I like your review mori. Saw it yesterday and although I like it, I don't think I can see it again anytime soon. I think this was the first movie that ever made me feel uncomfortable at one point and made me want to walk out of it. It was not because it was a bad movie either. It really should have been rated R.
The Dark Knight
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Gordon is in my opinion the most ethical of the main characters, though. Working in an environment where a large number of his own people are corrupt and working with or for the mob, must be extremely frustrating.
That sets off two flags for me: one being the idea Gordon is considered "more ethical" because his behavior courses along a principle you believe to be nobler than a comparable principle. For example, someone could have the opinion Gordon was "more ethical" than Bob, because while Bob shot a man just to watch him die in a given context, Gordon did not shoot a man just to watch him die in a comparable context. In another example, someone might consider Gordon "more ethical" than Bob because while Bob shot a man just to watch him die in a given context, Gordon sang him a song in a comparable context. I think the second is more grounded.
Another is that he is "more ethical" because he holds to a principle more tenaciously than that he is being compared with holds to a comparable principle. You could also divide this into several parts I think. For example, someone could have the opinion Gordon is more ethical than Bob, because while Gordon believes you should only eat oysters in months with "R" and in fact only does so, Bob believes you should only eat oysters of high quality, and in fact occasionally does not do so (or otherwise departs from the principle more often than does Gordon).
I would genuinely like to see how folks would try to assess something of the second (hypothetical) variety. I should note that what I mean here by "ethic" is not at all to be taken as similar to a specific observation like "the temperature of the air inside the oven is 350°F" or to something akin to what Aesop is known for having cranked out, which is to say a non-directive proverb, like "no news is good news". An ethic or proverb with an overly specific context is NOT actually either in my opinion, much as you would say the same of a scientific "law" which only applies in isolated incidences (aka has a lot of holes). Patching holes in a "law" is NOT the same as defining a useful context for a law (1000 ft. underwater vs. the vacuum of space) or refining the claim in a way the original constituents of the law are impacted, refined as a whole. (Here's an awesome "law" I just made: Julian always wears contacts... unless he takes them out at night — except when he's up during the night, or he forgets to take them out at night when he wouldn't otherwise be up during the night, or if he decides to wear glasses during the night or day when he is up, which he does sometimes when his glasses look good with what he is wearing or he is only going to be up for a little while and he doesn't want to bother with his contacts, or when he goes in for an optometrist appointment to get his eyes checked and has to take the contacts out, or when he is swimming in the ocean or in the shower and loses a contact in the water accidentally.)
"You shouldn't [censored] into the wind"
Actually, I just did, and nothing bad happened.
"Oh, well you shouldn't [censored] into the wind when it's blowing against you."
It was blowing against me.
"I mean you shouldn't [censored] into the wind when it's blowing towards you."
It was blowing towards me.
"Alright, don't [censored] into the wind when the wind is blowing in the polar opposite direction to the direction you are [censored] in."
I don't think you can [censored] and not [censored] at the same time.
"Then don't [censored] into the wind when the wind is blowing in the polar opposite direction to the direction you were thinking about [censored] in."
I just did. The wind was pretty calm though, and my powerful stream overcame it easily.
"Alright, don't [censored] into a hurricane force wind."
I did that once at my brother's house and I figured out how to [censored] between my legs five feet behind me; it was pretty cool.
"Forget it."
"I believe it is generally the right thing to open doors for other people" is absolutely NOT an ethic, moral, law, or anything else you want to call it, at least in my book. I personally have very few "ethics", "morals", etc. in that sense; I'm big on the whole context thing. The entire point of taking pains to have the label of a law is that it is a concept which usefully applies without the burden of going back over exceedingly laborious context definitions. A law is supposed to be amazingly practical. Saying something is a "law" is a BFD. If people want to have lots of "general principles" or whatever, that's fine; I probably have right under a billion myself. Just don't try to pretend they're something they're not. I think that's why I love poking holes in people's theories so much; it pretty much makes my day.
Wait, what?! This is a "Batman" thread.
I'm such a dork.
Gordon is in my opinion the most ethical of the main characters, though. Working in an environment where a large number of his own people are corrupt and working with or for the mob, must be extremely frustrating.
That sets off two flags for me: one being the idea Gordon is considered "more ethical" because his behavior courses along a principle you believe to be nobler than a comparable principle. For example, someone could have the opinion Gordon was "more ethical" than Bob, because while Bob shot a man just to watch him die in a given context, Gordon did not shoot a man just to watch him die in a comparable context. In another example, someone might consider Gordon "more ethical" than Bob because while Bob shot a man just to watch him die in a given context, Gordon sang him a song in a comparable context. I think the second is more grounded.
Another is that he is "more ethical" because he holds to a principle more tenaciously than that he is being compared with holds to a comparable principle. You could also divide this into several parts I think. For example, someone could have the opinion Gordon is more ethical than Bob, because while Gordon believes you should only eat oysters in months with "R" and in fact only does so, Bob believes you should only eat oysters of high quality, and in fact occasionally does not do so (or otherwise departs from the principle more often than does Gordon).
I would genuinely like to see how folks would try to assess something of the second (hypothetical) variety. I should note that what I mean here by "ethic" is not at all to be taken as similar to a specific observation like "the temperature of the air inside the oven is 350°F" or to something akin to what Aesop is known for having cranked out, which is to say a non-directive proverb, like "no news is good news". An ethic or proverb with an overly specific context is NOT actually either in my opinion, much as you would say the same of a scientific "law" which only applies in isolated incidences (aka has a lot of holes). Patching holes in a "law" is NOT the same as defining a useful context for a law (1000 ft. underwater vs. the vacuum of space) or refining the claim in a way the original constituents of the law are impacted, refined as a whole. (Here's an awesome "law" I just made: Julian always wears contacts... unless he takes them out at night — except when he's up during the night, or he forgets to take them out at night when he wouldn't otherwise be up during the night, or if he decides to wear glasses during the night or day when he is up, which he does sometimes when his glasses look good with what he is wearing or he is only going to be up for a little while and he doesn't want to bother with his contacts, or when he goes in for an optometrist appointment to get his eyes checked and has to take the contacts out, or when he is swimming in the ocean or in the shower and loses a contact in the water accidentally.)
"You shouldn't [censored] into the wind"
Actually, I just did, and nothing bad happened.
"Oh, well you shouldn't [censored] into the wind when it's blowing against you."
It was blowing against me.
"I mean you shouldn't [censored] into the wind when it's blowing towards you."
It was blowing towards me.
"Alright, don't [censored] into the wind when the wind is blowing in the polar opposite direction to the direction you are [censored] in."
I don't think you can [censored] and not [censored] at the same time.
"Then don't [censored] into the wind when the wind is blowing in the polar opposite direction to the direction you were thinking about [censored] in."
I just did. The wind was pretty calm though, and my powerful stream overcame it easily.
"Alright, don't [censored] into a hurricane force wind."
I did that once at my brother's house and I figured out how to [censored] between my legs five feet behind me; it was pretty cool.
"Forget it."
"I believe it is generally the right thing to open doors for other people" is absolutely NOT an ethic, moral, law, or anything else you want to call it, at least in my book. I personally have very few "ethics", "morals", etc. in that sense; I'm big on the whole context thing. The entire point of taking pains to have the label of a law is that it is a concept which usefully applies without the burden of going back over exceedingly laborious context definitions. A law is supposed to be amazingly practical. Saying something is a "law" is a BFD. If people want to have lots of "general principles" or whatever, that's fine; I probably have right under a billion myself. Just don't try to pretend they're something they're not. I think that's why I love poking holes in people's theories so much; it pretty much makes my day.
Wait, what?! This is a "Batman" thread.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,587
I should never extemporize! I'm glad you found something arbitrary, some might say questionable, tossed out there carelessly by me, perfect for latching onto, and, into which you really can sink your teeth relentless until the flesh stops squirming, Julian.
I was going to make some observations regarding the dialectic process of constant conflict between good (Isn't there something better than "just good"?) and evil, the metaphysical heart of transformation in the arbitrary, and unsatisfying conflict resolution etc, etc, etc, but I figured most people would lose interest very quickly, especially if I was going to mention Hegel. I'm glad I didn't go through with my plan! Feel free to feast on the bone I just chucked at you. You go knock yourself out of the ballpark and into the stratosphere now, amigo!
I was going to make some observations regarding the dialectic process of constant conflict between good (Isn't there something better than "just good"?) and evil, the metaphysical heart of transformation in the arbitrary, and unsatisfying conflict resolution etc, etc, etc, but I figured most people would lose interest very quickly, especially if I was going to mention Hegel. I'm glad I didn't go through with my plan! Feel free to feast on the bone I just chucked at you. You go knock yourself out of the ballpark and into the stratosphere now, amigo!
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,587
Originally Posted By: buster
mori's review is very good. Batman Begins and Dark Knight are superior to any of the previous Batman films.
It wasn't review. It was a mere comment on the underlying subject matter. You can't know if I liked the movie or if I hated it.
mori's review is very good. Batman Begins and Dark Knight are superior to any of the previous Batman films.
It wasn't review. It was a mere comment on the underlying subject matter. You can't know if I liked the movie or if I hated it.
Originally Posted By: moribundman
I should never extemporize! I'm glad you found something arbitrary, some might say questionable, tossed out there carelessly by me, perfect for latching onto, and, into which you really can sink your teeth relentless until the flesh stops squirming, Julian.
Grrrr! I love it!!! Faaaeeeeeeed me Seymour!!!
I should never extemporize! I'm glad you found something arbitrary, some might say questionable, tossed out there carelessly by me, perfect for latching onto, and, into which you really can sink your teeth relentless until the flesh stops squirming, Julian.
Grrrr! I love it!!! Faaaeeeeeeed me Seymour!!!
"You can't know if I liked the movie or if I hated it. " Mori
Not too sure there,,usually not to hard to tell when you dislike something!
Best,
Bob
Not too sure there,,usually not to hard to tell when you dislike something!
Best,
Bob
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,587
Originally Posted By: alreadygone
Not too sure there,,usually not to hard to tell when you dislike something!
You'd be surprised.
I'm just a fan of emphasis and exaggeration, because it makes people listen up. I also like to play the devil's advocate. So when you read one of my tirades, make sure to keep that in mind.
Not too sure there,,usually not to hard to tell when you dislike something!
You'd be surprised.
I'm just a fan of emphasis and exaggeration, because it makes people listen up. I also like to play the devil's advocate. So when you read one of my tirades, make sure to keep that in mind.
Just came back from the movie, and I was impressed.
Ledger gave a great performance, no doubt.
My 2 cents worth? He had to. The movie was about the Joker not Batman, written that way. The Joker had all the good lines, and had to be twice as interesting, or the movie flops.
Ledger gave a great performance, no doubt.
My 2 cents worth? He had to. The movie was about the Joker not Batman, written that way. The Joker had all the good lines, and had to be twice as interesting, or the movie flops.
Saw it DVD. Loved it.
Nolan does dark, dirty despair very well. The Joker speaks a lot of truth...."...their morality is a joke....they drop it at the first sign of trouble". We see this play out on some level everyday. E.g. speculators are "evil" in a down economy but its all good when the bubble is rising.
I don't think the Joker tried to corrupt people....the people were already corrupt but could keep it under wraps with a set of superficial "values." He simply created conditions that removed the facade. Having said that, the "rules" he raged against and made a mockery of are needed to keep society in order, which is why he is so dangerous. Sometimes people have to lie to themselves to save themselves. Thank God for Batman and cognitive dissonance!
Nolan does dark, dirty despair very well. The Joker speaks a lot of truth...."...their morality is a joke....they drop it at the first sign of trouble". We see this play out on some level everyday. E.g. speculators are "evil" in a down economy but its all good when the bubble is rising.
I don't think the Joker tried to corrupt people....the people were already corrupt but could keep it under wraps with a set of superficial "values." He simply created conditions that removed the facade. Having said that, the "rules" he raged against and made a mockery of are needed to keep society in order, which is why he is so dangerous. Sometimes people have to lie to themselves to save themselves. Thank God for Batman and cognitive dissonance!
- Status