Wrather, Fenzel, Sheely and Stokes overthink The Dark Knight.
Download Episode 10 (revised) in AAC Format
UPDATE (2008-08-08): Spoilers related to (of all things) The Wire were inadvertently included in this podcast. They have been removed, and the link above has a spoiler-free edition of the podcast.
As loljoker contest submissions have continued to roll in, an interesting pattern has emerged; there are lots of lulz about Heath, Romero, and (as you’ll see in this post) the comic book and lego incarnations of the Joker, there has been a conspicuous paucity of Jack Nicholson themed submissions. What is the deal with that?
It seems that Ledger’s performance has pushed Nicholson’s joker into the taint of irrelevance; Nicholson can no longer lay claim to the darkest incarnation of the Joker, yet his portrayal is not as campy as Romero’s turn in the classic TV series. Is his generally solid interpretation of the character doomed to be forgotten? Maybe Jack will start lobbying Nolan to be cast to replace Ledger in the next installation of this series?
Lots more romero and comics loljokerz (all submitted by Cushman) after the jump (plus some late-breaking submissions from Gab that attempt correct the underrepresentation of Nicholson)…
Today’s submissions reach back, back, back to the campy Adam West/Burt Ward Batman TV show. (Hey, isn’t it funny that his name is “Ward” and he was playing Batman’s ward? And why don’t you hear about people having wards any more? Seriously — you never hear, “Nice to meet you, and this is my ward.” Funny, huh?
Lean back the head on the bust of Shakespeare and flip the switch to see the most positive portrayal of Latinos in 1966 television after the jump.
Over the past two weeks, much digital ink has been spilled about the political meanings and messages embedded in The Dark Knight. In this particular corner of the intertubes, considerable (over)thought has gone into dissecting the layers of philosophy in the film. However, looking closely at the intersection of the two reveals that the filmmakers pose some very important questions that probe the very nature and origins of social and political order.
No spoilers here, so read on, even if you haven’t seen the film yet.
JK!
Words only after the jump, so if you’re just here for the LOLJoker, read no further…
Got a loljoker of your own? Email it to
sheely AT overthinkingit DOT com before Sunday, August 3, 2008 at Midnight EDT. The best one wins a vintage batman t-shirt, and we’ll invite you onto the
OTI Podcast to overthink some stuff with is.
Rules and guidelines »
(There Will Be Spoilers)
Christopher Nolan didn’t major in philosophy in college (or “read philosophy at University,” as the case may be), but he evidently has some familiarity with the subject. How do I know? Well, both of his two Batman films thus far have featured famous philosophical thought experiments.
In Batman Begins, we have the well-known trolley experiment, in which a person must imagine that s/he is on a trolley that is barreling down the tracks towards five people (or babies, depending on if your ethics professor is more or less of a sadist) who are tied onto the tracks. The imaginer can then either imagine that s/he pulls a lever, switching the trolley onto another track that only has one person (or baby) tied to it, or that s/he does nothing, allowing the trolley to kill the aforementioned five. The utilitarian will say, “I switch the trolley to the new track, because it’s better to kill one person than to kill five.” The non-utilitarian will say, “I leave the trolley to kill the five, because at least then I am not morally at fault.” The main ethical question is: “Is there a difference between killing a person and letting a person die?”
