The Dark Knight The Dark Knight Fan Review Thread

[Sandman138]

Here’s something that comes from the guy who defended Spider-Man for forgiving and letting Sandman go at the end of SM3:
Others have already talked about this subject extensively enough; I’ll just add my own two cents.
Thing is Batman sacrificed himself for a lie, under the assumption that the citizens of Gotham can’t distinguish black from white and are quick to fall back into depression, if anything bad happens. The questions is - should we keep a flawed man and his noble actions married close together? If the man falls from grace, does it negate all the good things, ideologies and messages he tried to accomplish? Would you like your parents tell you that you’re dying from cancer or would you rather them not to?

I just fell in love.:heart:

 

[starscream]

dope amazing cool.
the batpod trick was the *****. joker amazing.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I just fell in love.:heart:

Easy.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

I just fell in love.:heart:

Aww, shucks, it’s nothin’, basic philosophy 101.

Easy.

You don’t believe in love at first sight?

If you’re a pretender, don’t worry, I’m already taken.

 

[Cmill216]

He did it all for fun, he's a psychopath, not a terrorist. Terrorists do what they do to further a cause. Joker had no cause, no reason for what he was doing.

The Joker did have a cause, he blatantly said it multiple times in the film:

His goal was to create anarchy. To push purportedly "good", righteous people to their brink, simply to watch them become the very things they despise. He believed that everyone is capable of destruction, everyone is capable of murder. And when we're pushed to our brink, we ourselves will become chaotic simply to survive.

Everything he did in this film was to push his agenda. Harvey, Batman, the ferries. Hell, go back to the bank heist and look what he got those dudes to do to each other.

It was all a part of his plan.

 

[Sandman138]

Which is much different than say: trying to influence the opposition's political and military policies through attacks on the civilian population.

 

[Cmill216]

Which is much different than say: trying to influence the opposition's political and military policies through attacks on the civilian population.

But it's still a cause. It's still with a purpose.

To say he did what he did just for the sake of doing it is asinine.

 

[phillyboy]

The Joker did have a cause, he blatantly said it multiple times in the film:

His goal was to create anarchy. To push purportedly "good", righteous people to their brink, simply to watch them become the very things they despise. He believed that everyone is capable of destruction, everyone is capable of murder. And when we're pushed to our brink, we ourselves will become chaotic simply to survive.

Everything he did in this film was to push his agenda. Harvey, Batman, the ferries. Hell, go back to the bank heist and look what he got those dudes to do to each other.

It was all a part of his plan.

I found his plan to be more of a social experiment rather than a cause (religious, political, etc). I agree with your point about wanting to create anarchy, but I think terrorism & anarchy are 2 different things. I dont think 'terrorist' would be the best way to describe the Joker (at least in TDK). Anarchist? absolutely.

 

[sasquatchs]

Ironically I found the Joker's cause much less ridiculous that Ra's Al Ghuls. With him in the mix I think TDK manages a much better balancing act of picking apart Batman's motivation and actions and making him look a little silly in the process, yet at the same time somehow preserving his mystique

I found his plan to be more of a social experiment rather than a cause (religious, political, etc). I agree with your point about wanting to create anarchy, but I think terrorism & anarchy are 2 different things. I dont think 'terrorist' would be the best way to describe the Joker (at least in TDK). Anarchist? absolutely.

He terrorizes Gotham's citizens in order to undermine its political system. It's a textbook definition of terrorism. The main difference to real world terrorists is really how pure his goals are

 

[Superhobo]

And what sort of people spend all day talking about batman films on the internet? Batman fans.

There are more reviews like Empire, The Sun etc, than sight and sound, the times etc.

MY POINT, was that for the target audience of the newspaper, the review was completely accurate. The paper isn't aimed at people who go to see a film unfold in one-two-three fashion, with all the generic formula pieces. There's nothing wrong with that particular audience, until they try to elevate something above it's status.

For something aimed at 'the masses', it achieves it's aims. But for someone who's DVD collection holds La Jetee, Chunking Express, Metropolis, A bittersweet life, All about my mother, Amoros Perros etc, then consulting Comso Landesman's review will be very helpful.

Wow. The air of pretention just wafts off of your posts - good god, man.

 

[Merkel]

The Dark Knight is still Pop Art, but it is glorious Pop Art.

 

[Ziggyman]

Just saw it in Imax...I loved it! Very good!

 

[wootbaby]

Thing is Batman sacrificed himself for a lie, under the assumption that the citizens of Gotham can’t distinguish black from white and are quick to fall back into depression, if anything bad happens. The questions is - should we keep a flawed man and his noble actions married close together? If the man falls from grace, does it negate all the good things, ideologies and messages he tried to accomplish?

The thing that FLIES over people's heads is that by taking on Twoface's guilt, Batman DEFEATS the Joker. Batman is a master tactician do you think he would ever allow the Joker to get the best of him? In saving Harvey's image Batman does the one thing the Joker could never have planned for, the one thing that will RUIN his plot. And it shows that Batman is the superior being, the smarter, more creative, braver man than the Joker could ever be. I cant believe all these punks are calling for Batman to be Joker's bltch and just go along with what the Joker had planned all along. If you people think Batman wouldn't allow misinformation to be perpetuated in order to defeat his arch-nemesis' plans and sow confusion among his enemies... WHAT BATMAN ARE YOU WATCHING? Altruism that's one part of it, but a MAJOR component is Batman thinking strategically, how to win this last battle.

Also about "flawed man and his noble actions married close together" You can argue that Harvey's actions as Twoface DO NOT MATTER in the larger picture. Was he in fact corrupt when he was taking down the criminals and corrupt cops? NO. The moment he becomes Twoface he does become a different character, his morality methods and intent all change. The things he did as Twoface do not in truth take away from the legality of his noble actions as Dent. Like Obiwan said, the moment he became this dark person he killed the noble Anikan. There's really no larger philosophical inconsistency in terms of Batman "covering" for Twoface in the public's eye... because what he did as Harvey and what he did as Twoface are totally unrelated. If the people of Gotham due to ignorance and lack of composure are going to go ape**** and confuse the 2 needlessly, there's nothing wrong with protecting the GOOD that Harvey did actually and legitimately do. The man cold-cocked a thug with a gun pointed right at him. That man's memory deserves to be preserved

The only redeeming moment from that ‘social experiment’.
Sure, for some people it may have been ‘exciting’ but I personally got plenty of that sort of philosophy from other places, so I found it be little too preachy, like a few other moments throughout the movie.

People look at the wrong things in this scene. Proving again this movie is just TOO SMART compared to the average movie. Tiny Lister playing against stereotype is YAWN, hackneyed to me. OOOH big black dude... white folks gonna doubt him. Maybe in 1990. If young America didn't think black people are better morally than white do you think Obama would be nominee? The idea of big black and dumb Tiny Lister doing the noble thing is played out and that scene is not about that. The point of the ferry scene is that it mirror's Nolan's larger theme for Batman through the entire movie -- on BOTH boats ONE man steps up and takes responsibility to not press the button. On the civilian ship even after the "good people" cave in and vote to push the button, the banker-looking dude ultimately has too much humanity to actually do it. It's not a popular decision or something the mob on the boat understands but one man's stand ends up saving them all. Looking at the scene as about scary criminal being noble is missing half the point. On both ships one man each stepped up and assumed the role of Batman in that moment and it saved everyone. It's not really about Tiny's specific nobility/decision, it's making a wider philosophical point... probably the closest thing would be the Christian notion of God's Grace... the higher being's nobility (in this case Batman's sacrifice) being manifest in the lowliest among us. That scene really only works considering the individual actions of BOTH men and there's a reason why Nolan chose two of the most contrasting characters for that scene-- a big black criminal and a NY jewish looking banker dude, they could not be more different in contrast. That's why I LMAO at reviews dissecting that scene and only talking about Tiny being cast against type or whatever. To make it a black thing or criminal or white or rich or poor is missing the entire point of that long ass ferry scene. It's about individual men, regardless of background stepping up fulfilling Batman's hope and example for the city. Think about it, Nolan sets em up to BOTH to deceive you about what they would ultimately do. Tiny by being big and scary and making you think he was demanding to blow the boat. The banker by being overbearing and sniveling and making you think he'd do it as well. In the end both make the right choice... ultimately disappointing the Joker and giving strength to Batman at a crucial juncture.

Of course thematically it's interesting that just like in the larger movie, Joker DOES WIN on the boat. He is right that people will turn on each other (just like he was right about Harvey Dent). But in BOTH.. at the end of the movie and on that ferry ride, Batman (or the spirit of Batman) snatches victory from the jaws of defeat simply by having one man strong enough to stand up and do the right thing. THAT is what the ferry scene is about

I cannot believe professional critics someone actually paid to write this stuff (especially those who have been harsh on TDK and a couple I've read even references this scene) NONE of them actually have a clue that Tiny not pushing the button actually replays exactly with the other guy and not 1 review I've read "got" the point of the scene.

 

[wootbaby]

omg repost wall of text

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

The thing that FLIES over people's heads is that by taking on Twoface's guilt, Batman DEFEATS the Joker. Batman is a master tactician do you think he would ever allow the Joker to get the best of him? In saving Harvey's image Batman does the one thing the Joker could never have planned for, the one thing that will RUIN his plot. And it shows that Batman is the superior being, the smarter, more creative, braver man than the Joker could ever be. I cant believe all these punks are calling for Batman to be Joker's bltch and just go along with what the Joker had planned all along. If you people think Batman wouldn't allow misinformation to be perpetuated in order to defeat his arch-nemesis' plans and sow confusion among his enemies... WHAT BATMAN ARE YOU WATCHING? Altruism that's one part of it, but a MAJOR component is Batman thinking strategically, how to win this last battle.

So what’s more important - accepting the bitter truth or defeating your arch nemesis with a lie?

Also about "flawed man and his noble actions married close together" You can argue that Harvey's actions as Twoface DO NOT MATTER in the larger picture. Was he in fact corrupt when he was taking down the criminals and corrupt cops? NO. The moment he becomes Twoface he does become a different character, his morality methods and intent all change. The things he did as Twoface do not in truth take away from the legality of his noble actions as Dent. Like Obiwan said, the moment he became this dark person he killed the noble Anikan. There's really no larger philosophical inconsistency in terms of Batman "covering" for Twoface in the public's eye... because what he did as Harvey and what he did as Twoface are totally unrelated. If the people of Gotham due to ignorance and lack of composure are going to go ape**** and confuse the 2 needlessly, there's nothing wrong with protecting the GOOD that Harvey did actually and legitimately do. The man cold-cocked a thug with a gun pointed right at him. That man's memory deserves to be preserved

So basically Gotham citizens are stupid and Batman decides what’s best for them all.
Sure, it can be understood that way to make Batman into a ‘hero’.
An elephant is god to an ant, right?

As for your second part - I don’t see the point why you quoted me exactly.
As far as I can gather you’re criticising that review that Cyrusbales was defending (and which I didn’t bother to read). I…think I agree with you on what you said. I did not deny the ‘social experiment’ scene. I just called it boring because I know all that stuff already. I did not need it to be preached to me all over again.

 

[Sandman138]

The thing that FLIES over people's heads is that by taking on Twoface's guilt, Batman DEFEATS the Joker. Batman is a master tactician do you think he would ever allow the Joker to get the best of him? In saving Harvey's image Batman does the one thing the Joker could never have planned for, the one thing that will RUIN his plot. And it shows that Batman is the superior being, the smarter, more creative, braver man than the Joker could ever be. I cant believe all these punks are calling for Batman to be Joker's bltch and just go along with what the Joker had planned all along. If you people think Batman wouldn't allow misinformation to be perpetuated in order to defeat his arch-nemesis' plans and sow confusion among his enemies... WHAT BATMAN ARE YOU WATCHING? Altruism that's one part of it, but a MAJOR component is Batman thinking strategically, how to win this last battle.

But he didn't win. Becuase now, not only is Harvey Dent dead, but the one person who can still actively go after corruption and criminals is a cop killer. Everybody that Batman catches, and even the ones he doesn't will walk from now on untill Batman's innocence can be proven and to do that you now not only have to acknowladge that Harvey Dent wasn't perfect, but that both Batman and Gordon are totally cool with obstructing justice and performing cover ups for the good of a public they obviously feel are to stupid and weak to make decisions for themselves. Great.

Also about "flawed man and his noble actions married close together" You can argue that Harvey's actions as Twoface DO NOT MATTER in the larger picture. Was he in fact corrupt when he was taking down the criminals and corrupt cops? NO. The moment he becomes Twoface he does become a different character, his morality methods and intent all change. The things he did as Twoface do not in truth take away from the legality of his noble actions as Dent. Like Obiwan said, the moment he became this dark person he killed the noble Anikan. There's really no larger philosophical inconsistency in terms of Batman "covering" for Twoface in the public's eye... because what he did as Harvey and what he did as Twoface are totally unrelated. If the people of Gotham due to ignorance and lack of composure are going to go ape**** and confuse the 2 needlessly, there's nothing wrong with protecting the GOOD that Harvey did actually and legitimately do. The man cold-cocked a thug with a gun pointed right at him. That man's memory deserves to be preserved

Except that it's, you know, dishonest and oppresive and invalidates the system that they are pretending to uphold.

People look at the wrong things in this scene. Proving again this movie is just TOO SMART compared to the average movie. Tiny Lister playing against stereotype is YAWN, hackneyed to me. OOOH big black dude... white folks gonna doubt him. Maybe in 1990. If young America didn't think black people are better morally than white do you think Obama would be nominee? The idea of big black and dumb Tiny Lister doing the noble thing is played out and that scene is not about that. The point of the ferry scene is that it mirror's Nolan's larger theme for Batman through the entire movie -- on BOTH boats ONE man steps up and takes responsibility to not press the button. On the civilian ship even after the "good people" cave in and vote to push the button, the banker-looking dude ultimately has too much humanity to actually do it. It's not a popular decision or something the mob on the boat understands but one man's stand ends up saving them all. Looking at the scene as about scary criminal being noble is missing half the point. On both ships one man each stepped up and assumed the role of Batman in that moment and it saved everyone. It's not really about Tiny's specific nobility/decision, it's making a wider philosophical point... probably the closest thing would be the Christian notion of God's Grace... the higher being's nobility (in this case Batman's sacrifice) being manifest in the lowliest among us. That scene really only works considering the individual actions of BOTH men and there's a reason why Nolan chose two of the most contrasting characters for that scene-- a big black criminal and a NY jewish looking banker dude, they could not be more different in contrast. That's why I LMAO at reviews dissecting that scene and only talking about Tiny being cast against type or whatever. To make it a black thing or criminal or white or rich or poor is missing the entire point of that long ass ferry scene. It's about individual men, regardless of background stepping up fulfilling Batman's hope and example for the city. Think about it, Nolan sets em up to BOTH to deceive you about what they would ultimately do. Tiny by being big and scary and making you think he was demanding to blow the boat. The banker by being overbearing and sniveling and making you think he'd do it as well. In the end both make the right choice... ultimately disappointing the Joker and giving strength to Batman at a crucial juncture.

Like I said before, I could buy one of them not pressing that button, but both? Ecspecially the guy who rationalized it with "they made their choice to murder and steal. No reason we should have to die too" That is the mindset of a man who would have absolutely NO problem with pushing that button. Now people might bring up that it's one thing to talk about doing something and another to actually do it. That's true enough, I doubt he could actually kille a man with his bare hands or a knife or maybe even a gun, but pushing a button?

Anyone familiar with the Milgram experiments should take issue with this scene.

Of course thematically it's interesting that just like in the larger movie, Joker DOES WIN on the boat. He is right that people will turn on each other (just like he was right about Harvey Dent). But in BOTH.. at the end of the movie and on that ferry ride, Batman (or the spirit of Batman) snatches victory from the jaws of defeat simply by having one man strong enough to stand up and do the right thing. THAT is what the ferry scene is about

With the black guy, you're right. With the other guy? He's just too chicken**** to do what he believes is the right thing to do, and I don't buy that he would be.

 

[danoyse]

Yes, but the target audience for this particular newspaper is of a higher brow than the 'average' public. Since most of the public do not read a broadsheet etc.

Considering this review is aimed at people who have world cinema and more diverse cinema at easy access, the review is very fair and well suited to the people at which it is aimed.

Snobs, you mean? No, this review was arrogant, pompous crap.

He seems annoyed that the film tried to make a point...like why couldn't Batman just be the hero and save the day instead of boring him with 9/11 analogies. He couldn't even get the definition of rendition correct.

I don't consider myself on a higher plane of existence because I also attend films that use big words and have a fairly impressive DVD collection (seriously, who cares?)...but I'm a fan of the genre, I loved the film, and as someone who was in NY on 9/11, I can tell you the atmosphere created by the Joker as he terrorized Gotham was downright chilling.

When I saw TDK for the first time last night, someone started snapping at people asking him if the seat next to his was free (he was saving it)...we joked that his ego was so big it needed a second seat. It really sounds like your reviewer probably needs an entire row for his.

 

[The Guard]

I just don't see any valid nods to 9-11. I see metaphors that deal with the kinds of things humans have been dealing with since the dawn of time, not anything specific to 9-11 (which, btw, would tend to make a director more of a hack anyway, at this point. It's not clever anymore). Chris Nolan didn't elevate THE DARK KNIGHT to high cinema. Movies that are considered high cinema don't tend to include the kind of overacting, the kind of random, illogical plot points that THE DARK KNIGHT had to contend with.

Nolan made a movie with a measure of depth. But he didn't make a movie that is really all that deep.

We are shown that innocent people died because of Batman - and he falls for it. Here is a Batman consumed with liberal guilt and self-loathing. I wanted to scream: “No, you Guardian-reading freak, don’t you see? It’s the Joker’s fault, not yours.”

I agree wholeheartedly with these sentiments. The review is a bit hard on the film, but it does touch on some key truths. Bruce/Batman simply wasn't that interesting in relation to the villains of the film.

 

[sasquatchs]

Like I said before, I could buy one of them not pressing that button, but both? Ecspecially the guy who rationalized it with "they made their choice to murder and steal. No reason we should have to die too" That is the mindset of a man who would have absolutely NO problem with pushing that button. Now people might bring up that it's one thing to talk about doing something and another to actually do it. That's true enough, I doubt he could actually kille a man with his bare hands or a knife or maybe even a gun, but pushing a button?

Anyone familiar with the Milgram experiments should take issue with this scene.

It's nothing like the Milgram experiments, there's no authority there to lend it legitimacy and he's surrounded by a couple hundred people who are against it, nevermind the whole of Gotham as an audience. He can't ramp up with a few rounds of well-received light toasting before proceeding to the big bang

on BOTH boats ONE man steps up and takes responsibility to not press the button. On the civilian ship even after the "good people" cave in and vote to push the button, the banker-looking dude ultimately has too much humanity to actually do it.

No he doesn't, he's just like everyone else on the boat, unwilling to take responsibility. He does nothing because he can't make the choice, whereas the prisoner takes responsibility and chooses for everyone. You can easily argue whether the Joker still won despite no explosion, it certainly didn't turn out that way because of how Batman perceives it, the people being too good

 

[laudanum09]

^So you have to skew your entire outlook on a film just to make a performance remotely likable?

missed the point. i loved the movie the first three times i viewed it. like many, I think that you can interpret film in a variety of ways, just as with most art, with limitations of course. I was merely suggesting an approach I took to viewing the film for the fourth time. a positive one. And 'remotely' likable' doesn't express my thoughts in the post or in general. I loved it. And I love all the multiple perspectives one can take on it without looking for things that aren't there or stretching themes and references. so how is 'skew' the same as watching the film in a different light? its not like i can only enjoy it in one particular way, thats silly.

Anyone familiar with the Milgram experiments should take issue with this scene.

With the black guy, you're right. With the other guy? He's just too chicken**** to do what he believes is the right thing to do, and I don't buy that he would be.

ooo the milgram experiments! a great example of why the joker's philosophy is to some extent true. but the problem is that it universalizes joker's beliefs on the human condition. there will obviously be situations where individuals will simply refuse. derren brown conducted one and theres a few individuals that refused, stopped mid-experiment, and some who went all the way through. perform the milgram experiment enough and im sure you'll find that there will certainly be some that don't do it. that doesn't mean there are some universal implications on humans in general. what the experiment shows that some individuals are to a large extent capable of inflicting great harm on others in various contexts. others in these same contexts will act differently.

in terms of the movie, i think its relevant in that things are kept morally ambiguous, its not quite as clear-cut and dry as 'good triumphs. yay.' this is clearly refuted by a variety of citizens trying to kill reese. there is good in people, but it doesn't mean that its always there, somewhere deep down in everyone. it has to be fought for. thats why batman breaks bones instead of being a social worker. joker isn't ultimately wrong or right, EVERyone is certainly not as ugly as him, but some are and he wrought much havoc trying to bring that out of gotham. there are casualties, no universal triumph, hence the allusion to the never ending dance between the two. i think thats something that batman will have to learn in the next film. what he started he cannot ever undo, there is no retirement, only constant vigilance.

and as far as batman defeating the joker with his last act in the film, I highly doubt that. I think what we find out in the end is specifically that 'some people deserve more than the truth, some people deserve to have their faith rewarded'. There is something beyond truth. beyond mere good. something much more ambiguous than a 'hero'. the joker DID ruin the white knight, DID turn him into a killer. What batman does is transcend what people merely do, what is true and factual, for something ethereal, legendary, and symbolic. batman trumps joker with not the truth but a Lie, a Lie that is somehow better than truth. Thats why this the film is a tragedy, dent isnt the tragic hero, Batman is. Batman only wins at the price of his own safety, his own life perhaps and thats what darkens the glory of the joker's (temporary) 'defeat'. its not a one tone ending by any means.

 

[Sandman138]

It's nothing like the Milgram experiments, there's no authority there to lend it legitimacy and he's surrounded by a couple hundred people who are against it, nevermind the whole of Gotham as an audience. He can't ramp up with a few rounds of well-received light toasting before proceeding to the big bang

I would argue that 300 for to 100 against is more than enough legitimacy add his own rationalization to that and I still say that man would have pressed the button if this was real life and not a contrived fiction. I can see an argument about the ramp up, but I still don't buy it.

 

[Sandman138]

What batman does is transcend what people merely do, what is true and factual, for something ethereal, legendary, and symbolic. batman trumps joker with not the truth but a Lie, a Lie that is somehow better than truth.

And this is what I take issue with, because that isn't dealing with the problem, it's avoiding it and not acknowledging the consequences to make him look heroic when what he is doing is cowardly and tyrannical.

 

[laudanum09]

^ agree 100 percent and thats why I thought it was a fantastic ending. i never saw batman as a clear cut hero, i always saw him as someone a few small steps away from 'sharing a padded cell' with the joker. in grant morrison's run, bruce's current girlfriend makes a comment about how his entire batcave could bring her country out of economic debt. really draws the point that he isn't sure about his quest, that he's filled with ambiguities and demons and that in many ways his is a personal tragedy that he refuses to bare alone. society must now bear it with him. there are going to be casualties, especially considering the 'realism' nolan is trying to bring to the series.

and during my fourth viewing when i tried to draw a line of continuity between all the different waynes, I was really disturbed. The first three times watching it through I thought wow, all three waynes are great but the fourth time something clicked and I saw them all layered, batman coming through wayne and wayne coming through batman. its obviously there now but I just didn't pick it up what with the damn grandeur of the thing. in tdk i see the batman i really longed for, someone who is far from being a mentally stable, self-assured crime fighter. sure we've seen this version and its a big aspect of batman, but i always liked the character most when he's taken through great trials that forces him to confront the fact that he's causing as great a deal of harm as good in many instances. take the gotham knights episode that ends with young bruce being turned away from training because of his rage. thats the bats i love and thats what the ending delivered for me. hes not a hero. hes the dark knight. it was terribly morally ambiguous, just how i like it. i can see why some wouldn't tho.

 

[Sandman138]

I would have your back 100% if they cut Gordon's speech out of the ending. But he's talking to his kid and the kid is obviously supposed to represent the audience. So they treat us like children and justify what is, to me, an abhorrent action. That bothers me a lot.

 

[wootbaby]

But he didn't win. Becuase now, not only is Harvey Dent dead, but the one person who can still actively go after corruption and criminals is a cop killer.

He did win because he foiled Joker's plan and now that Harvey is dead he is more incorruptable and more of a symbol than he ever was in life. Did you watch the movie dude? What do the big black words on your ticket stub say? Does it say Mama Mia? Because if so you were in the wrong cinema. The movie says 100x that the people themselves must rise up and save the city. Batman putting away 5 guys a night of Dent locking up 500 is ONLY A BEGINNING as the Joker himself says. They're symbols, they're not going to clean up the city by themselves no matter what they personally do, their ultimate utility is as symbols to the city.

Everybody that Batman catches, and even the ones he doesn't will walk from now on untill Batman's innocence can be proven and blah blah

so you're under the impression that whoever Batman apprehends before Dent dies it's by the scripture of metropolitan search and seizure laws? Interesting... so let's get this straight. you sat in the theater (it wasn't Mama Mia) and you see these beat and bloodied bodies, tied up together by Batman waiting for the cops. some for drug dealing/murder, others for simply vigilantism, all indiscriminately tied together and you're like, yeah that's realistic. the police DEFINITELY will be able to prosecute these guys though no police officers witnessed or apprehended them. looks kosher. furthermore you think that people of Gotham are willing to accept this because Batman is UNIVERSALLY VIEWED AS A NICE GUY AND TRUSTWORTHY? or is it that Batman has coerced the men themselves into either self-incrimination or leaves some manner of incontrovertible evidence incriminating them (whatever that may be?) half the city and half the police force already hated Batman and wont be surprised when they hear that he killed people but yeah you're right they just took Batman's word for it, because he's a nice guy

Both Batman and Gordon are totally cool with obstructing justice and performing cover ups for the good of a public they obviously feel are to stupid and weak to make decisions for themselves. Great.

Great. If you were watching this movie and not Mama Mia, you would have seen explicitly expressed a million times that the public IS too stupid and weak to handle it. I mean guys shooting at Reese on the Joker's commands, they certainly dont sound stupid and weak and easily manipulated. For no logical rationale whatsoever, I'll just go ahead and dispute and disagree with the KEY establishing characteristic of a major character in the movie (Gotham City) without any justification. Sure the movie explicitly shows Gotham cant handle Harvey's death but I think I'll just go ahead and think they can. THAT'S THE KIND OF BALLS TO THE WALL GUY I AM. I also think Batman's suit was Orange, not black. And his name was Ed Fluffers? Why" just because. I dont care about how facts are presented in movies... I'm cool like that, I can just simply choose to ignore stuff for no reason, makes me enjoy it more

Like I said before, I could buy one of them not pressing that button, but both?

YEAH. This argument makes sense! They came to their decisions independently of each other but it's logical for me to say I can accept 1 but not BOTH as if they're somehow linked and one precludes the other. I'm smart.

Ecspecially the guy who rationalized it with "they made their choice to murder and steal. No reason we should have to die too" That is the mindset of a man who would have absolutely NO problem with pushing that button. Now people might bring up that it's one thing to talk about doing something and another to actually do it. That's true enough, I doubt he could actually kille a man with his bare hands or a knife or maybe even a gun, but pushing a button?

Ecspecially because the point is when he said that it was as part of the mob. But when he held the button in his hands and had the responsibility of it things changed. If you've ever been a captain of a team, had little brothers/sisters to take care of. Had kids or actually had anyone really count on you you'd understand. If you dont, you've never had any sort of real responsibility in your life. You will cite psychology down below (albeit with a total lack of mastery) so understand this: this is precisely the reason if you shout into a mob "someone call and ambulance" no one moves but if you make eye contact and tell a specific person "YOU call an ambulance" they never refuse.

Anyone familiar with the Milgram experiments should take issue with this scene.

As a piece of advice, it's not 2002... no one should be confused and going to wikipedia as a reference for clinical psychology. Sounds like someone took psych 101 but didn't go to any classes. Early class huh? Maybe it met at 9:00 and you never saw the crack of noon?

The ferry scene was NOTHING like the Milgram experiments. In fact they are pretty much the diametric opposite. The two primary conditions of Milgram were 1)they would be executed solely on the orders of AUTHORITY without ANY other rationale or justification (these are bad people, they deserve shocks etc) 2)the test subjects would not see the consquences of their actions. A 3rd but strong corollary is the guarantee that NO HARM would in fact come to the victims despite whatever they might hear... as evidenced by the fact that the testers themselves were subject to the shock and that all stopped when it was manifest that someone could be hurt (heart condition)

In short it was an UNCOUPLING of responsibility for actions. Joker's ferry was the opposite. FORCING people to take responsibility for extremely cruel deeds (and living with them).

Further the 2 primary conditions of the Milgram experiements are not only unmet but CONTRADICTORY to the ferries. 1)Joker is not an authority so there is ZERO weight of authority. The ENTIRETY of the motivation is the logical RATIONALE of not dying themselves (and whatever else.. taking care of their children etc). It's ALL about justification. OPPOSITE of Milgram 2)The people themselves would have to WITNESS their deed and live with it. If you're psych boy you know that this is an important distinction. It's why people are able to eat meat but not slaughter a cow personally. Again totally different from what you said, the way the Milgram experiment was set up was PRECISELY to circumvent this human moral obstacle. In contrast the purpose of the Joker was to make people CONFRONT it. The Joker's whole point was that these people would have to deliberately and consciously make on their own the decision to kill others. And NOT have authority or anyone else to palm it off on.

With the black guy, you're right. With the other guy? He's just too chicken**** to do what he believes is the right thing to do, and I don't buy that he would be.

Nah he just didn't want to kill all those people. Speaking of psychology are you sure the chicken**** isn't you? Because there's 0 evidence of chicken**** in the movie, sounds like Projection as "a defense mechanism in which one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others" (from WIKIPEDIE LIKE YOU!)