![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
I give up.
Hahaha I bet you thought you'd be getting porn.
So I've been trying to write this whole post about Super Hero Ethics and the problems I have with TDK. There were things I really loved that they brought into it, but the way they handled some of those concepts was disturbing to me. Not on the level it was meant to be disturbing, but on the level of: "I do not think that means what you think it means!" But after seeing it a second time, and complaining about it AGAIN to
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
my_daroga, I feel better about it. She is, after all, usually right. I do not think they handled these issues as badly as I keep making out like they did. But anyway, I'm not posting about that. I'm also not posting about the fact that the movie was so crowded with themes and the characters so stuffed with symbolism that it felt less like a story with people than an allegory with concepts. Which is nice, for a change, but for something to be really brilliant I like it when they manage to be both.
But this post isn't about that! It's about how in my head, there's so much going on here that I want to explore. The movie was great, but it has it's faults, and those faults make me want to get my teeth on it that much more. Sort of like Harry Potter, how JKR is disturbingly unsympathetic to villains for whom grounds for compassion is all so neatly erected. Or like how I love Phantom of the Opera most in my head--I like the musical; I like the book; I even like that Kay thing to an extent, but the Version That Lives is the Phantom Of The Opera that's there, inside my mind. (See how I did that? With the lyrics?)
But this post isn't about that! It's about the porn.
Okay, not just porn. Fic. I want movie-verse Batman fic. And while I've always loved Batman what I'm really interested in (right now! Right now! I'm open! Wide open, like
So anything that you might have stumbled across.
Also, does anyone know of any comms, especially daily news letters, that link to Batman!new!movieverse?
Also, there needs to be:
Batman(Bruce Wayne)/Joker
Batman(Bruce Wayne)/Harvey Dent (Two Face)
Bruce Wayne/Rachel
Bruce Wayne/Harvey Dent/Rachel
Batman(Bruce Wayne)/Harvey Dent (Two Face)/[Rachel as absent third]
Harvey Dent (Two Face)/Joker
Gordon/Batman(Bruce Wayne)
Gordon/Harvey Dent (Two Face)
Alfred/Batman(Bruce Wayne) [unrequited]
Alfred/Lucius Fox/[Batman(Bruce Wayne) as absent third]
Jim Gordon/Sirius Black
HOLTZ/everyone
Any help would be appreciated.
no subject
I.e. People who act outside the law, have to accept that they are outside the law. People who are inside the law - like Jim Gordon and Harvey Dent - are supposed to act the part of being inside the law. And while take on the burden of following societies rules over their own, they gain social sanction.
The heroism/fall being Batman & Jim understanding their roles, and Harvey's inability to live with it.
no subject
Yeah. I have a problem with that.
I brought it up before, but a quintessential example is Giles killing Ben. Buffy was inside the "law"--not as written, but as in, she would never do something she considered wrong. Giles would; he accepts he's outside the "law". But I never felt like BtVS was telling me either one of them was right or wrong for making those choices.
The heroism/fall being Batman & Jim understanding their roles, and Harvey's inability to live with it.
That's a really awesome insight.
no subject
Actually, I don't think this particular example applies. Batman & Gordon & Dent occupy different roles in different spheres.
In terms of dealing with the supernatural world, both Buffy and Giles see themselves as officers of 'law' -- to an extent. The essentially operate as a team unit handling the same sphere. (The final arbiter would vary depending upon the power dynamic in the watcher/slayer relationship)
In the Glory/Ben case, the difference is one of policy. Giles' act is one where he disagrees with Buffy over how they should do there job. He's earlier raised the argument that they could kill Dawn to end the Glorificus; while he won't overstep Buffy for Dawn, he will for Ben. And it ultimately comes down to Giles viewing their shared responsibilities in a more ruthless fashion.
It is somewhat similar, I suppose - in that Batman is going to eat the ruthless points so Dent/Gordon can be heroes. But the difference is where it's directed. Batman is doing this for the Public Image Points of having the City see Hero Cops and Hero DA. Giles is doing this to allow Buffy to not have to make unpleasant choices herself, and maintain a personal image. He still sees them occupying the same office.
no subject
But . . . I'm not really talking about how the characters see themselves. I'm talking about the message the movie seems to be conveying the viewer. In Batman, it seems to be: if it's necessary, it's right. In Buffy, it seems to be: if it's necessary, it can still be wrong.
no subject