The Dark Knight: Forums

Over the past 3yrs, I've come to zero in on the delusional psyche of the majority today, as evidenced from the numerous sociology/media courses I've taken. Not being at all surprised by the turn in preferences for this generation seems to make it more depressing. All through said courses we focused on the change from necessity to the downright ridiculous. For example, news is no longer news, just sub-par entertainment for the droves who prefer to here the same damn sob story or "controversial" social issue everyday as opposed to actual world events. Yet can we be surprised when a few corporations own all the news outlets? Or how stations you may have once actually learned something from: Discovery/NatGeo/History have all fallen to the pathetic reality show format to please the mentally delinquent? The mass media classes taken where we're supposed to call out these things, mock them as ridiculous, yet the instructor and fellow students who bash it for the right reasons seem to be aware of everything going on in every mindless program? Did they actually take the class to learn why this sh*t's on the air? Or in their diluted minds are they trying to identify the actual reasons, then mentally try and find a way to prove them false to make themselves feel better about their likes? Why so serious?

The droves who bitch and moan about how political campaigns are chalk full of contradictions, bullsh*t allegations, and debates over non-issues which never face new legislation anyway, yet buy into it all during the season such that the same strategies with the same wasted cash is evident every 2yrs. With the lamest aspects being focused on with fence jumping being the only real voting strategy for the majority, whereas none probably bothered to check whether or not the things promised can even be accomplished, given their allies, their track record, the issue's track record, the major campaign donor's aim, and whether or not such an idea is feasible to begin with given the economics behind it etc etc. And all the while, acting overly serious about everything. Shooting down opinions just because it may not have appeared as professional as they would've liked. Yet another popularity contest. Why so serious?

Or the "Human Sexuality" class I took to rack up credits was full of students whom were genuinely concerned on how to avoid stds and unwanted pregnancies, yet when one student boldly suggested the obvious, being to steer clear of sex till in the clear (such as when such things wouldn't f*ck with their lives at this crucial point, being in their early twenties), the rest of the class coyly laughed in that "yeah right" sorta way as if they were waiting for a real answer to their dilemma. Yet that being the best response, one is prone to ponder why they don't like the idea. After all, the vast majority of unwanted medical dilemmas are unavoidable, whereas those are the most simple to avoid of all, yet they genuinely think it's not an option. A silver platter answer and they shoot it down? Jesus F*cking Christ I wish I had such a luxury. Oh wait, that's not a luxury, it's a sign of mental degradation to what was once called common sense. The trivialities of life being too heavily focused on as if it's such a serious matter. Why so serious?

Or the popularity contest that is college. Forever waiting to get in, taking lots of classes chalk full of things you'll forget by the time the summer's out, having not learned any real life knowledge. Such as the things which actually pertain to your reality. Such that many talented are weeded out in college when they find that they gotta beat around the bush yet again before scoring anything pertinent to a fallback or career. Ergo, overseas' education systems tend to allow you to do that at a certain age, go for what your talent is. Anyhow, on day 1 of college they tell you to "f*ck what you learned about such and such a subject before, because the actual format is completely different and doesn't pertain to your reality." Seriously, so many life lessons learned in virtually every course I've taken thus far, with every instructor (many laid off from universities) so down to earth it's scary. But for the majority, you already know such things and bullsh*t your way through it. For I've yet to really write up my actual opinion on anything in all the essays I've written. All a sugarcoated mesh of a format which pertains to nil, for everywhere I look I find bullet points of data with the origins of said data. No reading through pages and pages of formatted nonsense to get only one or three points out of the thing. But as I said, you bullsh*t through it until you score something pertinent. For 2yrs ago, when a program I needed for my major was naturally axed, I yet again decided to continue to beat around the bush to rack the 60 units needed for transfer, despite completing the actual GE requirements for it by December 2008. And you can see it on everyone's eyes, not really caring about what's being rambled on since they're there for that transfer. After all, how many communication classes do you need? How many bullsh*t terms on 'group communication' do you need to be considered a smart student? Or how many times must we lament over the change in media in how it's all designed with the purpose of selling selling selling before they believe we actually know about it already? Or how many times must we reiterate the same issues in speech after speech & essay after essay before they believe we're actually smart enough to know at least 1 thing about the sh*t we're rambling about without citing sources? (of course I recognize the importance of citing things, but sometimes they go overboard) Or how many times must we hear about product placement and how persons are portrayed in a distorted manner when we know how obvious it is already til we can snag that BA or BS? Or how many times must we sugarcoat college debates to pertain to the course subject, thus being unable to throw in droves of evidence to the claims we're trying to make? Or best put, when can I dodge this sh*t for something called common sense? Without someone acting like they're looking at the most unintelligent person of all just because a class isn't on the record to validate that you know what the f*ck you're talking about? Oh how often I've rambled this debate mentally in class as all the instructors & students ramble the same thing and then go back to the mentality that pretends they're unaware of the conversation they've just had. Why so serious?

Infidelity. Haha. The number 1 cause of divorce. I guess they never took to heart the meaning of "for better or worse," or all those who leave their scarred veterans have forgotten "in sickness and in health." Haha. Monogamy doesn't exist. Hence how every relationship starts with basic attraction, then deeper and deeper. Thus, there's no surprise when infidelity occurs. Yet such a pathetic excuse is always used for why something doesn't work out. Oh, you cheated us out of some extra cash? You're done! And not to mention how many films have been ruined with such lackluster plot twists. Or how everyone acts like their life is over for a few years due to it. Why so serious?

And the American psyche of "let's sue everyone cuz it didn't work out the way I planned or cuz I was too stupid to pay attention to where I was going or what I was doing." Such as you trip on a lawn and sue for damages. Or you get sick in the workplace and figure workman's compensation isn't enough, so you sue the proprietor outta business as if they deliberately sought to poison you. Or you took a pill or had a surgery with numerous risks & side effects, then sue for damages; acting overly serious like some grave injustice has occurred. Why so serious?

Or what became of Japanese Unit 731? They experimented on pows and refugees to collect data they deemed necessary to cross the next frontier in medicinal research. While it's true that human experimentation is the only way we're gonna successfully terminate diseases, cancer, viruses, and other illnesses, this doesn't involve live dissections or injecting kidneys with horse urine. And dozens of other ridiculous procedures to collect random data. So useless in fact that the United States uncovered more in far less time on voluntary humane human experiments. Yet at war's end, General MacArthur signed a contract, giving them all golden parachutes back to Japan in exchange for the data collected. Not even sampling it to see if it was worth the paper it was printed on. Didn't even meet them halfway by offering life in prison over death. Just took the useless data and blew off the thousands of victims. Denying justice, yet jailing people like Minoru Hayashi for executing an American pow on Chichi Jima under threat of death. Such stupidity can't be topped. Yet when all told, the MacArthur Doctrine as it's been called was named such because many of those who signed it were top dogs of Unit 731 and others like it. Such that they kissed the ground he walked on at war's end to please him, not because they were in fear for their lives. For if the logic was that the civilians of Japan would fight a turf war on the mainland till death, then such fear wouldn't be existent when the Doctrine came into being. When questioned on the actions taken against Unit 731 (or lack thereof), he simply waved the contract as some legitimate excuse to let the war's #1 criminals get away with it. Why so serious?

And then the social discourses, like homosexuals, abortions, etc etc. Who cares? I mean who really cares? How about I break your legs, damage your kidneys, gut your insides to render many organs only sub-par of what they should be, and then leave you be? Would that trump such pathetic worries as who's doing what in their homes? Probably not with your psyche. Or the idea that if caught in a trench somewhere that one guy's gonna be too busy eyeing another to not give a damn about getting shot? WTF? And the droves who turn out in protest of nothing but differences in social norms. Why so serious?

And more recently, North Korea's attack on a disputed isle north of South Korea's border. If the logic is that the north is crazy, and is developing WMDs for use against South Korea and the United States, then why provoke their angst by hosting live fire exercises in their sea border? Especially after they gave explicit refusals of permission to do it? Well, the responding attack was vicious as it was against civilians yes, but to then act surprised? When we were the ones to provoke the war crazed nation? I mean can you really be scratching your heads over this issue? Why so serious?

Or the incident in the Mojave Desert 3 months ago? Off-road racing by definition exists for the excitement of an uncontrolled course. Hence, just because the sport exists does NOT make it any safer to allot only 3 feet of clearance on either side of the car. The accident occurred around a blind curve. The Bureau of Land Management made it clear to be a minimum of 100 yards away from the racetrack. And judging from the reaction of the first truck successfully passing by, then these fans didn't gather to watch a truck fly by at a whopping 10mph. So why the harsh reaction to the fatal crash? Why the small mob of people chasing down the driver? Why did "survivors" make the rounds on the morning shows acting surprised as all hell? For if you intend to compete for the Darwin Awards, then you can't be surprised if you win some. Why so serious?

Oh, and the morning shows. How I loathe thee. You capture the attention of millions of citizens every morning. You get the worst guests, and if lucky enough to get someone awesome, you never ask the questions everyone wants to know. Hence why Tim Russert is still remembered as being the kind interviewer who could draw in his guests and get them to answer questions which are typically avoided. Yet when his fellow colleagues in journalism offered their epitaphs, all congratulated him for that skill, yet they never learn from it. Such as Larry King Live's facebook page asking followers to ask questions for him to relay to his guest. And they happily do so. So when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was going to be on, then why is it that when I got dozens of 'likes' for my question about why they still enforce discriminatory laws against Israelis of Palestinian decent, (which garnered the same question being asked over and over) they blatantly ignored it to focus on the positive things, as if there were any. And then have the balls to say they did a good job at nailing the guy on the issues. Why so serious?

Or Presidential pardons. It's exceedingly rare that non-guilty members of society whom are jailed get notoriety for being righteously pardoned. But why have the right to pardon those who've been righteously convicted of numerous crimes when it's not a matter of debate whether or not they did it? The corrupt being weeded back into society in the same positions they previously held. Using the same voracious tactics to reclaim said positions. Undermining the judicial system more like it. Yet just cuz the prez says so, we march to their beat. Why so serious?

Drugs. Let's face it, the buyers are as guilty as the dealers. So why not reciprocate the logic if you really wanna end dependence on it? Equivocate the laws & punishments if you really give a damn. And when it comes to police work, don't waste time busting people for holding drugs when you could be out solving actual crimes and catching actual criminals. Like the types that go out and actually intentionally harm others rather than the ones who choose to harm themselves. Yet the notion brought up time and again is shot down as a blasphemous prospect. Why so serious?

And remember the impeachment of Clinton? Over a few lies about his personal life which is obviously no threat to national security and we're fine with his "scandalous" acts being used as grounds for impeachment? Seriously? That's the number one thing they care about? Forget the embargo which killed 500,000 Iraqi children which obviously wasn't working given the logic was that if the dictator hates the people then punish the people to bug him. Hmm. That just seems unbelievably retarded. But oh god forbid he cheated on his wife and lied about it. Yeah, yep that tops all. HAHAHA!!!!!!! Why so serious?

Or the legal sterilizations of Native Americans as recent as the seventies by politicians whom parade themselves as examples of good standing morals? Why so serious?

And thus imagine that the Joker understands all these things. Does he now seem as insane?

Yeah, well it's not to be contemplated.

I have a degree believe it or not in Psychology with two minors in Sociology and Philosophy. I understand your points and views and even some opinions on here. I understand your trying to get a point across about how a fictional character can understand the corruption and chaotic world we live in and does everything in his power to throw the world of its axis so to speak. How ever the problem is true ignorance. People believe the out of sight out of mind Philosophy to often and sometimes are truly deaf, dumb and blind to the world around them. Choosing to live in a delusion never truly understanding the concept that one person can make a different or have a major impact in history. A majority of the people today have become lazy and wish to simply ignore the world and fend for themselves and make money anyway they can wither legit or illegal consumed by their own selfishness. They do not wish to understand their own mortality and know or even accept the FACT that one day they will die. Therefore they believe such things as major global incidences will never take place or have an effect on them. So yes i say it is possible for a fictional character to understand these things.Also it is somewhat disturbing that he " the joker" could understand and take action in his own path of belief when the Normal or Non Insane do not. But for someone in are world it is much further from them than their own potential at times. Sadly it is how the generations now a days and the ones to come in the near future will perceive the world and rather than improve upon it they wish to merely survive and live in it.

P.S. I am a huge fan of the joker character and have somewhat adopted some of his own beliefs in to my life. Before the movies or even learning of the character i was never consumed by greed or selfish nature. Luckily for my up bringing it came with the territory. I remember seeing people so consumed it was one of the main reasons why i studied Psychology and Philosophy. The main reason to study Psychology was to try and understand everyone in every way. Philosophy on the other hand was to ensure and expand my belief structure and to pass it on. Simple and logical

I got a jump on this after seeing an interview where Nolan considered Joker the "logical response" to someone like Batman. Contemplating how this could be, I went back to the source material, being Frank Miller, Jeph Loeb, and Alan Moore. Then it made a lot more sense. We watched the interrogation scene in particular in my "American Film Masterpieces" course, and the instructor seemed to be taking the wrong impression from it. Combined with my own thoughts on these matters, which were the same prior to ever hearing about "TDK," then it all fell into place and made sense. For Nolan chooses to specifically show us these same things. I wrote an earlier forum 3 months ago about it questioning whether Joker was an Anti-Hero or an example of what Ducard warned about, being the type of unstoppable criminal that would invade Gotham if the city wasn't destroyed. It was multiple posts long, examining events in the film, whereas this is an offshoot of that, constituting the psychological & philisophical aspects of it. But moreso, I figured I'd post this here before posting the same thing on facebook, only without the "TDK" reference at the end. Thanks for reading through it Remy. I know it was pretty long...

well it was long but at the same time insightful. I myself have these same thoughts and came to the same if not simular conclusions. Honestly its nice to know i wasn't the only one thinking into it and seeing it true potential and realism. And i must confess im shocked i really did think i was the only one who made the connection about what Ducard said. Its nice to know im not the only one who does pay attention to detail. Nice work man

All good points. Way to keep sh*t real, @Sly :)

However, concerning the History channel, I love the show The Universe. Nothing but science (with sprinkled science fiction for fun). Why it's not on Sci-Fi, I dunno lol.

Also, I find the 'monogamy' issue debatable. Myself personally, I am both monogamous and promiscuous lol. When I'm in a committed relationship and give a sh*t about the person, I respect them and am faithful to only them. However, when single and looking for some release, I have no qualms shagging a stranger (with protection of course, and no oral lol). I'd like to think I have good control of those urges. Can't say that for everyone, however. Known plenty of sluts (female and male).:p

And I totally agree about the news shows being nothing but biased entertainment (if you can call them that). But then, as pointed out, they are all controlled by a select few, so we are fed and skewed whatever these interests want us to see and think. So right, left, it doesn't matter, it's all a sham.

Humans are obsessed with controlling everything. Controlling time, controlling each other, controlling the thought process, and it goes on and on. I can see why you admire Joker, as he is honest about his existence, which makes one almost question whether he really is a villain, or just being human. It's as he says in TDK, nobody gets excited when their told something horrible on the news, but if you just started shooting people, well then people freak out as if that's impossible (I know, not exactly what he said). That is my favorite speech of his in TDK.

Yeah the infidelity point was worded wrong. I didn't mean to imply that it was fine, and that one shouldn't be upset about it, but that there's nothing surprising about how it can happen. Hence how all relationships start. I found it hard to word that point.

Yes, I do agree however that "The Universe" is excellent. But with crap shows like "Pawn Stars," "Swamp Loggers," "Axe Men," and "American Pickers" dominate their daily airwaves, then they've got a problem. [They canned 'MosterQuest' despite it had the best ratings over the aforementioned 4 reality shows {which I had to look up on history channel's online schedule} since they wanted to take the station "in a new direction." Huh? Interesting choices. idk if "MysteryQuest" is still on, though that was genuinely interesting/educational to an extent]

And as for bad news attracting attention and sometimes serving as entertainment for the masses, then that too is all too true. Hence the surprise when the sh*t hits the fan. Acting like it's fun to watch happen to others, but god forbid if it happens to you. lolz

The tagline of the film also suggests that while Joker's villainous for enacting this philosophy violently rather than posting a blog like me, that he therefore isn't necessarily crazy. He did in effect "kill the batman." And hence Ledger didn't need to act crazy, for such an image would be interpreted by the "normal" people viewing his rampage on their televisions. Hence why the performance was excellent. It's all in the interrogation scene. Had Batman gone for who was best for the city (Harvey), then he'd have been rewarded for his selflessness with Rachel. But going the other way prompted a punishment, so to speak.

Almost three years ago now, some acquaintences and I from random facebook groups created one called "I hate it when people delete their posts when they're losing an argument." It came after some chick did that very thing, having been losing 6-1 so rapidly that she threatened us with lawyer talk. We never were able to figure that one out. Anyway, she deleted her comments, to make it appear as if she never took part in the conversation. But, she was still a member of whatever group the debate took place on. What is was about, none of us can recall, for facebook does so many updates that groups are redesigned, and thus moved from one's profile to not being accessible at all. But the group we created for this topic is still there.

A similar incident occurred here, as some will recall the user "Flrep07," whom was distraught over being too young to vote for the presidency in 2008, and went about posting on people's profiles to vote for McCain. Despite numerous hints of how people could care less about politics, he kept it up till I debated him. I could've cared less about either candidate, but debated Obama's side anyhow. Once our informative debate on each other's profiles was complete, we began chatting about movies, but within an hour of the debate, all my comments arguing my side were deleted from his profile. I thought it was a glitch at first, till he said he "doesn't like long comments." To date I've noticed numerous 'long comments' on his profile. Case in point being that he didn't like the view being presented, and deleted it so it'd appear to anyone else that the debate never took place, from my end at least, but I kept his comments as I thought they were good. Point being that people do this, delete the opposing side's view when it differs either slightly or greatly from there own.

Just a couple days ago, a former good friend turned fairweather friend posted a new facebook status. He basically used the Tucson shootings to take a pot shot an entire political party. One of our mutual friends called him on it, being moot about how ludicrous it was to scapegoat an entire group over a tragedy, that it was a sleazy cheap shot essentially. But again, being moot in dialogue chosen. So, I decided to cut to the chase, make it evident that point immediately, though not in a criticizing way, but rather in a "How is a mass shooting political" kind of way. Putting thereafter that riling up the bravado of hunting, the NRA, and the 2nd Ammendment is all that the gunsight cartoon most have heard of was, albeit a bad choice of cartoon. He basically was trying (like some of TVs talking heads) to take a big shot at a group with differing opinions from his own and I called him on it directly, as our mutual friend did indirectly. Catch is, not only did he immediately delete my comment, but he barred me from seeing his wall, and so I sent a message pointing out our dozens of disagreements in the past, and that it's immature in an ensuing debate to erase someone's opinion cuz it differs from there's, or spells it out in black and white. Of course his immature response was to remove me from his friend's list and ban my IP, but just a second before, sent 1 last message claiming it childish to reference this incident with Flrep07 cuz it was 3yrs ago when he'd been referencing things from 30+ ago to stick up for his favorite candidate. I had pointed out he must've been psychologically threatened by the opinion as he couldn't challenge it was called out for a cheap shot. Yet he still believes it to be childish to reference actual events as opposed to false analogies.

The point in all this is that I could care less about a difference of opinion, yet some take it so seriously to inexplicable proportions unless they're psychologically threatened by it. So the question remains...why so serious?

If anyone ever wants to know @Sly's inner thoughts, this is the forum to go to :P

Seriously, though, I find it sickening how many people have used the Tucson shooting as a political leverage for whatever "side" they take. The guy was a grade A whacko, what his politics were, or Congresswoman Gifford's were/are, made no difference to me, all that mattered was people got dead. Period. And that IS pretty petty for someone to erase your messages just because they know their getting pwned.

My western novel is hard to write. It's long, got lots of plot points, and requires a lot of research. I feel if I were to write a novel in the first person incorporating these ideas, then it'd make for a quick read and make returning to my western easier. Problem is, how to make it unique. Novels have been written attacking this before, but not all of it. For example, "Catcher In The Rye" is seen as such a classic, and it features none of this. Just an antisocial narrator. I will seriously get a jump on this seeing as there are many life experiences I can draw upon.

@slysnide i too am writing a novel but set it in our modern world so i wouldnt have to do so much research. Initially it was set after WWI but i dropped that idea due to research.

one thing about first person is that there is only one inner dialogue and that can make for a more snappy read. The novel i am working on has 6 main characters and they only slowly come together so there are several points of view...one of those POV's is in the first person, one is stream of conscious ets. I find that it give each character a unique feel.

@skywise: My narrator is omniscient and not a part of the story. It's an ensemble featuring numerous characters with significant parts, so given the narrator's role--or lack thereof--it makes for long chapters. The first 3 at 12pt single spaced comes in at 124pgs, and there will be 33 chapters total. It's split into 3 segments taking place in April, July, and October 1913. Themes centered on are the end of the first industrial revolution, the beginning of the second, the end of the old west and old fashioned imperialism, and the ideas that expanded America's borders and eventually would lead to becoming a superpower. Except since it's in 1913, the two characters that are most majorly featured are the examples of these ideas. The villain embraces the concept of manifest destiny and the desire to control, whereas the anti-hero of sorts is at a crossroads and recognizes the ironies of the constitution and the way America has expanded etc etc. Water, Gold, and Oil are the driving forces of the three separate parts of the book.

@slysnide Those are some amazing themes for a western. Sounds awesome.

@slysnide I love the ideas you've put together. Definatly something i would love to read.

You've got a brilliant mind and i hope it comes together for you...and so i can read your novel.

@slysnide I'm not quite ready to share a synopsis or any themes or characters just yet but when i am i would really appreciate your opinion. I know you wont hold back on account of my feeleings and are completly nuetral. That is what i need. I dont need friends and family telling me its good just beacuse they are friends and family.

=))) xD

I really like this movie. This is a action movie. I really enjoy this movie . In this movie i like Heath Ledger. He is a good actor.

It is one of the best movies of Bat man series. Batman appears here with all his action.

The dark knight movie is very awesome and action movie. I like this movie. I watched on this movie 3-4 times. Action movies are my favorite movie.Movies are best source to spend our free times.

i like this movie
livewatchmovies.com