.com/Batman-Two-Face-Punishment-J-Dematteis/dp/1563891972

Okay. i just watched the frickin' movie again, because i'd admittedly hadn't seen it for a long time. First, there was no 50-50 chance of Rachel's survival. There was a 100% chance that one of them would die. It turned out that it was Rachel. Both bombs went off, which is why Harvey was scarred. The Joker didn't intend for either of them to live.

You sure you re-watched the movie?

The Joker told Batman their locations. Harvey managed to get saved in time, Rachel didn't. So there was an obvious chance for survival for both of them. Otherwise if Joker wanted them to die he'd have just kept his trap shut and continued to enjoy having Batman beating him up.

Batman had a choice of who to save. 50/50 on who he was going to pick.

Second, when after the Joker's speech Harvey lifts the coin, it was utterly ridiculous and fake. Harvey hadn't shown any psychological unbalance or connection to the coin or fate. Especially since it was a double-headed coin. He was always assured he'd get the result he wanted.

That's why Rachel's death flipped, if you'll pardon the pun, the meaning of the coin to him, because the scarred side of the coin, scarred by the explosion that she died in, changed the meaning of the coin. It represented the fifty fifty chance she had for survival.

I don't see how you didn't get that, Dragon. You're usually a sharp one to spot these subtle things.

Third, the Joker's comment about Chaos being fair was BULL. It's not fair when the chaos is created by someone's choice.

Fourth, the Joker's speech was bull. He clearly had plans and followed through on them. And Harvey knew this. So his buying into the Joker's BS was completely unconvincing.

Of course it was bull. Everything the Joker says is a lie. He told two different stories about how he got his cut smile. He's a liar and a manipulator. He says what ever sounds good at the time to get what he wants.

But he was just adding to fuel to an already inflamed and enraged Harvey Dent, whom if you recall already blamed Gordon and his Cops for their parts in Rachel's death before Joker even showed up at the hospital.

Gordon: "I'm sorry, Harvey"
Dent: "No. No you're not. Not yet"

He was clearly already planning a revenge of some kind on Gordon. All Joker did was add fuel to the fire.

Again, bull. Gordon didn't create the circumstances of Rachel's death, and neither did his family. The Joker did. And Harvey unbelievably decided to give the Joker the chance that the Joker didn't give him and Rachel.

Again Joker did give him the chance when he told Batman where they were.

Only at the Joker's behest.

So what? That doesn't excuse their part in Rachel's death. They willingly did it. Nobody forced them to.

Of course he could have. He didn't need their help to get to the Commisioner, the Judge or the Mayor. He didn't need their help to wire an entire hospital to explode. He didn't need their help to wire the ferries.

And how do you know that? In fact it seems increasingly obvious that the only way he could have done that is with connections in the Police department.

The mob did hired Joker to take out Batman for them after he proved he was right about Batman getting his hands on Lau no matter what. And we know the mob had people in Dent's office and the Police department on their payroll.

The real question is, why did he give him a chance in the first place, when the joker didn't give Rachel one.

As mentioned twice above, he did, when he spilled the location of Rachel and Harvey.

When he kidnapped the henchman that wasn't at all insane. Police do that. The military does it. Batman does it. It's referred to as a "Ticking time bomb" scenario.

The district attorney is not the Police, the military, or Batman. Or do you know of many instances where a district attorney abducts injured suspects from an ambulance, and takes them to dark alleyways to threaten them with a gun?

 

[Dragon]

You sure you re-watched the movie?

The Joker told Batman their locations. Harvey managed to get saved in time, Rachel didn't. So there was an obvious chance for survival for both of them. Otherwise if Joker wanted them to die he'd have just kept his trap shut and continued to enjoy having Batman beating him up.

Batman had a choice of who to save. 50/50 on who he was going to pick.

What i think is you might've watched it too many times and what the Joker has is catching.

The Joker didn't give Rachel a chance, because as the scene shows- it was impossible for anyone to reach her. And moreover, he stacked the deck by lying to Batman about who was where. He rigged the situation so that no matter what, he'd win. It's like me saying to you "i won't shoot you if you can dodge the bullet". There's no chance for you if the task is impossible.

And again- both bombs exploded.

In fact, this just shows the sloppiness of the script that I was aluding to in my earlier post. For example, who says Batman would've been able to reach Rachel even if he hadn't been lied to?

For the situation to have worked dramatically, there really had to have been a failure on Batman and Gordon's part. Not the situation set-up so that they could only fail.

That's why Rachel's death flipped, if you'll pardon the pun, the meaning of the coin to him, because the scarred side of the coin, scarred by the explosion that she died in, changed the meaning of the coin. It represented the fifty fifty chance she had for survival.

I don't see how you didn't get that, Dragon. You're usually a sharp one to spot these subtle things.

There was no subtlety there. There wasn't even the BS pseudo-psychology of films like The Hulk.

Harvey never displayed a psychological need for the coin. It was a playful gimmick for him. This is again, underlined by his always knowing he'd win by it being double-headed.

Had Rachel's life actually been decided on the flip of the coin- and moreover, Harvey flipping the coin, then there might have been some weight to that argument. But no such thing happened. He merely pulls out the coin for no reason at all when holding the gun on The Joker.

Of course it was bull. Everything the Joker says is a lie. He told two different stories about how he got his cut smile. He's a liar and a manipulator. He says what ever sounds good at the time to get what he wants.

Which makes Harvey a poorly written character for buying into what he says, when he himself knew the Joker was a liar. It wasn't believable that Harvey would have accepted anything he said. He'd have just shot the Joker and been done with it.

But he was just adding to fuel to an already inflamed and enraged Harvey Dent, whom if you recall already blamed Gordon and his Cops for their parts in Rachel's death before Joker even showed up at the hospital.

Gordon: "I'm sorry, Harvey"
Dent: "No. No you're not. Not yet"

He was clearly already planning a revenge of some kind on Gordon. All Joker did was add fuel to the fire.[/quote]

Which again says how poorly written the script was. Gordon turning ***** and begging Harvey when he had a gun to his familiy's haed is one of the dumbest scenes I'vev ever seen. Harvey had n right to blame them. And Gordon and Batman fawning over him was idiotic.

Harvey knew that by entering law enforcement he and Rachel were both putting themselves at risk. It comes with the job. Rachel said this herself.

Again Joker did give him the chance when he told Batman where they were.

Again, not if he exploed the bombs before they could get there.

So what? That doesn't excuse their part in Rachel's death. They willingly did it. Nobody forced them to.

Actually the Joker did. Ramirez' mother would have died. Moreover, they were dealing with someone who would have killed them if they didn't cooperate.

And how do you know that? In fact it seems increasingly obvious that the only way he could have done that is with connections in the Police department.

It seems? You have not a single thing to base that theory on. You're just ssuming. And if the script were good, you wouldn't have to. It would be explained. Honestly, the Joker's schemes were all BS anyway. There's no way he could've pulled them off but for lapses in the script. But be that as it may, it's just unbelievable that the cops would knowingly participate in the murderes of hundreds of people. And if they were that bent, then there's nothing Gordon could have done to stop them anyway.

You could even argue that Dent failed to get to the corrupt cops when in Internal Affairs. And he could have brought actual evidence against them as DA. He did neither, so blaming Gordon was scapegoating.

The mob did hired Joker to take out Batman for them after he proved he was right about Batman getting his hands on Lau no matter what. And we know the mob had people in Dent's office and the Police department on their payroll.

Again the whole scenario is bull.

The Joker would've done all of that whether the mob hired him or not. He in fact, took over the mob. We know he didn't care about the money anyway. And his goal was to terrorize Gotham. The mob didn't have anything to do with his ultimae plans.

As mentioned twice above, he did, when he spilled the location of Rachel and Harvey.

And as I'm mentioning a third time. it doesn't matter if they couldn't realisitically reach her.

The district attorney is not the Police, the military, or Batman. Or do you know of many instances where a district attorney abducts injured suspects from an ambulance, and takes them to dark alleyways to threaten them with a gun?

Keyword, THREATEN. He didn't harm the man at all. If he was insane, he'd have actually hurt him. Actually, any sane person would do that. Are you saying you wouldn't do the same if a loved one was threatened?

Third, the DA, or even an average citizen can KILL someone if there is an imminent threat to themselves or others. That's the law. So Harvey could have actually hurt the guy to protect Rachel.

 

[The Joker]

What i think is you might've watched it too many times and what the Joker has is catching.

Criminal genius-itis?

The Joker didn't give Rachel a chance, because as the scene shows- it was impossible for anyone to reach her. And moreover, he stacked the deck by lying to Batman about who was where. He rigged the situation so that no matter what, he'd win. It's like me saying to you "i won't shoot you if you can dodge the bullet". There's no chance for you if the task is impossible.

Ok, two things:

1. Because the Cops in their cars missed saving her by mere seconds, doesn't mean she was unreachable. Had Batman chosen her, with the added advantage of his Bat-Pod, had equal opportunity to reach her as it clearly moved more swiftly than Gordon and his men.

2. Because he lied to Batman didn't negate the fact that there was still the 50/50 chance Batman would have went for Rachel.

And again- both bombs exploded.

Yet Harvey lived.

Chance of survival proven.

In fact, this just shows the sloppiness of the script that I was aluding to in my earlier post. For example, who says Batman would've been able to reach Rachel even if he hadn't been lied to?

Who says he wouldn't?

For the situation to have worked dramatically, there really had to have been a failure on Batman and Gordon's part. Not the situation set-up so that they could only fail.

Except they didn't only fail because they saved Harvey. Harvey only got burned because he had tipped over a petrol can in his struggle to escape, and accidentally got himself ignited in the few stray flames from the blast.

Harvey never displayed a psychological need for the coin. It was a playful gimmick for him. This is again, underlined by his always knowing he'd win by it being double-headed.

Harvey never needed the coin prior to becoming Two Face either in the comics. He never made decisions with it. He needed it in TDK when he became Two Face because the ONLY way he would decide on the guilty ones fates is by using the coin.

There's no question Ramirez and Joker would have bought it otherwise.

Had Rachel's life actually been decided on the flip of the coin- and moreover, Harvey flipping the coin, then there might have been some weight to that argument. But no such thing happened. He merely pulls out the coin for no reason at all when holding the gun on The Joker.

Dragon, you again miss the point. It was chance that caused Rachel's death. Just like the flip of a coin. That's why he used it. That was his psychosis behind it, as clearly stated in the movie.

Which makes Harvey a poorly written character for buying into what he says, when he himself knew the Joker was a liar. It wasn't believable that Harvey would have accepted anything he said. He'd have just shot the Joker and been done with it.

How did Harvey know the Joker was lying? He knew nothing of Joker's plans. He never heard either of Joker's scar stories. Up to this point Joker did seem to be doing nothing but causing sheer chaos with no element of profit. The Joker's BS speech about random chaos is very convincing. Joker never revealed any of his real hidden agendas to Dent.

As a viewer being privy to all of the Joker's actions, we know Joker is lying. Dent does not.

Which again says how poorly written the script was. Gordon turning ***** and begging Harvey when he had a gun to his familiy's haed is one of the dumbest scenes I'vev ever seen. Harvey had n right to blame them. And Gordon and Batman fawning over him was idiotic.

For god sake, man, he had a gun to a child's head. What should Batman and Gordon have done, antagonized him into killing the child?

Don't ever become a hostage negotiator

Obviously we know Harvey was wrong to blame Gordon, but with so many villains motivations, it makes a warped sense to them. In Harvey's eyes Gordon turned a blind eye to his warnings of the corrupt Cops in his force, and that ultimately led to them aiding the Joker in the death of Rachel.

Harvey knew that by entering law enforcement he and Rachel were both putting themselves at risk. It comes with the job. Rachel said this herself.

Of course. I mean he was fending off assassination attempts in court. His life being put in danger was something he accepted. "I knew the risk when I took this job, Lieutenant".

Being disfigured, having his loved one murdered, and having the Cops he trusted stab him in the back in the process, that he wasn't expecting.

Again, not if he exploed the bombs before they could get there.

Joker had no access to explode the bombs when ever he wanted. They were on a set timer. Batman made it there and saved Harvey. Proof positive that it was not an impossible feat for Batman. Rachel had equal chance of a rescue had Batman gone to her location instead.

Like I said, it was a 50/50 chance on where he'd go. Either one or the other.

Actually the Joker did. Ramirez' mother would have died. Moreover, they were dealing with someone who would have killed them if they didn't cooperate.

Where in the movie did it say she would have died? Or that she was coerced into it, or Wurtz, or any of the bent people on their payroll?

Ramirez said she did it for her mum's hospital bills. She never said they made her, or threatened her or her mother etc. Her only defense was that she didn't know what they were going to do to them, to which Harvey scoffed and said "What exactly did you think they were going to do with us?"

It seems? You have not a single thing to base that theory on. You're just ssuming.

As are you, dear Dragon

And if the script were good, you wouldn't have to. It would be explained.

Some things are obvious that need no explanation. This wasn't a case of throwing a car at Peter Parker when you needed him alive type scenario.

It's made clear there is corruption in the Police force and Harvey Dent's office. Is it so hard to imagine how some poison got slipped into a bottle of liquor in Commissioner Loeb's desk, or a bomb planted in a Judge's car etc?

No, of course not.

Honestly, the Joker's schemes were all BS anyway. There's no way he could've pulled them off but for lapses in the script. But be that as it may, it's just unbelievable that the cops would knowingly participate in the murderes of hundreds of people.

What hundreds of people? He killed Loeb, the Judge, and Rachel. They're the only murders he'd require inside help with.

And if they were that bent, then there's nothing Gordon could have done to stop them anyway.

Of course he could. He could have had them suspended pending an investigation. He wasn't a lowly Sargent now like he was in Begins.

You could even argue that Dent failed to get to the corrupt cops when in Internal Affairs. And he could have brought actual evidence against them as DA. He did neither, so blaming Gordon was scapegoating.

He said he investigated Cops at Internal affairs. Where did he say he found any evidence on them?

Not to mention when he was at Internal Affairs was most likely during the time when Gotham was at it's dirtiest and most corrupt ala Begins before Bruce came back.

The Joker would've done all of that whether the mob hired him or not. He in fact, took over the mob. We know he didn't care about the money anyway. And his goal was to terrorize Gotham. The mob didn't have anything to do with his ultimae plans.

As we've discussed at length, The Joker couldn't have done all that without the mob's connections on the inside.

He used the money to send a message that "The town was getting a better class of criminal". The mob was just a means to his ends. Just like Harvey was.

Keyword, THREATEN. He didn't harm the man at all. If he was insane, he'd have actually hurt him. Actually, any sane person would do that. Are you saying you wouldn't do the same if a loved one was threatened?

Would I abduct someone in an ambulance and threaten them with a gun? No, I'd turn him over to the Cops and have them grill him, and then haul myself and my threatened loved one out of town post haste.

Third, the DA, or even an average citizen can KILL someone if there is an imminent threat to themselves or others. That's the law. So Harvey could have actually hurt the guy to protect Rachel.

Rachel was in no immediate physical danger from that guy. How on earth could Harvey justify murdering that guy tied to a chair while Rachel was tucked safely away in Bruce Wayne's penthouse?

Ridiculous!

EDIT: I'm not sure if we should keep going on with this as it's way off topic.....

 

[Dragon]

Criminal genius-itis?

If he was a genius, he wouldn't have gotten caught.

Ok, two things:

1. Because the Cops in their cars missed saving her by mere seconds, doesn't mean she was unreachable. Had Batman chosen her, with the added advantage of his Bat-Pod, had equal opportunity to reach her as it clearly moved more swiftly than Gordon and his men.

2. Because he lied to Batman didn't negate the fact that there was still the 50/50 chance Batman would have went for Rachel.

1. If they couldn't reach her through no fault of their own, then it was impossible to reach her. Neither the Joker or Harvey could reasonably expect Batman to be in two places at once or the cop cars to be as fast as Batamn's. And Batman did chose her. The Joker lied and Batman isn't a mind reader.

2. By lying to Batman he removed the 50-50 chance. Batman was the only one fast enough to reach her and he wasn't going to the right place. The Joker said to Harvey that chaos is fair- But he wasn't fair. Also, for there to be a 50-50 chance the cops would have to have had an equal chance of reaching her as Batman, which they didn't.

Yet Harvey lived.

Chance of survival proven.

Not at all. What was proven was that the one that Batman reached had 100% chance of survival, the one the police reached had 0% chance of survival. That turned out to be Harvey. So again, Rachel didn't have a 50-50 chance.

Who says he wouldn't?

That's the point. There's no way of saying. But the script so was so poorly put together that it assumes that he could although he didn't do anything differently than the cops.

Except they didn't only fail because they saved Harvey. Harvey only got burned because he had tipped over a petrol can in his struggle to escape, and accidentally got himself ignited in the few stray flames from the blast.

And your point is? Should Harvey have not tried to free himself? And even if he didn't get soaked in gasoline, he'd have still been burned.

Harvey never needed the coin prior to becoming Two Face either in the comics. He never made decisions with it.

The failings of the comics shouldn't be excused in the film. Espeically if the film is as highly-praised as this one. They could have, should have shown Harvey having lapses in judgement. Moments of uncertainty where he was afraid to chose and used the coin to make the choice. Then this would have been intensified after his scarring.

He needed it in TDK when he became Two Face because the ONLY way he would decide on the guilty ones fates is by using the coin.

There's no question Ramirez and Joker would have bought it otherwise.

Maroni wasn't guilty. He had nothing to do with what the Joker did to Rachel. And Harvey's "You let him off his leash" was nonsense. The Joker would have done everything he did with or without the mob's backing. The mob gained nothing from Rachel's death. Gordon's family wasn't guilty. Harvey went on his rampage for revenge. Hurting an innocent isn't achieving revenge. It's murder. Being a DA, he'd know that, even if he was unhinged. The driver wasn't guilty. And what sense does it make to decide someone's fate who you know is guilty?

Dragon, you again miss the point. It was chance that caused Rachel's death. Just like the flip of a coin. That's why he used it. That was his psychosis behind it, as clearly stated in the movie.

It wasn't chance. It was murder. There was no question the bomb was going off. There was no question Batman, the apparently fastest one there wasn't going to reach her. There was no question the cops were not as fast as Batman. The only chance she had to live was if some x-factor was introduced. and no matter how you slice it, her chances certainly weren't 50-50.

How did Harvey know the Joker was lying? He knew nothing of Joker's plans.

But he knew the Joker MADE PLANS. Harvey was the target of his plans. The Joker said he didn't make plans so Harvey knew he was lying.

He never heard either of Joker's scar stories. Up to this point Joker did seem to be doing nothing but causing sheer chaos with no element of profit.The Joker's BS speech about random chaos is very convincing. Joker never revealed any of his real hidden agendas to Dent.

His threat to kill people until Batman surrenders is a plan. His killing the commisioner and judge was a plan. His trying to kill Harvey when they believed Harvey was Batman was a plan. His attempt to kill the Mayor was a plan.

As a viewer being privy to all of the Joker's actions, we know Joker is lying. Dent does not.

Refer to the above.

For god sake, man, he had a gun to a child's head. What should Batman and Gordon have done, antagonized him into killing the child?

Don't ever become a hostage negotiator

Batman could have taken him out from behind with one of his myriad of weapons instead of announcing himself. He's supposed to be good at that sort of thing.

Obviously we know Harvey was wrong to blame Gordon, but with so many villains motivations, it makes a warped sense to them. In Harvey's eyes Gordon turned a blind eye to his warnings of the corrupt Cops in his force, and that ultimately led to them aiding the Joker in the death of Rachel.

and that might have gained Harvey some mercy during sentencing. But whe he has innocent peole as hostages, you can't screw around.

Of course. I mean he was fending off assassination attempts in court. His life being put in danger was something he accepted. "I knew the risk when I took this job, Lieutenant".

Being disfigured, having his loved one murdered, and having the Cops he trusted stab him in the back in the process, that he wasn't expecting.

But as you've already pointed out, he didn't trust the cops. And again, Rachel being a DA automatically put her at risk. Harvey knew that.

Joker had no access to explode the bombs when ever he wanted. They were on a set timer.

And he set the timer so that Batman and the cops wouldn't have time to reach them.

Batman made it there and saved Harvey. Proof positive that it was not an impossible feat for Batman. Rachel had equal chance of a rescue had Batman gone to her location instead.

Like I said, it was a 50/50 chance on where he'd go. Either one or the other

Again- based on the parameters set down in this movie-

Batman was the only one who could save either Rachel or Harvey. The police given their best efforts could not.

Batman could not be in two places at once.

Batamn intended to save Rachel. But the Joker lied to him.

Batman had no way of knowing the Joker was lying.

So the odds were not 50-50. They were 100-0.

Where in the movie did it say she would have died? Or that she was coerced into it, or Wurtz, or any of the bent people on their payroll?

Everytime the Joker killed someone who didn't obey him, or just for the fun of it.

Ramirez said she did it for her mum's hospital bills. She never said they made her, or threatened her or her mother etc. Her only defense was that she didn't know what they were going to do to them, to which Harvey scoffed and said "What exactly did you think they were going to do with us?"

Again, bad script. She may have figured that Harvey would take pity on her by bringing up her poor sick mother. But you're not going to tell me that you honestly think the Joker would've let them live if they didn't follow his orders. Hell, he killed the bank robbers and they WERE following his orders.

As are you, dear Dragon

Like i said, a good script wouldn't create the need for assumption. It would be made plain.

Some things are obvious that need no explanation. This wasn't a case of throwing a car at Peter Parker when you needed him alive type scenario.

It's made clear there is corruption in the Police force and Harvey Dent's office. Is it so hard to imagine how some poison got slipped into a bottle of liquor in Commissioner Loeb's desk, or a bomb planted in a Judge's car etc?

No, of course not.

Actually it is. There's corruption in the real world too. But it's still hard to get to high value targets. Terrorists would love to kil Mayors and commissioners, and blow-up hospitals. But it doesn't happen.

And if there was that much corruption in the police department, then Batman wouldn't be as successful at bringing down the criminals as he is.

And BTW- the Joker couldn't get to that many cops because they'd simply kill him. Ramirez and the other guy might not have been able to stand up to him. But a large number of corrupt cops would have simply blown him away. It's not really believable that the mob didn't just kill him off either.

What hundreds of people? He killed Loeb, the Judge, and Rachel. They're the only murders he'd require inside help with.

And the bombing of the hospital and Ferries. Those are the hundreds of people.

Of course he could. He could have had them suspended pending an investigation. He wasn't a lowly Sargent now like he was in Begins.

Not withuot evidence. and Harvey didn't give him any. only an accusation. Moreover, Gordon had to maintain morale. If the other cops thought he was selling them out to the DA, they'd make it pretty hard for him.

He said he investigated Cops at Internal affairs. Where did he say he found any evidence on them? Not to mention when he was at Internal Affairs was most likely during the time when Gotham was at it's dirtiest and most corrupt ala Begins before Bruce came back.

Exactly. Thus Gordon couldn't suspend them just on Harvey's say=so. If Harvey couldn't find any evidence, then it's also possible that he was simply wrong. And again, Harvey being a DA would know that Gordon's hands would be tied. So for him to blame Gordon was unreasonable.

As we've discussed at length, The Joker couldn't have done all that without the mob's connections on the inside.

Those plans were damaging to the mob as well. So they certainly weren't helping him. Many of the prisoners on the ferry were mobsters. So they wouldn't have helped to kill themselves.

He used the money to send a message that "The town was getting a better class of criminal". The mob was just a means to his ends. Just like Harvey was.

Be that as it may, his ends were not the mob's thus they wouldn't have backed him up.

Would I abduct someone in an ambulance and threaten them with a gun? No, I'd turn him over to the Cops and have them grill him, and then haul myself and my threatened loved one out of town post haste.

Okay- so let me be clear on this.

You'd hand him over to the police who you say are corrupt- and weren't even able to protect themselves from this psychopath.

Then you'd leave town with your loved ones and go where? If the police commssioner himself is vulnerable where are you going to hide?

And the Joker's crew isn't even as discreet as the regular mob. They'd kill a busload of people just to get to you without a second thought.

Rachel was in no immediate physical danger from that guy. How on earth could Harvey justify murdering that guy tied to a chair while Rachel was tucked safely away in Bruce Wayne's penthouse?

Ridiculous!

The Mayor had just been shot at- Gordon had been killed (Or so Harvey thought)- but Rachel was in no immediate danger?

Playing by the rules against someone who has no rules isn't a good way to survive.

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

A good script doesn't create the need for assumption? WTF lol that's bs...maybe for simple minds...
No country for old men being my bigger case

 

[Spider-Ranger]

Guys, do we really need to turn every single Spider-Man thread into a TDK thread??

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

it went from a spy parents discussion that was literally pointless...to a discussion of why someone dislikes tdk...this thread sucks

 

[spider-neil]

this thread should really become the 'spider-man lounge'

as for dragon and joker to and fro, I agree and disagree with both of them because there were definate signs that dent was willing to bend the law before he become two face but when two-face went on a homicidal rampage it certainly (to me at least) seemed forced and out of left field. Ive read several TDK reviews which say exactly the same thing i.e. they didn't buy the change.
I can post the reviews if you like.

 

[Dragon]

A good script doesn't create the need for assumption? WTF lol that's bs...maybe for simple minds...
No country for old men being my bigger case

"No Country" was pretty cut and dry, pal. Except maybe for simple minds. Oh yeah.. lol I didn't say a great script can't create questions. But assumption about things that a good script would explain is something else.

Example: No explanation as to how the Joker could pull off wiring an entire hospital complex to exlpode. While a great script like Diehard clearly explained how Hans and his crew executed their caper.

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

in your opinion of course...it did leave assumptions though...therefore flawing the whole thing...nice response though LOL

 

[spider-neil]

"No Country" was pretty cut and dry, pal. Except maybe for simple minds. Oh yeah.. lol I didn't say a great script can't create questions. But assumption about things that a good script would explain is something else.

Example: No explanation as to how the Joker could pull off wiring an entire hospital complex to exlpode. While a great script like Diehard clearly explained how Hans and his crew executed their caper.

you can also add for someone who is THE advocate for chaos that had to be one of the most elaborate, intricate plans ever executed (planning to get caught so you could secure the chinese national).

'I like chaos but have drawn up plans right down to the tiniest detail including back up plans and fail safes'

 

[Fudgie]

Um...the Joker clearly sets it up so that Batman will have to make a choice between the two. Batman could've easily gone to the other location and saved Rachel while Harvey died. 50/50.

No psychological imbalance? So hijacking an ambulance, kidnapping a man, and holding him at gunpoint screams "perfect mental health" to you?

That was the point where Harvey made a choice. He chose to let fate decide. "Buying into the Joker's BS" had nothing to do with it.

Inaction can be as bad, or worse, than action. By knowingly working with crooked cops, Gordon knew he couldn't trust his men. It led to his department being compromised by the most powerful crime boss in the city.

A. You think the Joker walked right into the police station, marched into the Commissioner's office, and poisoned his liquor without anyone seeing? He used his men within the GCPD to do it.

B. Again, the Joker didn't walk right up to the Mayor. He sent two crooked cops - people the Mayor would trust - to set her up.

C. The Mayor was in a public place, and everyone knew he was going to be there. Any idiot with a gun could have "gotten to" him.

D. Once again, the Joker utilized his mob ties to get access to the ferries long before the police ever found out.

Because he's not a killer. He never was. Again, what do you think it's like staring a man in the eyes with a gun to his head? It takes a certain type of person to pull that trigger, and Harvey's not that type of person. The only way he could convince himself to go through with it is if he convinced himself that the choice was out of his hands.

Know what the difference with the police and military is? They're trained professionals with authority granted to them by the state. Harvey Dent is just a citizen - and an upholder of the law, at that. It doesn't scream insanity, but it clearly shows the lengths to which he's willing to go.

This.

 

[Ajendo]

this thread should really become the 'spider-man lounge'

as for dragon and joker to and fro, I agree and disagree with both of them because there were definate signs that dent was willing to bend the law before he become two face but when two-face went on a homicidal rampage it certainly (to me at least) seemed forced and out of left field. Ive read several TDK reviews which say exactly the same thing i.e. they didn't buy the change.
I can post the reviews if you like.

Dead pu**y can make a man do uthinkable things

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

hahaha

 

[spider-neil]

Dead pu**y can make a man do uthinkable things

 

[Chris Wallace]

Crime and Punishment: http://www.amazon.com/Batman-Two-Face-Punishment-J-Dematteis/dp/1563891972

Thank you!

You sure you re-watched the movie?

The Joker told Batman their locations. Harvey managed to get saved in time, Rachel didn't. So there was an obvious chance for survival for both of them. Otherwise if Joker wanted them to die he'd have just kept his trap shut and continued to enjoy having Batman beating him up.

Batman had a choice of who to save. 50/50 on who he was going to pick.



That's why Rachel's death flipped, if you'll pardon the pun, the meaning of the coin to him, because the scarred side of the coin, scarred by the explosion that she died in, changed the meaning of the coin. It represented the fifty fifty chance she had for survival.

I don't see how you didn't get that, Dragon. You're usually a sharp one to spot these subtle things.



Of course it was bull. Everything the Joker says is a lie. He told two different stories about how he got his cut smile. He's a liar and a manipulator. He says what ever sounds good at the time to get what he wants.

But he was just adding to fuel to an already inflamed and enraged Harvey Dent, whom if you recall already blamed Gordon and his Cops for their parts in Rachel's death before Joker even showed up at the hospital.

Gordon: "I'm sorry, Harvey"
Dent: "No. No you're not. Not yet"

He was clearly already planning a revenge of some kind on Gordon. All Joker did was add fuel to the fire.



Again Joker did give him the chance when he told Batman where they were.



So what? That doesn't excuse their part in Rachel's death. They willingly did it. Nobody forced them to.



And how do you know that? In fact it seems increasingly obvious that the only way he could have done that is with connections in the Police department.

The mob did hired Joker to take out Batman for them after he proved he was right about Batman getting his hands on Lau no matter what. And we know the mob had people in Dent's office and the Police department on their payroll.



As mentioned twice above, he did, when he spilled the location of Rachel and Harvey.



The district attorney is not the Police, the military, or Batman. Or do you know of many instances where a district attorney abducts injured suspects from an ambulance, and takes them to dark alleyways to threaten them with a gun?

Um-Joker LIED about their locations. We seem to keep overlooking that.

 

[spider-neil]

Thank you!


Um-Joker LIED about their locations. We seem to keep overlooking that.

to be fair two-face didn't know that. he (two-face) even says 'no! why are you saying ME'

 

[Chris Wallace]

I'm saying that, because he lied about their locations, he wasn't playing fair no matter what he said. He knew Batman would more likely go for Rachel (given the fact that he didn't become angry until he realized she was in danger) so he purposely gave him the wrong site. One could also argue that he knew Batman could get there quicker than the cops, so he knew Rachel was screwed.