That's the difference, you're speculating, I'm not. You're the one trying to explain a sentence that has no explanation, visually or verbally, in the movie. You're making up what if situations for it and have nothing to back them up.
Actually, you were. Specifically with regard to the meaning of Batman’s statement.
Batman says “You’re going to jail”, and your interpretation was apparently this:
“If someone tells someone they're going to jail, the only thing anyone will think is they're going to jail for a considerable amount of time. Not some brief investigative time period jail sentence.”
That’s very much speculating, since there’s no evidence that this is what Batman actually means.
By the way, I didn’t just say “We were speculating”.
I said “If we’re speculating,
and you’re going to bring up points about the liklihood of him being convicted for his involvement, etc, I’m going to respond to them.”
I didn't say years. You said that. I said a considerable amount of time. As in longer than a little time in jail during an investigation.
And I never said that you said "years". Again, there’s nothing inherent in the word “jail” to indicate it must mean “a considerable amount of time”.
So? Without proof it's hearsay. Her word against Schreck's.
Except, per the film, she knew where the proof was, and what the issue was.
More hearsay. Where's her proof of an attempted murder, or illegal files?
Dunno, as the film doesn’t revolve around those kinds of details, since Catwoman goesn't go through the courts to deal with Schreck trying to kill her, but I would imagine she could file charges and get an investigation done if she wanted to.
The Mayor said the same thing at the meeting about the city having enough power to get into the middle of the next century. So what?
Without any evidence he is planning to build an energy sucking power plant, they have nothing.
It’s pretty much implied that Bruce knows the power plant is not what it seems. He has commissioned a report on the plant itself. Selina certainly knows the truth.
So they don't have "nothing". They have something.
Yeah sure, Guard, the method of convincing Schreck to do as he says is not a major plot point. It's not as though Schreck is helping Cobblepot tout of the kindness of his heart is he. He has to play ball because Penguin has the goods on him. See that's how it works, Guard. Penguin could go and accuse Schreck of killing his partner and owning half the city's fire traps, but without proof he's talking total proof less hearsay.
I don’t consider it major. Not every plot point in a film is “major”. The actual blackmail element itself is essentially played as a joke, and Schreck more or less calculates how he could best use The Penguin if he has to comply. Schreck helps Cobblepot come up to the surface because of the blackmail, yes, but the reveal of the blackmail evidence itself is not, in itself, a "major plot point". Keep in mind, Schreck doesn’t work with The Penguin because of the blackmail. He works with The Penguin because he sees a chance to use Cobblepot to control the business aspects of the power plant, and he convinces Penguin he can make a new man of him.
Ok, if you don't consider using the batarang to frame Batman for kidnapping, Selina being pushed out the window because she uncovered incriminating evidence minor, then you and I have a very different definition of what's important in a story. Without any of these evidence elements, there's no basis for these plot points.
Wait, minor?
I think we have a different definition of "major plot point", yes.
No, they wouldn't assume that. Why should they? It's nothing but hearsay, unless he's got his hands on the secret files.
Because Batman’s not portrayed as a blithering idiot. One would assume that if he says “You’re going to jail”, he has some knowledge on the subject.
You're just making up your own wild theories. You've got nothing. I at least have the fact that the movie doesn't support Batman's line in any way, shape or form. This is basically what some of the TDKR defenders were doing with some of the plot holes in that. Something I recall you also criticizing, Guard. Here you are doing it here.
No, I’m not “making up wild theories”. I’m speculating, and there’s
nothing “wild” about my speculation thus far.
I have also made it quite clear that there is a difference between my own “theories” in the midst of all this speculation, and what I feel the film actually contains. I (and many others) have criticized TDKR defenders for suggesting that the film contains elements that it in fact, does not. Not for suggesting something COULD be. This is not the same scenario. I don't criticize people for imagining things. I criticize them for making actual statements that a film contains something that it doesn't.
I know what happens in the scene lol. The point is it's the same situation you're saying. Batman knows Penguin is rotten, he even found newspaper articles that said the Red Triangle Gang had an aquatic bird boy around the time kids were disappearing. More evidence than he has against Schreck.
Not sure why you’re lol’ing.
You asked me why he doesn’t tell The Penguin he’s going to jail in that scene. I made a suggestion as to why writers might have chosen not to have him say the exact same thing that he later says in a similar situation. Though, it’s not the same situation. Penguin’s mocking the “upstanding citizen” façade that later in the film Schreck is actually putting on for Batman.
So why doesn't he tell Pengy his number is up and he's going to jail? It's because like with Schreck, he had nothing on Pengy but just knowing he's a bad guy.
Except he does have something on Penguin at that point. You yourself said he had more evidence against Penguin than Schreck.
Batman knows Penguin is rotten, he even found newspaper articles that said the Red Triangle Gang had an aquatic bird boy around the time kids were disappearing. More evidence than he has against Schreck
Ummm no because Catwoman could easily be put in jail for blowing up Schreck's store. It was all over the newspapers. Two security guards as witnesses that she was trashing Schreck's store, too. So why is she saying the law doesn't apply to her as well as Batman and Schreck?
"Ummm no", what, exactly?
She’s saying the law doesn’t apply to her as well as Batman and Schreck because that’s her point of view.
Really. When is the morality of Batman's actions ever question or even raised in these movies? Gordon or even moralistic Alfred never ever say anything about Batman's murdering antics.
So, because the issue is not raised elsewhere prior to this moment, a character cannot raise it at this moment in BATMAN RETURNS?
