[Spoilers!] Dark Knight

[Pink Underoo]

I guess you're not big on philosophy, Underoo. A paradox does not necessarily mean a mistake, and Joker can be summed in more than one paradox.

My argument is that you're simply drawing from the surface of the character. If you dig down deeper, there's a lot more to him. The point is, with the little we are actually presented of Joker, one could write pages upon pages of thought. It is not a reflection of a single mind as much as it is a reflection of elements in the psyche of all humanity. That does not necessarily mark it an impersonal force; after all, Joker is very much a person.

It isn't stupid, or bullshit. You just don't like it. There's a difference.

You claim that the draw point here is philosophical undertones, but you're missing the point that the Joker has no undertones. His dialog is literally the subtext. Also, what do you think of how he was acclaimed to not be a schemer, yet he is a very blatant schemer?

I actually enjoy philosophy, but this is not anything of the kind. It's a big budget film with an insubstantial arch villain who is thinly painted with contradictory overtones that make repeated appeals to the pseudo intellectual viewer. It makes no difference about the amounts of pages you could write about the character, because if one were inclined to write a ten page essay on the nature of dog shit then it could happen, and I'm sure there'd be others who'd be enthralled with every word of it - that's the nature of philosophy, it's whatever the fuck you make of it. But as for the actual character, personal opinion aside, I'm calling it bullshit because that's what it is. This Joker (no pun intended) is a generically twisted villain placed in a poorly scripted action movie. I'm starting to think that if Heath's death prevents this character from recurring in the next film (which I'll probably avoid anyway) then at least something good would come from his passing.

[Reijin]

I hope you DO avoid it. Not because you dislike this movie, because that's completely understandable, but because you inherently dislike EVERY movie, game, or anime that seems to come out. Your problem, it would seem, is with the current industry as a whole, not the specific events, and thus you seem set up to be disappointed before you ever enter the building. I'd rather you not waste your time disappointing yourself then and find things that actually make you happy. I'd recommend that to anyone. I could understand if someone went in and was surprised that they hated the movie with such a passion and then ranted about it, but you were complaining about it before it ever came out just over the fact that they were using the Joker and not immediately bringing Nicholson in for the character, if I recall (not sure on this). Which has effectively lead to you trolling the thread, in a manner of speaking, but at least you and Krillin and Yamu (and possibly some others) are getting some good debates from it, which is awesome to see

However, I do have to agree that you are insisting on taking a personal opinion of the movie and imposing it as fact. I could just as easily complain about how retarded the former Joker was with basically a boring mob boss that had a clown gimmick painted on for no reason doing really nothing out of the ordinary other than a parade that didn't make sense, resorting to the easy to pass off "laughing gas" routine since no one can explain it away (this is all a tangent based on if I thought that way) but the fact is that people both enjoyed and hated that version of the Joker, and it will have its own place out there in the crowd just as this one. That doesn't make either crowd superior to the other and the other "stupid" or "blind idiots" or "easily entertained" or anything, it just means it appeals to a different crowd.

As to the point of the "schemer" thing... While I agree, what does this make you think of Jack Sparrow, then? The Joker's antics quite obviously just "happened to fall together" in the same manner as Jack Sparrow's did, as we are lead to believe that Sparrow did nothing to plan these actions, and yet the silly comical nature of Sparrow himself, who in D&D terms I'd consider Chaotic Neutral as compared to the Joker's Chaotic Evil, leads you to believe that very fact. They are both the same form of random character, one just happens to be likeable.

[Krillin]

You claim that the draw point here is philosophical undertones, but you're missing the point that the Joker has no undertones.

Arguable. At any rate, it is precisely his curiosities (which this would surely be one of) that require closer inspection. You take such things and write him off as thin and weak. Others see it as an example of complexity and depth.

His dialog is literally the subtext. Also, what do you think of how he was acclaimed to not be a schemer, yet he is a very blatant schemer?

Not really. He just does. What he does can be complicated, but he doesn't plan it.

For example, if I am playing Chess with someone, I could produce a horribly complicated pattern of moves and follow that pattern, but never with a random end. I always plan for a specific purpose, such as capturing an enemy piece, or fortifying my position. I never just move.

The Joker, however, would play Chess with the intent of havoc, not as a direct desire (for then, one could argue he plans to produce desire), but as an indirect reaction to his lack of inhibition. If we must use the term "impulsive", then we must not apply the typical connotations, such as "simple".

The point is, you cannot understand him, and I cannot understand him. That does not mean he is inconsistent, or flawed, or thin, or in some way inferior. These things are all value judgments you have made, and are opinions based upon personal tastes, not upon logic.

I actually enjoy philosophy, but this is not anything of the kind. It's a big budget film with an insubstantial arch villain who is thinly painted with contradictory overtones that make repeated appeals to the pseudo intellectual viewer. It makes no difference about the amounts of pages you could write about the character, because if one were inclined to write a ten page essay on the nature of dog shit then it could happen, and I'm sure there'd be others who'd be enthralled with every word of it - that's the nature of philosophy, it's whatever the fuck you make of it.

I don't know how much you are familiar with philosophy, but this sort of a post seems to indicate a general ignorance of what it actually consists of, and of particular texts. Again, I could think of nothing else but Nietzsche in the character of the Joker, and Two-Face's basis of decisions on the flip of a coin recalled the study of ethics as a whole. There is plenty of meat here to dig into, and having talked to a number of my classmates (some of whom are also philosophy students), I have no doubt that the movie could spark a number of interesting discussions.

But as for the actual character, personal opinion aside, I'm calling it bullshit because that's what it is. This Joker (no pun intended) is a generically twisted villain placed in a poorly scripted action movie. I'm starting to think that if Heath's death prevents this character from recurring in the next film (which I'll probably avoid anyway) then at least something good would come from his passing.

You cannot possibly claim something like this, then claim that it is removed of all opinion. You're making a value judgment.

What is it, exactly, that qualifies a particular work as intellectually fulfilling, or substantial, or what-have-you? Is it the extent to which the audience can react to it in an original and thought-provoking way? Is it the extent to which it agrees with your particular view on what things should be?

Of course, I could simply raise the matter of postmodernism, and argue that you could not possibly remove personal opinion from your evaluation, no matter how much you hope to appeal to objectivity at all. It is the height of Rousseauian naivety to suggest otherwise.

EDIT: Oh, and you might do better to remove such words as "pseudo-intellectual" from your posts in the future. In my experience, a pseudo-intellectual is precisely that person who attempts to establish personal superiority by denigrating everything in sight, which is pretty much all I've ever seen you do.

[Dehan]

...yall really took a lot out of this movie o.O

[Krillin]

You should talk to me about "Magnolia". I could literally go on for hours about that one.

[Reijin]

Anyone else feel the urge to whip their cock out? I've got mine in hand and ready to go, you wankers.

Just look at it.

LOOK at it.

Its $*%#ing enormous!

[Waffuru]

I think I'm just going to lock this for now.