LogFAQs > #907438315

Re-watched TDK for the first time since... actually, this might be my first rewatch. Can't remember. The things that kinda bugged me the first time around still annoy me (ie, the ridiculously over-elaborate plans that fall squarely into the Xanatos Roulette trope), some of the characterizations being wonky (ie, Dent's face-heel turn), etc.

However, I also noticed some things I might have missed the first around that I got a kick out of (such as the truck where an "s" was painted in front of "laughter" to say "slaughter is the best medicine"), but now it kinda raised a lot of questions just in terms of the Joker's staffing policy because he *always* seems to find men despite being known for killing his own henchman. I know some of his lackeys were revealed to have come from Arkham but that kinda raises more issues than it solves, since at least the others were trained for this shit.

Still love Heath Ledger's Joker performance, still cringe at Bale's Batman voice, Eckhart's Harvey Dent still seems goofy, and the re-casting of Rachel Dawes still bugs me. And, as much as I still love the Scarecrow cameo at the beginning, I'm not sure *why* any drug dealer would want to work with him in the first place.

The Wave Master posted...

My channel options are limited at dialysis. Maybe 30 channels, and a lot of them are junk. I am forced to watch "Bar Rescue."

No Netflix, Hulu, or YT? >_>

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I tend to be of the school of thought that, if you're going to be a truly effective villain, you shouldn't be wearing overly-elaborate costumes or calling yourself ridiculous names. The best villain is the one standing right next to you and you never even know it.

I think he meant to say supervillain, not just villain (ie, to match superhero). The guy standing next to you may be a great villain, but he's a pretty boring supervillain. And if you're going to be a supervillain, you really need to go over the top. Just ask this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy2zB8bLSpk" data-time="

ParanoidObsessive posted...

All things considered, I'd almost say the belt was better off on a champion who almost never defended it than it is on a champion who's going to defend it constantly in spite of absolutely no one wanting him to have it.

Because now they're just going to keep feeding people like Finn and Braun and whoever else they see as top-level talent to Roman on a regular basis, and Roman is either going to beat them all or the matches are going to end with screwy finishes because the Shield will keep interfering. At least when Brock had the belt it was easier to just forget about it and pretend the IC title was basically the main title of the fed.

The problem with that line of thought is that *no matter what* you'd still have the same thing: Reigns headlining shows and better stars being fed to him. At least now he has a title so the matches can have pretend-meaning.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.