Spoiler Alert!!!! If you have not seen the movie and do not want to know about a scene that occurs towards the end, please stop reading. I will describe the scene in detail but will not reveal its resolution, so if you can live with that please continue reading.
Towards the end of the movie, Heath Ledger's Joker has done enough damage and posed enough threats to Gotham City that the police are attempting to evacuate as many people as possible (without using bridges or tunnels, which the Joker claims to have booby-trapped). One solution is to use two large ferries which hold 500 people each. For very practical reasons that I won't go into here one ferry is used to transport 500 civilians and the other is loaded with 500 prisoners and guards from a city jail.
Once the ferries are far enough from land, the Joker begins to broadcast through the speakers on the boats and informs the people that they will be partaking in what he calls a social experiment. In a certain amount of time (I can't recall what it was, but I would guess it was in the neighborhood of an hour or so) both boats will explode, and there is only one way to stop this from happening. Each boat has a detonator mechanism on it (which were found by the ships crew after the Joker remotely shut off the engines), and if one boat activates their trigger the other ferry will explode killing everyone on it, but the aggressive vessel will be allowed safe passage. The people are also told that if anyone attempts to leave either boat, both will be blown to bits. It is also notable that the radios were rendered inoperable, so the two groups had no way of speaking with each other.
As I remember it, the scene on the civilian boat played out something like this:
Quick gut reaction from some to press the trigger. Assumption that prisoners will likely take control of their detonator by force and will not hesitate to destroy the civilian boat. Aggressive side (not surprisingly) is more vocal and pushing for quick action. Some argue that prisoners lives are less valuable, the already had their chance and blew it, etc. Eventually determined to put it to a vote and rely on majority rule.
As I said at the beginning, I don't intend on revealing the conclusion of this "social experiment" but the sequence was extremely well done and it seemed that anything could happen. What I hope to discuss here is what people would do if they were on that civilian boat.
My wife and I ran through this scenario in detail after the movie. I said I hoped that if I were in that situation I would cast my vote for not blowing up the other ferry and accepting the likelihood of death. I qualified with "hoped" because it's easy to look at this objectively while sitting on the sidelines, but obviously emotions can sometimes win out over logic or morals and I can't think of a much more emotionally charged situation than this one. My reasoning for voting for self sacrifice came to me in three different waves, two of which I am proud of, one of which I almost wish I hadn't thought of:
Level One Reasoning: Tactical
- I don't think it's right to take another persons life if they are not a direct threat to you (there could be some argument here that the prisoners are a direct threat in a way as their potential for ongoing life is in direct conflict with mine. Nonetheless, I still find it hard to define their position as a direct threat.)
- The "criminal's life is worth less" argument doesn't fly with me. Mainly because in this situation if I were to choose to end the convict's lives because they were less valuable I would then essentially commit murder and would then be no better than any of the prisoners and much worse than those who committed a lesser crime. Additionally, even if I agreed with the argument, I would have to take into account those on the other boat who were not criminals (crew, guards, etc) and would still die.
- To Quote Fight Club, "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero". Taking the easy way out of this situation may buy you more time, but you'll still end up in the same place in the end (A.K.A. the William Wallace "every man dies but not every man truly lives" argument).
Level Two Reasoning: Strategic
- The Joker's goal in the movie was to be an agent of chaos and basically show the people of Gotham City just how easily civilized society can turn into anarchy and bedlam. In my opinion, were I to vote for killing prisoners to save my own skin I would be playing right into his hand and giving him ammunition in his quest to prove that people are mostly evil with nothing but a tiny layer of civility separating you from your neighbor's inner demon (for those of you who watch "Scrubs" this is the Dr. Cox/Dr. Kelso "people are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling" argument). As I see it, the best possible outcome of this experiment for the Joker is the "good people" proving the Dr. Cox/Kelso argument and murdering the "bad people". I'd rather not help the homicidal maniac.
- Knowing that the Joker would benefit most from the good people doing the bad thing, there is a reasonably good chance that the prisoner boat would explode and the civilians would be blamed regardless of which detonator was triggered, or even if neither were used before time expired. Under these guidelines, the only negative consequence would be found in voting yes to detonation, watching the prisoner ferry explode, and having to live with that decision every day going forward. Voting no would have a neutral expectation as the outcome was determined before I was inserted into the equation.
It's worth noting that this particular line of reasoning may be:
- A little more involved than the average panicking, minutes from death individual may be capable of (although with my propensity for overanalyzing situations ranging from ridiculously mundane to life altering important I'd like to think that I'd be able to get there).
- Unavailable to those on the boat who did not have the chance to watch the first 1.75 hours of "The Dark Knight" wherein the greatest hits of the Joker's strategy and motivations were on display.
- If there's one thing I can count on it's for people to generally look out for themselves. With that in mind, I can vote no to detonation and be reasonably certain that the majority will vote yes and detonation will in fact occur and I will be spared. Voting no in this case allows me to tell myself I did the right thing but entails very little actual risk. (This is the one that trips me up. From a logical standpoint, I'm glad I thought of this because it makes sense. However, I'm simultaneously slightly troubled that I so easily figured out a completely amoral solution to such a complex problem.)
OK, I think that's all I have on this one. Leave a comment and let me know where you'd fall on this issue and why.
Again, I can't stress this enough: Go See The Dark Knight!!! The best thing I can say about it is that I can write 1400 words on one scene and not even scratch the surface. If you're in Chicago and want someone to see it with, I'll be happy to go for a repeat viewing.
Posts
79 comments:
OK - If the time frame was really short - I would spend my energy preparing to die - rather than be caught off guard. If there was a decent amount of time I would be trying to find a way to survive without harming the other boat. Maybe all jump ship simultaneously and hope some of us lived. I haven't seen the movie, but will be looking for insight into this scene when I do see it.
Update #1
Just saw it a second time, this time in the IMAX theater (and yes, I'm posting this at 4:41 am after getting home from the 1:00 am showing). Same great movie, substantially enhanced by the IMAX experience. If you haven't seen it yet, I suggest making every effort possible to do so in an IMAX theater.
Responding to the original comment. The time frame was probably closer to 30 minutes than my original estimate of 60, you can decide if that is enough time for preparing to die or not. Only option for simultaneous jumping would have been to yell from boat to boat and try to get everyone on the rails (remember no radios) and then use the 1,2,3 technique (or 3,2,1, if those on the boat read my blog).
Great analysis of the film.
Thank You. I get excited over the fact that there's a big hollywood action movie that isn't scared to be thought provoking and challenging while being entertaining... I know other studios/writers/directors are paying attention to the success of "The Dark Knight", now I just have to hope they put some effort into making their big budget movies more intelligent.
personally, i'm convinced that the detonators controlled their own ship, not the other ship as the joker says. i guess i just assume that he always lies, and it adds another level of complexity.
This scene was one of the main reasons I would argue to nay-sayers that superhero movies can indeed merit lots of depth and philosophically relevant themes. Personally, I thought the conclusion of the experiment was far too optimistic of a conclusion (especially what ended up happening on the prisoner boat), but the entire situation still offered a lot of good thinking.
I don't consider myself to be morally spotless and would have probably voted to blow up the prisoner boat. Humans were built selfish for a reason -- we all want to survive. Morals came after that natural instinct had been there for thousands of years. That said, I may have ended up like the guy that said he would be the one to press the button and ultimately couldn't do it. I like your last argument too though -- voting against it while simultaneously believing in the fact that others will do your dirty work for you.
The question of whether humans are inherently "good" or "evil" has always been an incredibly difficult one. The Dark Knight seemed to conclude that they were ultimately good, and while I wasn't necessarily disappointed with that, I think it would have been far more likely that both parties come up "inconclusive."
I'd like to echo the other anonymous poster above. Even though the people on the boats didn't have any particular insight into the Joker's motivations or plans, as the movie audience did, my first thought if I were on the boat would be, "How can we believe this disembodied voice from the loudspeaker?" What if he's lying? What if the detonator blows up your own boat, or both boats, or some other bomb like in a hospital across town? He's the freaking Joker!
I REALLY loved this scene except as I was watching it I was convinced that the detonators were hooked up to their own boat – ie. If the civilians chose to detonate, they’d actually be blowing themselves up.
I don't think your last line of reasoning gets you off the hook at all. If you vote cynically, then your intended outcome is still to have the other boat blow up and you to survive. Note that you're assuming - actually HOPING - that your compatriots will still outnumber you. This is a long way from voting against detonation in the hopes that you won't be killing a boatload of people.
If this is the moral loophole you want it to be, then answer this: how would you feel if, contrary to your expectations, the vote did go against detonation? Disappointment?
Re: The detonators controlling their own ship... That was my original thought as well. I concluded, as the previous poster did, that the joker certainly did not play fair and would have manipulated the situation to achieve his best possible outcome. I couldn't see how the civilians blowing up would provide more benefit for the joker's cause.
If the prisoners killed the civilians, it just re-proves that they were bad people. If the prisoners killed themselves nothing would change except they would have been punished for being bad.
If the civilians killed themselves, it would prove that supposedly good people were just as bad or worse than prisoners. Their bad intentions would have backfired on them and they would have paid the ultimate price for their choice. This is effective in showing that normal people are inherently selfish and unpredictable, but also follows a standard "commit a crime and you will be punished" train of thought.
If the civilians killed the prisoners, the joker could show that good people have dark hearts just like him and that there would be no punishment for it. Imagine if the civilians were reinserted back into Gotham after choosing to kill and the joker announced their actions and possibly divulged their names to the rest of the city. I believe this would have served the joker best in his cause to shatter the people's faith in the goodness and civility of others and push forward his agenda of chaos.
Actually, it just occurred to me that the best scenario for the Joker might be to rig BOTH detonators to the prisoners boat. That way, no matter who pressed it, it would always look like the civilians killed the prisoners first. "We swear, we never pressed it," they would say, but would they be believed? After all, analysis would show it was rigged to kill the other boat, who would ever know what the other detonator was rigged for, it's been destroyed.
Michael. I completely agree that the cynical approach would not get me off the hook on this one. That's why I said that I wasn't really proud of coming up with that line of reasoning.
My conversation with my wife about this situation followed almost exactly in the order in which I wrote this post. The cynical "solution" was the last point I thought about and I remember looking at my wife after I explained it and saying something to the effect of, " I wish I hadn't thought of that, now I feel like an ass."
Michael,
Re: The prisoners boat exploding no matter which detonator was pushed... That's exactly what I thought (note my second bullet point under the strategic reasoning section).
SPOILER!!
I was wondering why the joker did not use an automatic timer to detonate the boats when time ran out. Apparently his plan for manual control was not effective.
Right, so I'm just saying it's not a "solution" at all (quotes or not). It doesn't solve anything, really, from a moral standpoint, so you may as well just vote to detonate.
I see now what you meant when you said in your second strategic point about the prisoners blowing up no matter what. In my first reading, I didn't take it to mean both detonators would trigger the prisoners' boat, but rather, that from a strategic standpoint (Gotham v. The Joker) it's better for us civilians to die at the hands of the prisoners than the other way around. So a bit of strategic martyrdom? Maybe that's yet another reason for you?
I don't know that there's any need for deep philosophy here. I haven't seen the movie, and thus not the ferries involved, but unless there's a pretty airtight means of keeping everybody onboard, the idea that at least one person out of 1000 isn't going to try to bail out regardless of what happens to everybody else is too preposterous to even consider.
Assuming The Joker's parameters are accurate,
Tactical:
"I still find it hard to define their position as a direct threat"
Put me in the disagree column. If someone is doing something likely to result in your death - and it doesn't matter why they're doing it - it's OK to use deadly force to stop them.
"I would have to take into account those on the other boat who were not criminals (crew, guards, etc) and would still die"
Why? You don't extend that consideration to those on your own boat.
Strategic:
"giving him ammunition in his quest to prove that people are mostly evil with nothing but a tiny layer of civility separating you from your neighbor's inner demon"
Baloney. Taking action to defend yourself from violent, dangerous criminals is a rational response to danger, not some sort of philosophical concession. And even if it was, if the criminal's philosophical point is, in fact, correct, I don't see where the loss is.
Cynical:
I'm with you all the way here. Pacifists are basically sanctimoniuos parasites who exist because better people than them will do what's necessary to defend them.
I can see how that section might not have been completely clear Michael. One of those situations where you know exactly what you're thinking and therefore don't explain it properly enough.
I saw this movie on opening night and I agree, it was one of the best movies I've seen in a long time.
I recall the scene you speak of and I remember thinking. Blow them up! Blow them up! I was going right along with the other aggressives that couldn't foresee that the criminals wouldn't act in their own best interest.
Suffice it to say, I was impressed with how it turned out.
Anonymous (10:10am) you're criticism of the tactics and strategy are basically putting more faith in The Joker (a diabolical criminal mastermind) than a collective group of prisoners of unknown crimes and moral compasses. In order for it to be beneficial to kill the others, you have to have faith the Joker won't kill you anyway. If he does, you're dead AND damned. There really is no sure way of avoiding danger.
And of course, to your first point, the Joker simply said if anyone leaves either boat, he blows them up.
As I was watching I whispered to my wife, "He's lying, the triggers are for their own boats". What could be more diabolical than that? The selfish party blows themselves up and the Joker proves his point on how people will react to things.
Tadow, check out the conversation Michael and I have been having re: triggers being wired to own boats vs both triggers being wired to prisoners boat and let us know what you think.
The reason the Joker did not have automatic timers was to allow for the manual detonation of a boat if a rescue or escape was attempted. I suppose he could have had an automatic AND manual timer, but hey, that's complicated.
If I were on either boat, I would have elected not to push the button because 1) I would have been concerned about the Joker's truthfulness, as stated by others, and 2) Batman always comes to the rescue...gotta have a little faith, right?
Which way would I vote? Hard to say. I'd like to think I'd vote to press the button. I like to live. But then, who knows what kind of crazy thoughts go through your head in that situation.
I have to agree with some of the other commenters, my initial thought was that the boats were rigged to kill themselves when the trigger was pulled; that is that the Joker was lying.
But on thinking it over more thoroughly, I realized that throughout the movie the Joker reiterates that he is "a man of his word" and he certainly does seem to try to keep his word.
In short, he doesn't do a lot of lying throughout the movie. He does a lot of crazy. A lot of anti-social. But not a lot of lying. The only thing that might count as a "lie" would be when he decides not to kill Batman after taking the job from the mob, but we don't actually see the parameters of that contract, so who knows what he actually agreed to.
I've only seen it once (so far, I say as I eagerly eye the I-Max showtimes), but thinking through his actual statements there was...
1) Clown thug in bank robbery: "I'm sure the Joker told you to kill me, so I'm going to go ahead kill you first."
Joker dressed like clown thug: "Kill you? No, no, no. I'm supposed to kill the bus driver."
Clown thug: "Bus driver? What bus..." [he gets run over by a bus]
Bus driver: "What happened to everybody?" [Joker kills him]
2) Joker: "How about a magic trick?" [slams pencil in table] "I'm going to make this pencil... disappear." [Thug attacks him, he throws him to the table, burying the pencil in his eye] "See? It's gone!"
3) Batman: "Let her go!"
Joker: "Really poor choice of words." [lets her go... while holding her out of a window]
4) Joker (televised message after Wayne's employee threatens to unmask Batman) "But why should I have all the fun? Here's the deal. Unless somebody kills this guy in the next hour, I'm gonna blow up a hospital."
Much hilarity ensues as Gordan tries to simultaneously coordinate the evacuation of every hospital and protect that guy from an entire angry city that wants to kill him. Ultimately, the guy is saved when Bruce Wayne 'tries to make a light' getting in the way of a truck that would have taken him out. And then the Joker blows up a hospital. (While wearing what I must say was a very fetching nurse's outfit. Hubba, hubba.)
At any rate. It just occurs to me that the guy, though psychotic, was indeed "a man of his word." I think the test was exactly as he described. Whether the bridges and tunnels were actually rigged is an open question. As I recall, his message merely said that "the bridge and tunnel crowd are in for a serious surprise..." and the police assumed (as he meant them to) that he had rigged the exits with explosives.
Of course, as I say, I've only seen the movie once, a week and a half ago, so I could be forgetting stuff...
I didn't see it mentioned here, but it is important to note that Joker did not know one boat would have prisoners. That was a plan put in place by Gotham officials and just happened to make the situation all the more sinister, but he did not know it would be prisoners vs civilians. He thought it would be civilians vs civilians, which is an even more absurd situation, in some ways. It's easier to justify offing prisoners; much harder when the other boat is just like yours...
I always think of these situations in movies and am astounded by how dumb people are. It happens in "24" a lot: "Help us arm this nuke or we'll kill you!" The guy helps and then gets killed anyway. Why would you trust someone so clearly willing to kill? You're probably going to die regardless, don't directly contribute to the deaths of others. I would just sit and accept my fate. If the prisoners kill us, so be it. If the Joker does, so be it. But I'm not going to A) kill people to save myself and B) especially if I have no faith it will save myself!
Just my two cents. But my first point, about the Joker's knowledge of the passengers on each ship, is important.
Blighter, it's important to note one MAJOR lie:
The location of Harvey and Rachel. Joker was willing to manipulate any situation to achieve his outcome. He wanted Dent alive and tricked Batman into saving him.
He also routinely lied about the origins of his scars. He has stated that he does not believe in "rules" and thus does not really adhere to any loyalty, to another person or to his word. There are scenes in which he came through on his promises/threats, but these are hardly evidence of his honesty. He's even criticized for not recognizing the old mantra of "honor among thieves".
Blighter, don't forget that the joker lied when he gave Batman the choice between saving Rachel or Harvey. He lied there in order to further his plan of driving the city into chaos, so I wouldn't put it past him to lie in the ferry situation as well.
oops, looks like I should have read Brian's post before responding to blighter.
what's with all the kudos here?- batman begins was the better flick- i think the more interesting dilemma was batman's- in the dialectic between good and evil, batman should have been pulled towards evil (as Raz was in the first) and killed the joker- however, he seemed to brush justice aside, as he did in BB, and spares the J- so thus he struggles to rectify evil and justice- the ferry boat stuff was just a variation on the prisoners dilemma (the homage being one of the boats has prisoners), and as we all learn, there are no clear moral choices once you cross the line and commit a crime
Blighter, this is a GIGANTIC SPOILER (BEWARE!) but your claim that the Joker is a man of his word is blown to smithereens by one glaring precedent: the switched respective locations of Dent and Rachel held hostage. In fact, this is exactly the same sort of misinformation he would be using if he wired the boats opposite from the way he said he would.
I'd just like to further the commentary to expound upon something that the last anonymous post raised: the larger context.
Let's not forget about Batman, and the fact that this is a hero/villain dilemma as much as it's a prisoners' dilemma. Part of the brilliance of this film is the various dichotomies between regular criminals vs. organized criminals, organized criminals vs. the joker, law-abiding heroes vs. vigilante heroes ... I'll truncate the list here.
The big question that the film continually raises is: at what point is it OK to curtail morality for the sake of a perceived greater good? In the beginning, it's about whether a vigilante avenger is a good thing for the city, but by the end it is well beyond that. Have we (Gothamites) devolved into a dog-eat-dog mentality, or do we still obey certain codes? You know, like those mob guys still do! In this way, the ferry dilemma isn't even the final climax, though it does present a resounding answer either way. The final climax comes when Batman makes the ultimate sacrifice to this ideal. The ferry scene is just a sublime set-up to this moment! If either boat had pressed the trigger, could Batman still have done what he done at the end? Certainly not.
Highlighting the larger dichotomy/tension between these opposites is important. I did feel at points that TDK was a bit TOO symbolic. Batman being "chased" by dogs at the end while Gordon talks about the need to "chase" a villain was a bit goofy. The repeated references to Dent as the "White Knight" to set up the idea of Batman as the "Dark Knight" was a bit of an overkill. HOWEVER, it did show that there is this constant struggle. Rule vs anarchy (Batman vs Joker) is the primary struggle, which harkens back to good vs evil. One of the important things is how is "good" defined. It is a matter of not violating the ultimate rule (don't kill)? Many still view Batman as bad, despite his attempts to work for good. That is what the previous posted pointed out nicely, that there is a gradation. Dent to Batman to Criminals to Joker. From the ultimate good to the ultimate evil. The rest of the people fall somewhere in between and it is where we fall that determines what side of the VARIOUS lines we choose. Great post!
Brian, are you sure the joker didn't know there were prisoners on the other boat? Now that you mention it, I can't think of anything in particular that would lead me to believe that he did, and if that's true then my strategy line of reasoning can pretty much be thrown out.
My thoughts are just that: nothing in the movie indicates he did. Clearly, he had to arm the ships far ahead of time. There is a conversation at one point between city officials (don't remember who) arguing the merits of evacuating the prisoners, and someone says something along the lines of, "We don't want these guys to become a part of whatever Joker is planning." It seems as if it was an internal judgment call made by the officials. Granted, the other passengers did, as did the people at the dock (probably simply by seeing who was getting on the boat). It's possible the Joker did ultimately find out who was on the boat, but nothing indicates it was part of the plan. I'm open to hearing anything to the contrary, but nothing SEEMED to indicate his plan was to pit civilians vs prisoners and, when you think about it, he wanted civilians vs civilians (as evidenced by his ploy with Reese). Granted, I've seen it once and will see it again in IMax on Sunday, so I may know more then.
I'll have to take your guys' words for it on the switching thing.
I've heard a lot of people talk about that and so I must have not paid close enough attention. I thought he gave the correct addresses (I wasn't listening all that closely) respectively for Harvey and Rachel and then Batman chose to save Harvey over Rachel as he felt that Harvey was more important for the city (in fact, his whole thing right to the end is that Harvey is crucial for the city's future, so crucial that he's willing to take the blame for Harvey's insanity in order to protect Harvey's image.
Now I prob. just wasn't paying close enough attention, I know I wasn't when the Joker rattled off the addresses (I have enough trouble keeping real addresses straight, let alone fake ones...) but at the end when Batman and Gordan are trying to talk Two-Face out of killing the kid, he (Harvey) goes on about how it was random and fate and all that but I thought that Gordan and Batman attempt to counter him by telling him it wasn't random. That they chose to save him because they needed him.
I'm kind of dissappointed if it wasn't this way b/c I kind of feel it messes with some of the themes I liked: the Joker having some kind of logic inherent to himself that is impossible for anyone else to fathom but is logic; and Batman having to consistently put the needs of the city (and thus of Harvey) above his own desires.
And, as I think about it, if Batman and Gordan didn't choose to save Harvey but merely fell for the Joker's trick but then tell Harvey they chose him when trying to save the kid, aren't they then lying? And thereby corrupting themselves? Meaning the Joker won again, on some level?
Ah well. Guess I'll have to see it again and watch more closely...
Thanks for the input!
Oh yeah, on the Joker not following the "honor among thieves", I felt that this was part and parcel of him playing to the tune of his own drummer. He's not playing by bad-guy rules, he's not playing by good-guy rules, he claims to not be playing by any rules, yet keeps coming up with little dilemmas for others that rely on his own set of rules.
Anyways...
Nice post. It was exactly Joker's style to not play by anyone's rules. Nicely put though, far better than I had.
Interesting take on the Harvey/Rachel situation. At first I thought Batman lied about going for Rachel when he ultimately went for Dent. However, it is clearly revealed that the Joker tricked them. It would fit with certain themes if he did let Rachel die to save Harvey, but it is still early in Batman's evolution and he's already shown a weakness towards Rachel (leaving all the party-goers alone to save her). I think this is much like the evolution of Bond introduced in Casino Royale. After losing a true love, he is somewhat hardened and realized he needs to make decision beyond his own needs because he can't become emotionally attached. I dunno, thats how I feel it HAS to be explained, though your alternate theory would have made for GREAT story work, but the facts, unfortunately, don't allow it to be true.
I think that the prisoners' detonators were connected to civilians' boat, and vice versa -
just like the Joker said. It is important to note, as brianjkoscuiszka said, that the Joker was willing to tell lies when it served his purposes. However, in the case of the ferries, I don't think the Joker had much of an incentive to kill the aggressive party. If he punished the wrongdoers, he would essentially be discouraging selfish/bad behavior - seems like the opposite of what he would want to do. I also think having both detonators rigged to the prisoners' boat would be sort of a feeble trick, because the general public would be more likely to believe 500 eyewitnesses than some nutter who rigged two boats with explosives. I mean honestly, can you really get 500 hundred random people to play along with such a big lie? Someone would want to talk, even if it was just for a book deal and a spot on Oprah.
Regardless, it is an interesting experiment. Sort of like a reverse prisoner's dilemma, where you're punished not for being selfish, but for trying to do the right thing.
I'd like to think that I'd vote not to blow up the other ship, but realistically, I think it would be a race to the button on both ships. No matter how long they were given to make their decision, the real time constraint isn't the one the Joker put in place, but how long it takes the other ship to make their choice. Faced with that kind of uncertainty, I don't think it would even come to a vote. People on both boats would freak out, and when someone decided to go ahead and press the button right away, nobody would stop them.
Wow in the time it took my to type my comment, it pretty much became obsolete.
Blighter, after the joker interrogation Gordon asks Batman who he is going for, to which Batman replies "Rachel". Gordon and his men then go to the alternate address to save Harvey.
The Joker knew that Rachel was Batman's (and Harvey's) biggest vulnerability. He parlayed that knowledge into a deceptive situation that would serve to both make Batman choose to benefit himself instead of the greater good and destroy Harvey A.K.A. Gotham's best hope.
Batman and Gordon don't lie to Harvey in the warehouse with the Gordon family because they did try to save both him and Rachel. Batman made it on time to Rachel, who turned out to be Harvey and Gordon and his men were late getting to Harvey, who turned out to be Rachel.
Another scenario was presented to me this week. I don't want to spoil a critical scene from the movie, but after discussing this scene with my coworkers, one of them came up with a real good explanation. The decision the prisoner makes when he has the detonator might seem like a moral decision, but what if he read the Joker like a book and saw that it was all a setup. What if the Joker made people make a moral decision, but instead of blowing the other boat they blow themselves up when they press the detonato . Pretty ironic twist! The Joker is a intellectual killer and he probably could have plan it this way and had a great laugh about it.
Great point, Omair. It was in Joker's best interests to have the civilians blow up criminals. Really, his ULTIMATE plan would have had one group of civilians blow up ANOTHER group of civilians. This is why I lean towards Joker not knowing/planning the criminal angle. I tend to not think he was lying, but also think it would have been delightfully devilish. However, not up his alley in the sense of the LARGER game he was playing. Though, as Joker said, he doesn't really believe in "plans" (though he clearly does) so it's possible he didn't give a crap and would have been glad to see lots of people blow up. Remember, no one on shore knew what was happening on the boats. How terrifying would it be if your one hope for evacuating a condemned island blows up seemingly without reason in the middle of the river?
brianjkoscuiszka & Sean, thanks for the responses. Guess I have to work on my movie-watching skills...
Also, brianjkoscuiszka, I like your explanation of the structure of the movie as is (as opposed to as dreamed-up through my misunderstandings) and the comparison to the new Bond take (assuming that the new Bond flick is as excellent as Casino Royale was...).
Having it be a 'learning experience' for Batman sets up a multi-movie story arc for him and also puts a bit more of the emphasis back on him. (I felt Batman was almost a prop in this one as the Joker and Harvey had all the fun.)
Having it specifically be Batman learning the lesson of "no emotional attachments" is interesting as it fits in well with his line of "I see now what I have to become to defeat men like him", namely he has to become as inhuman in his own way as the Joker. No emotional ties puts him a lot closer to the Joker side than he started.
The Harvey/Rachel lie kind of shoots my understanding of the Joker's logic down but that doesn't necessarily invalidate my point about him playing by his own rules: it rather reinforces that those rules are inscrutable, even to the audience obsessing over the film days afterward.
I do wonder at the "choice" they describe to Harvey being the choice to save both of them. Doesn't sound like a choice to me; sounds like trying to have your cake and eat it too. It seems that, due to the Joker's forsight in switching the locations, Harvey is right: It was random chance that he lived and Rachel died.
Anyways. Good thing it was a slow day at work when I stumbled on this post, eh? Fun discussion you've started, Sean.
Thanks Brian. I'll agree that the Joker probably prefers more death to less, but I think it's clear he'll choose chaos over casualties any day. Remember, he said he didn't want to kill Batman because he was just too much fun. By the same token, I think the joker would rather have 500 people become killers (and have to live with what they've done), rather than kill 1000 himself. I'm not sure whether we can assign that sort of foresight to the Joker, but the movie did seem to be extraordinarily well thought out, so I think it's safe.
Oh yeah, Brian mentioned the party scene where Batman leaves to save Rachel as an example of his over-riding concern for her. I think he's right about that but it reminded me that that scene was the one place I thought there was a significant plot hole. But maybe you guys can enlighten me on this point too:
What happened in the party after Batman and Rachel left? Did the Joker keep looking for Harvey and not find him, despite the fact that he was locked in a closet shut with a huge bar through the handles? Did he give up and leave suddenly? Why would he do that? Just because one girl and Batman had left?
I suppose he might have left suddenly because the Batman had shown up and he wasn't ready to face him yet but it seems to lack a certain forsight to attack a huge party in Gotham and not be prepared for Batman to show.
And say what you will about the rest of the Joker's gags: they did not lack forsight.
Omair, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I was trying to point out that Joker claiming to have no use or interest in plans implies that he may simply aim for maximum carnage. But, as you pointed out, there is definitely more to it than that, and the idea of creating 500 "Jokers" is probably too alluring. Basically, with the exception of the outcome that ultimately happened (Batman saves the day... yawn), the Joker couldn't lose. One group blows up the other and BAM!, 500 new people he can prey on for their participation in chaos. Both boats blow up and BAM! the city turns against itself as people realize they are stranded. But, yes, I agree that the idea of 500 citizens blowing up 500 other citizens would be the MOST Joker-ish.
Also, I don't think it's a matter of Batman becoming INHUMAN as it is becoming more ABSOLUTE. The Joker is absolute evil. There is no reason why, he just is. Batman needs to become his opposite. You are right that, in some ways, this brings him closer to Joker. But I don't know that it makes him inhuman as much as it removes subjectivity from his actions. Interesting point, though! The idea of him slipping closer to Joker by trying to avoid being lured in by Joker again is brilliant!
Blighter,
There was a handful of plot holes like that. It seemed as if they really could have done TWO shorter movies, but combined it into one mega-awesome movie, but lost a few bits in between. They also don't REALLY fully show his escape scene (the bomb goes off and suddenly everyone is dead but him?) or what happens on the boat (it's assumed he just kills everyone and burns the money, but it seems like it's possible more happened). There were a few transitions left out, that were a bit frustrating. My take on THAT scene is that they realize Dent wasn't there or couldn't find him and left. As you pointed out, Joker wasn't random, he was very calculated with tons of foresight, so it's likely he retreated to rethink his approach. Also, he was probably thrown off by Batman's sudden appearance.
It's kind of funny to imagine the Joker sitting at a desk planning, maybe drawing up some diagrams, negotiating salaries with his thugs. All in all, I just hope they put him in the next movie as well. But whether anyone can do it the way Heath Ledger did... I don't know.
I am wondering what Bruce Wayne's next big dilemma is going to be though. No more Rachel, no more Harvey to protect. I hope he doesn't get boring.
Personally, I don't understand why people even played the Joker's game. It doesn't matter what you do in the game, you have an uncertain chance of dying. It seems to me that disarming your bomb is a safer course of action than playing along with a homicidal madman.
Omair. I thought about that to. Where does the Joker go at night? What does he eat? He's still human and has to partake in human things. Where does he go when he's done Joker-ing around? Not really important, but funny to think about him watching a ball game or getting frustrated trying to put some Ikea furniture together.
One way I see the Joker being able to return is having him undergo some sort of psycho-therapy in prison. One of the hallmarks of the Joker is that he is so inconsistent. Having someone try to toy with his brain (only to fail) but still leaving him invariably altered would allow a different actor to take a different approach. Make-up/prosthetics will allow a similar look, but his psyche/actions can be explained away by a re-awakening of a different side of the Joker through his experiences in prison. One aspect of the Joker is that his lack of a past allows him to vary his future.
That's one theory. It'd have to be REALLY well though out, though Nolan has given us hope that he can do this. But, even if it's a "different" Joker, hard to imagine anyone doing what Heath did.
RE: the joker at Bruce Wayne's Party/Fundraiser... I read somewhere that there was a scene shot where the joker exits the party, but it was not included in the theatrical version of the film. Maybe we'll have to look out for deleted scenes on the DVD to clear this one up?
Nice find. My guess is the "director's cut" will push 3 hours plus. Can't wait for the DVD, but a movie that long might have pushed people away. How much better is IMax than regular?
I'm curious as to what they do with the next one as well.
I can see a few possibilities. Note that I haven't thought these through, I just share them in the spirit of sharing.
1) Catwoman. I think Nolan could do some good stuff with her. Her more ambigious morality could also be an interesting temptation for Batman. Can he maintain his absolutes when someone who is almost like him is tempting him towards the other side? Also interesting in the "he's lost a love interest and sworn off emotional ties but then Catwoman shows up..." kind of thing.
2) The Riddler. Once again, I think this is a character with potential in the Nolan universe. Make him more OCD, less whimsical. Perhaps set up a contrast between his obsessions and Batman's: Batman has one rule; The Riddler has rule after rule that he creates for himself (the riddles) and tries to live with all of them. Or perhaps a contrast between The Riddler's rule-bound style and the Joker's trying to destroy rule-bound styles.
I think most of Batman's other iconic enemies would be tricky to effectively work into the Nolan universe as they are a bit too 'cartoony', for lack of a better word: Penguin, Posion Ivy, etc.
I could maybe see Mr. Freeze because I like the possibilities of his absolutes and cold-bloodedness (hehe, if you will) going up against Batman's new "absolutes" developed in this movie. But you'd almost certainly have to drop the frozen-suit and freeze-ray tropes and I'm not sure enough of the character survives to be worthy of the same iconic name, though they played with the Scarecrow effectively, so who knows...
As to the Joker coming back. One part of me would love to see another Joker story line. The character they created was very compelling and very interesting. But another part of me is very leery of letting someone else try to step into Heath's shoes.
Even if the new actor did the character justice, it almost diminishes Heath's achievement by letting somebody else piggy-back off it.
But I like Brian's idea for an explanation of any differences in style.
Blighter, I really like your Riddler explanation, though Nolan is SUPPOSEDLY on record as saying Joker was the only villain he was willing to re-use from a previous movie. However, I don't know who that leaves. Nolan admits to liking Penguin but having no idea how to make him non-cartoony. They idea of the Nolan re-boot is that all of these people could exist in the real world. The Riddler is the only one that comes to mind, THOUGH, some people have claimed it is POSSIBLE Dent is still alive (that would be a stretch for me).
I like the idea of Riddler being introduced, but not as "The Riddler". Moreso just as an OCD guy, like Blighter described, who maybe sees where Joker failed and wants to take a different approach. It will be interesting.
Also, I haven't seem them myself, but 6 Animatrix-style movies were released to fill in the gap between BB and TKD. Might be worth checking out and give a clue as to where it goes, though it's possible EVERYTHING had to get thrown out the window once Heath passed.
I asume that in the list of villains he was willing to reuse from past movies, Two-Face was also on the list? Unless it was a bit of misdirection to leave the plot of this movie more secret...
I like your idea, Brian, of not naming him "The Riddler" explicitly, just an OCD guy who's weirdnesses seem to revolve around puzzles in some way.
Thanks from reminding me of the anime-mini Batman movies. I was planning to rent those and had forgotten. Maybe tonight...
Brian, I saw it in a regular theater first and in an IMAX theater my second time. The IMAX really makes a difference. The combination of theater shaking sound and gigantic screen really increases the feeling that you're a part of the action. I highly recommend the IMAX experience!
btw, the timeframe was before midnight. I remember (though I may be wrong) that they were also told that both boats were going to blow up if neither made a decision. Although this didn't happen the idea of the threat by the JOker was to encourage the kaos and anarchy that was his goal.
Correct. Joker was about to blow them both up when Batman intervened. He had every intention of following through on his threat, as he always does...
This prisoners' dilemma was my favorite part of a very good film.
Normatively, it does seem best for both boats to accept what will come to them if they don't act and allow the blood to be on the Joker's hands.
Logically though, if the rules were truly set, it would make sense for one boat to go. The possible out comes are -1000 (either if no one or both act) or -500 (if only one acts) so acting cannot achieve a worse outcome than not acting. The question is how to coordinate so that only one boat goes, and logic cannot establish which should go, which exposes the argument that prisoners are of less value.
Were I on the boats, I might have argued that the Joker is a psychopath and his promise of sparing the boat that blows the other one up might be false. After seeing one blow up he might have said, "Haha, I was right!" and blow up the other boat anyway.
A couple of points I didn't see (sorry I only read about 35-40 comments before posting).
The civillian boat was an evacuation boat. Whcih menas it was filled with families. I might be willing to be noble and risk my own death for my principles but if my wife and step daughter are in danger than I am willing to kill to protect them from harm.
If as suspected the trigger resulted in my own boat blowing up I'd never know. The suspense not the actual death is the torture here. Waiting and wondering if I'm going to die knowing I could stop it. Death or murder are the ways to end the torment. At least of the current situation. if my actions create hell on Earth for me than it was for naught or if I end up in Hell because of my actions tha again for not. But those are possabilities while the current torment is a certainty.
I am not in a game of chance against one other individual I am in a game of chance agaisnt a group. Crowds are, because of the difusion of blame, capable of much greater attrocities than an individual would be. So a group is judged not by the best or even the average among it but by the lowest common denominator.
Great post and comment thread. I just saw the movie on Monday and enjoyed it immensely, largely because it shies away from easy answers and simple good/evil dichotomies.
(Not wholly, insofar as the Joker is an unambiguous force of evil and chaos--however, because he is insane, this is more understandable. As I like to say, the only people in the world who actually think of themselves as evil are literally crazy people and exceptionally silly folks like Satan worshipers. We would do well to recall that even people like Hitler and Stalin claimed to be acting for some greater good--and probably believed it.)
Forgive me if this has been mentioned before--I didn't thoroughly read every comment--but one reason why I found TDK and the ferry scene in particular so valuable is that it challenged a lot of the reigning cliches of what you might call the "national security mindset".
In particular, I thought it did a decent job of deconstructing the "ticking timebomb" scenario, an oft invoked justification these days for torture. (Now, it might have done this better if, for example, the civilians had ended up blowing themselves up--but that would have made for a more gruesome movie. Alternatively, it might have had characters on one or both of the boats challenge the truth of the Joker's claims, but this would have changed the situation substantially, possibly detrimentally affecting the dramatic tension.)
The Joker repeatedly lies--this is how he got the people on the ferries in the first place (I am almost certain that he did not actually rig bridges and tunnels to explode because: 1) doing so would be a lot of unnecessary effort and cost; and, more crucially I think, 2) if he did, and they were found, the threat would have been defused along with the bombs--while not planting them means the threat would remain, since proving a negative in that fashion is impossible: the Iraq WMD debacle is a reminder of this).
In any case, because of the Joker's lies (the Rachel/Dent matter is another important precedent, as has been mentioned), the very terms of the situation itself become questionable. And this is why this particular justification for torture (or whatever else it is used for) fails: the situation would never be as clear cut as it is either in a hypothetical scenario, or in the framing that a bomber might offer.
Let me try to be clearer: the primary problems with "ticking timebomb" justifications for torture are epistemological. There's never enough information to justify suspending the rule of law and basic morality.
Take the classic example: a member of a terrorist group has been captured after the group claims to have set up a nuclear weapon to explode in a relatively short amount of time. In this case, at least the following is uncertain: 1) that the group actually did what it claims to; 2) that this particular prisoner knows the relevant information (location of the bomb, the means to defuse it, or whatever); 3) that only torture, and no other methods, would actually get the prisoner to provide true information--this last is especially doubtful if it's just a matter of running out the clock.
The problem with such scenarios is that they are emotionally laden. I could easily imagine someone responding to the above by saying: "What, so you're just going to let people die and do nothing?" Ask me again when the situation comes up. However, most cases in which the use of torture is considered are not nearly so high stakes.
We have a kind of bait and switch going on. Just because you can concoct a scenario in which torture might seem justifiable once does not entail that its regular use is acceptable. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we should punish torturers even if that torture successfully accomplishes its purported ends. I highly doubt this happens often, but I think this is the price we must pay as a society to be ruled by laws and not men. If an interrogator thinks the threat is so extraordinary that it justifies torture, then he should be willing to pay the small price of serving a prison sentence. Such a standard would ensure that torture and other suspensions of law are not occurring frivolously.
(Whoa, I could've turned this into an entry on my own blog! Sorry about the length, but I hope anyone stalwart enough to read through this finds it helpful.)
Erik,
You're right about the logically correct decision if the rules were actually set - but only if you assume maximum survival is the only value. Whether or not it's better to kill others to reduce the total number of casualties or to avoid actually murdering knowing that this means that you along with those same people will die is a moral question that logic alone can't answer. And fortunately, due to the fact that we can't know the future (i.e. we can't know for sure that the rules are set), it's not a dilemna we ever have to deal with in real life.
Thinking about the situation after watching the movie, I realized that it's unlikely that the Joker would keep to his described rules: he is the embodiment of chaos, after all. It is likely that the detonators would do something else than described in his rules, such as actually blow up their own ship (I think this isn't as likely because it punishes the aggressor group which seems almost too sensical of a twist for the joker), blow up both ships (this is the way I like to think the detonators were rigged), or something else completely random (A "Boom" flag and a rain of confetti? Blow up another random building?).
Two points that no one seems to have made so far:
1. Why hasn't anyone pointed out that the blow-up-the-other-ship is an example of the classic Prisoner's Dilemma. There is a significant amount of published works, both literary and scientific, on this phenomenon. We don't have to reinvent the wheel -- these published works can help improve our reasoning and judgement.
2. Why doesn't anyone consider trying to disarm the bomb, or at least the radio detonators? Any explosives expert will tell you that remote detonation via radio is VERY risky, both in terms of premature detonation from stray radio signals as well as detonation failure (duds).
Obvious objection to point 2: Most civilians in stressful situations are not equipped, either emotionally or technically, to even go near a bomb or detonator, much less trying to disarm one.
True. But I would expect that among the crew members, as well as the passengers, to have a mobile phone or walkie talkie or other means of communication to experts on land who could potentially walk them through the process.
You would need coolheaded people to do this, with at least some technical competence. Of course, there would be no assurance of success, and the stakes are obviously high.
Nonetheless, if I were on either of those boats, whether as a civilian or prisoner, my preferred approach would be to:
(a) evaluate the risks, and
(b) communicate with the outside world to improve my knowledge (and therefore my odds) as much as possible, and
(c) then take steps to disarm the bomb or at least the radio detonator.
In my view, it's much better to take direct action to neutralize a threat, than to spend your time agonizing over moral choices or trying to guess what another party might or might not do.
I too was intrigued by this scene in the movie. I was happy to see an ethical dilemma with some depth to it in such a huge box office smash. I think the situation in the movie is a great example and thinker, but I want to focus on the outcome.
Both boats choose not to set off the detonator, and they don't blow up. Later on, Batman says something to the Joker about how not everyone is willing to buy into his chaos. This is a whole 'nother can of worms, philosophically speaking. This shows just how much we buy into the ideas of modernity. We truly believe in a general optimism. The idea that mankind is somehow genuinely good.
I believe that humanity is depraved and that there is something deeply wrong with us so I can't really buy the outcome in the movie, but it does give an interesting example of modernity's sway on our thinking of human nature. Just a thought.
Thanks for the great post!
I would be prepared to die, as I am a believer that every life has a value....even if that value and purpose is to serve as a warning to others.
The criminals on board the other vessel were guilty o various crimes, some that harmed others, and some (like drug use) that harmed nobody, physically, except themselves. As the original post for discussion stated, some greater, and some lesser crimes.
Everyone has the potential to be a hero. The true hero is willing, when called to do so, to lay their (* his or her) life down in sacrifice for the preservation of others.
If the chance presents itself, there in an animated "bridge", so to speak, between Batman Begins, and The Dark Knight. It is called Batman: Gotham Knight.
Bruce Wayne, in one portion, makes a comment to Lucious Fox, with respect to not only taking the life of a criminal, but taking anyone's life. He states "I'm willing to sacrifice my life for what I believe, but it has to me my life, only".
But, that also holds a bit of contradiction to his actions at the end of Batman Begins, also. When the train was cascading across the destroyed tracks toward sure destruction, Batman had physically defeated Ra's Al Ghul. Knowing the danger that he posed to uncounted masses, due to his ideologies, should he survive the encounter, Batman made the following comment: "I'm not going to kill you, but, I don't have to save you, either".
He then glided to safety by using the memorycloth cape stressed to act as a faux glider.
So, by choosing not to save Ra's Al Ghul, when the capability and time were there, was Batman actually a hero, or a villain? He was not willing to take Ra's Al Ghul's life himself, but he was willing to let him die by making no effort to save him.
I'm watching this movie now, and I just love your analysis. I was looking to see if an experiment similar to The Joker's had ever been done in real life, like the one that tested if people would torture others (with an electric shock, I think) if ordered to by an authority figure.
This is James Gilks (owner of SerialKillerCalendar.com) personally I would love it if they took the idea of the Riddler to a very dark extreme. His character is very close to real life serial killers like David Berkowitz (the son of sam) and the Zodiac Killer. Many serial killers (including Jack The Ripper and The Red Spider) have sent letters to the police and the Zodiac killer sent cryptograms (which where in essence a type of riddle). I think that if Hollywood is willing to take these films to the gritty dark side of real life, they should focus more on this angel and abandon the tacky jump suit wearing, cartoon aspect that Jim Carey brought to the screen. I would love to see a down right evil and twisted serial killer side to the Riddler.
I also believe that they are setting up The Mad Hatter for a future movie. If you watch carefully, Batman says that the man Dent is interrogating in The Dark Knight (the creepy smiling guy from the ambulance) is named "Jervis Tetch". This is The Mad Hatter.
Lastly, I would love to see all these films come together in to a plot that involves Arkham Asylum. There have been many amazing graphic novels that focus on this (especially "A Serious Place on Serious Earth"). This would be a perfect opportunity for the writers to place Batman against not only a huge cast of badies but also against his own troubled mind.)
Well, thats just the opinion of someone who runs a company devoted to selling serial killer merchandise so you can take it or leave it. I hope you can all stop by SerialKillerCalendar.com to pick up some morbid merch (including the new Serial Killer Magazine, Serial Killer Trading Cards and Serial Killer Action Figures. I know, its a shameless display of self promotion but really, I have to justify reading up on Batman Movies while I am supposed to be working somehow.
James Gilks
Owner of SerialKillerCalendar.com and Editor of Serial Killer Magazine.
I am a college student, and I am doing a paper for my Philosophy class(more specifically ethics)in which the prompt was to pick a situation that had a moral dilemma. This scenario came to mind as the perfect example. We, then, were to apply Jeremy Bentham's Moral Calculus to the situation in order to conclude whether or not the decision is morally acceptable. I noticed that many of your points were very similar to mine..right on! Your Level Three reasoning is on point. Immanuel Kant said that "the highest purposes of each individual are presumably self- preservation and the attainment of happiness" which is essentially the same thing you said. By you voting no, but knowing the majority would vote yes, you would be morally wrong. Kant says "Actions are not truly moral if they only appear to conform to moral law but lack moral motivation." This post probably wasn't necessary, but I liked everything you said. Cheers!
Now the real question would be, if the Joker was really telling the truth about the detonators and their targets. Knowing the Joker he could have just as easily rigged the detonators to destroy their own boats. I do like your analysis though
Tonight I had occasion to mention this scene from The Dark Knight at my blog and I hoped to find a thoughtful analysis to use as a reference. I really, really enjoyed what you had to say and the ensuing discussion. Kinda makes me want to start posting more thoughtfully to my own blog instead of my usual reactionary screeds! Good stuff.
I found this site using [url=http://google.com]google.com[/url] And i want to thank you for your work. You have done really very good site. Great work, great site! Thank you!
Sorry for offtopic
In response to your "cynical" argument... what if everyone (or at least a majority) is convinced by this argument and votes this way? Then the argument will have proven false....
I wouldn't put it past the joker to lie and actually give them the detonator to their own ferry. If I were a sick, twisted criminal like the Joker, that's what I would have done.
Until recently I thought earning online, or creating a home based small business as an impossible task. Lately after interacting some of the industry experts, I developed a methodology to earn continuous stream of income. The mantra is to earn money thorugh multiple streams, this will cut down on the risks involved. Do check my site, where I have listed out all free and easy money making oppotunities, check[url=http://www.earn-online-money.com]Earn Easy Online Money[/url]. Do feel free to comment about the methods, your feedback is important for me. Regards
Yes undoubtedly, in some moments I can reveal that I approve of with you, but you may be considering other options.
to the article there is still a question as you did in the go over like a lead balloon a fall in love with delivery of this beg www.google.com/ie?as_q=pctools file recover 6.2.0.16 ?
I noticed the catch-phrase you suffer with not used. Or you use the pitch-dark methods of development of the resource. I take a week and do necheg
Your Ferrdenants :)
I want to thank the blogger very much not only for this post but also for his all previous efforts. I found www.321context.com to be greatly interesting. I will be coming back to www.321context.com for more information.
native american dating service [url=http://loveepicentre.com/]the complete motown singles collection[/url] help me find a free dating web site http://loveepicentre.com/ updating to oe a
muscle car dvd drag racing [url=http://www.cardvdplanet.com/?action=users&mode=forgotpass]chrysler car audio[/url] dual screen auto dvd player http://www.cardvdplanet.com/7-inch-tft-screen-car-dvd-with-analog-tv-stereo--discount-price89.html discount auto audio
chrysler car audio [url=http://www.cardvdplanet.com/7-inch-tft-lcd-touch-screen-car-dvd-player-with--discount-price113.html]car audio subwoofer alpine plt 5 ford 2002 f150 supercrew[/url] car audio toyota http://www.cardvdplanet.com/?action=products&save_s_prm=1&pr_sort_=id vintage car auto audio
car audio for subaru legacy [url=http://www.cardvdplanet.com/7-inch-tft-car-headrest-dvd-player-fm--discount-price71.html]auto dvd player sony[/url] auto audio refurbishers http://www.cardvdplanet.com/car-cd-player-support-sd-mmc-card-cd154--discount-price34.html auto audio las vegas
Howdy,
When ever I surf on web I never forget to visit this website[url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips].[/url]www.321context.com is filled with quality info. Let me tell you one thing guys, some time we really forget to pay attention towards our health. Let me show you one truth. Recent Scientific Research shows that nearly 80% of all U.S. grownups are either obese or weighty[url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips].[/url] So if you're one of these citizens, you're not alone. Infact many among us need to lose 10 to 20 lbs once in a while to get sexy and perfect six pack abs. Now next question is how you can achive quick weight loss? [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips]Quick weight loss[/url] is not like piece of cake. Some improvement in of daily activity can help us in losing weight quickly.
About me: I am writer of [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips]Quick weight loss tips[/url]. I am also mentor who can help you lose weight quickly. If you do not want to go under hard training program than you may also try [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/acai-berry-for-quick-weight-loss]Acai Berry[/url] or [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/colon-cleanse-for-weight-loss]Colon Cleansing[/url] for effortless weight loss.
Post a Comment