Duality
Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 3,429
- Points
- 38
WARNING: if you have not seen the dark night yet, don't read this, go watch it, then please read on.
after seeing this movie i realize how much most other movies just suck. no real thought or effort put into the dialogue. i don't think i can bring myself to watch another spiderman movie after seeing this movie and how high it has taken the bar for a "superhero" movie. seriously this is the best film i've seen since crash or saving private ryan.
something in the movie that really got me thinking and a little upset was the rules batman held himself too, and the joker's demented, yet at the same time realistic, take on mankind. why if batman has the best interests of gotham at heart will he not kill the joker when given the chance? is saving a life that if allowed to live will take many others the right thing to do? this is where i find batmans actions not to be in the best interest of the civilians of gotham, but rather in more of an overly righteous dogma that holds one to a set of rules that is not (always) for the greater good.
the scene that struck me the most is the 2 ships scene where: both ships were rigged with explosives, ship A held the detonator to ship B's explosives, and ship B held the detonator to ship A's explosives. they were told that in 15 minutes both ships would explode....unless one of the ships detonated the other before the 15 minutes expired. now putting the movies rather unlikely scenario aside where everything ends up ok, what do you think should have happened? should both ships have to die? does it make a difference that one of the ships had all convicts on it? i answer no to both of these, one of the ships should do what must be done to save the most lives. i don't have the ability to judge a person's merit on whether they deserve to live (thus why them being convicts holds no bearing) but when 1000 people are going to die, and you have the ability to save 500, you need to do what must be done and detonate the other ship.
if you had to take a life, but you would in turn save 100 people, would you do it? if you had to take your own life to save 100 people, woud you? i can honestly answer an unequivocal yes to both of these questions.
something in the movie that really got me thinking and a little upset was the rules batman held himself too, and the joker's demented, yet at the same time realistic, take on mankind. why if batman has the best interests of gotham at heart will he not kill the joker when given the chance? is saving a life that if allowed to live will take many others the right thing to do? this is where i find batmans actions not to be in the best interest of the civilians of gotham, but rather in more of an overly righteous dogma that holds one to a set of rules that is not (always) for the greater good.
the scene that struck me the most is the 2 ships scene where: both ships were rigged with explosives, ship A held the detonator to ship B's explosives, and ship B held the detonator to ship A's explosives. they were told that in 15 minutes both ships would explode....unless one of the ships detonated the other before the 15 minutes expired. now putting the movies rather unlikely scenario aside where everything ends up ok, what do you think should have happened? should both ships have to die? does it make a difference that one of the ships had all convicts on it? i answer no to both of these, one of the ships should do what must be done to save the most lives. i don't have the ability to judge a person's merit on whether they deserve to live (thus why them being convicts holds no bearing) but when 1000 people are going to die, and you have the ability to save 500, you need to do what must be done and detonate the other ship.
if you had to take a life, but you would in turn save 100 people, would you do it? if you had to take your own life to save 100 people, woud you? i can honestly answer an unequivocal yes to both of these questions.