|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Aug 31, 2011 15:32:40 GMT -5
The Joker won in a way. He tore down Gotham's White Knight. The Dark Knight, the actual protagonist, on the other hand, kept standing. Joker didn't win, because he failed to break the man he wanted to break. Harvey is, from start to finish, a foil for Batman, and the fact that he broke while Batman didn't only emphasizes how great Batman is, and the point that, despite his many flaws and failures, he is the hero Gotham deserves. The ending is bittersweet, yes, but calling it anything but a triumph of the good guys, especially after the boat scene, is blatantly dishonest. Or just not getting it. |
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Aug 31, 2011 15:34:53 GMT -5
I'm not defending the comment because it is certainly not true for the movie as a whole. I'm just stating that in one way the Joker set out to do what he wanted, which is what he had talked about for the entire movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morpheus on Aug 31, 2011 15:35:07 GMT -5
Morph- Sure, some are a bit more gray than black and white in regards to good or bad guys winning, and some are left up to a bit more interpretation than others. But by no means are only those listed the only movies where the bad guy wins. |
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Aug 31, 2011 15:36:31 GMT -5
Lol yeah that will probably never happen. But a slight difference, a hero doesn't need to be killed for a villain to win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Aug 31, 2011 15:40:31 GMT -5
Because a happy ending is such an over rated concept... It's not but I cannot respect a story where the hero wins for no justifiable reason. If you don't actually have what is necessary to win, you don't sucks to be you but only in magical pussy loser land does a person win because he really wants to and is the good guy. You're going about it in a roundabout way. Unless you're making a very specific type story, a tragedy, or are trying to get a specific message across, yes, the hero very much needs to win. The entire point of sticking with him till the end of the story is to see him beat the odds at the end. If the hero's victory is flawed and doesn't make sense storywise, then that's a problem of the writing, and should be fixed so that the victory does make sense. Saying "Just let the villain kill him" instead, is a completely backwards way of looking at things. |
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Aug 31, 2011 15:47:14 GMT -5
You're going about it in a roundabout way. Unless you're making a very specific type story, a tragedy, or are trying to get a specific message across, yes, the hero very much needs to win. I disagree, tragedy and defeat aren't necessarily the same thing first off in the litterary and artistic sense. You can have one without the other. The entire point of sticking with him till the end of the story is to see him beat the odds at the end. I disagree, a story's point is to be entertained. See interesting characters, events, settings. Victory or defeat are just narrative tools to make the work interesting. Beating the odds is entirely unnecessary. If the hero's victory is flawed and doesn't make sense storywise, then that's a problem of the writing, and should be fixed so that the victory does make sense. Which if you read my previous posts was exactly my point. Thor's victory did not make complete sense. Loki could have beaten him anytime he wanted with half a brain. Saying "Just let the villain kill him" instead, is a completely backwards way of looking at things. no it's not. Good storytelling does not make things happen just because that's what we want to happen. It happens because it is logical that it would happen. If there is no reason why a villain can't and wouldn't just kill the hero at the start and be on his merry way. Then there is no reason that this would not happen. Because if such is the case, the villain would be a moron not to kill the hero before he become a threat to his plans. |
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Aug 31, 2011 16:30:07 GMT -5
Joker only got a 1/3 win. He broke the hero everyone wanted. +1.
He failed to break Batman. But he was okay with that because Batman is fun. -1.
He failed to prove that humanity is as vile and insane as he is. Which actually seemed to piss him off. -1.
|
|
|
|
Post by DedmanWalkin on Aug 31, 2011 16:54:39 GMT -5
None of those are complete negatives. He did partially complete each objective.
He made Batman have to go 1984 on Gotham and temporarily become the monster that Dent alluded to and he crippled Batman's ability to work with the Police thus partially breaking the Bat.
He did in part show that humanity is as depraved as he is by getting so many people to attempt to murder that guy who was going to reveal Batman's identity and thoroughly corrupting the best of them all.
Unless we are just taking this as a pass/fail type thing, then I concede the point.
Had he planned out his final battle a bit better, he could have completely won.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Aug 31, 2011 17:00:24 GMT -5
Making Batman go 1984 on Gotham was never Joker's intention and he did not even know about it in the first place. His goal was to make Batman break his one rule. Not make Batman break a rule he never had in the first place. He also was not trying to ruin Batman's ability to work with police. That is what Batman did to ensure Joker's victory over Dent was secret.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2011 17:12:58 GMT -5
Accomplishing "partial" victories to some objectives and never completing primary goals = failing.
|
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Aug 31, 2011 17:17:10 GMT -5
At least the Joker succeeded at one thing, or else that wouldn't be very fun or interesting, now would it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Aug 31, 2011 17:19:17 GMT -5
Joker seemed content with 1/3 victory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2011 17:19:42 GMT -5
Eh, Dixon's Nightwing run was a lot of fun and 95% of his vilalins were jobberlicious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gender on Aug 31, 2011 17:55:51 GMT -5
Is that an Infinity Gem in Loki's staff? What is in Loki's staff is the cosmic cube. A completed IG is sitting in Odin's vault, nice and safe. |
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Aug 31, 2011 17:58:28 GMT -5
That's definitely not the cosmic cube unless it is a shard of it, and he stole it from Nick Fury and SHIELD (post credits sequence after Thor).
|
|
|
|
Post by Gender on Aug 31, 2011 18:04:04 GMT -5
That's definitely not the cosmic cube unless it is a shard of it, and he stole it from Nick Fury and SHIELD (post credits sequence after Thor). Yes it is. And it totally makes sense with the Thor teaser given Loki has free access to the damn thing. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Aug 31, 2011 19:03:10 GMT -5
Just because you draw a square around it, doesn't make it so. It is clearly rounded. Like I said, maybe it is a piece of the cosmic cube or something, or another gem or magical artifact entirely.  |
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Aug 31, 2011 19:18:28 GMT -5
Stellan Skarsgard, who plays Dr. Erik Selvig in Thor and The Avengers, also had this to say in a recent interview about the post credit scene in Thor, and The Avengers: "Well with the scene we did in Thor, it was like Loki, one way or the other, entered Eric’s mind. And in Avengers, you will see more clarity in how Loki is using Eric’s mind." I Am RogueSo the fact that it is shaped like a gem, is blue, and with Stellan's recent quote, it is not out of the question that this could be the Mind Gem. |
|
|
|
Post by Gender on Aug 31, 2011 19:33:45 GMT -5
Just because you draw a square around it, doesn't make it so. It is clearly rounded. Like I said, maybe it is a piece of the cosmic cube or something, or another gem or magical artifact entirely. Still looks like a cube to me and given the cube was not only damaged, but not being used by gods in the first place in said film, that could be how the cosmic cube really looks when used properly. Red Skull certainly found a way to make batteries to hold it's juice in. Albeit I'm assuming that is just a picture that hasn't been enhanced by movie magic just yet. Stellan Skarsgard, who plays Dr. Erik Selvig in Thor and The Avengers, also had this to say in a recent interview about the post credit scene in Thor, and The Avengers: "Well with the scene we did in Thor, it was like Loki, one way or the other, entered Eric’s mind. And in Avengers, you will see more clarity in how Loki is using Eric’s mind." I Am RogueSo the fact that it is shaped like a gem, is blue, and with Stellan's recent quote, it is not out of the question that this could be the Mind Gem. Unless the Mind Gem has grown 3-5x it's normal size, I have my doubts. It really isn't even implied Loki needs something of the sort to manipulate anyone's mind in the first place, given he isn't walking around with a massive staff in the clip were he is manipulating him in the first place. Honestly. If the Gauntlet or the Gems make any appearance, someone will have to rob Odin's vault, since it seems he had the complete set.  |
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Aug 31, 2011 20:19:58 GMT -5
I'm not saying it is the Mind Gem, but it is not the full cosmic cube for sure. Could it be a rounded or smoothed shard of the cosmic cube? Maybe. But it is not the cube in full. It could be some random magical gem as well.
But changes have been made in movies. It is also entirely possible that they decided that an Infinity Gem looked best that way. The Infinity Glove was actually not seen in the Thor movie (claims it was in a really, really, quick cut), but either way, the majority were not able to spot it in the movie during the treasure vault sequence. IIRC, when the IG was shown off at SDCC 2010, it was massive. Much bigger than a regular hand. So those Gems could be much larger than you might think.
|
|
