1470 réponses à ce sujet

[BaladasDemnevanni]

drayfish wrote...

What was the Joker's 'motivation' in The Dark Knight?  What was the 'motivation' of Lovecraft's ancient evil gods?  What made Moriarty want to be the greatest criminal who ever lived?  (Indeed, what made Sherlock the greatest hero?)

Not every fiction needs every motivating factor to be revealled and explained.  Indeed, I would argue that in each of these cases, giving such characters expansive backstories that showed why they are who they are would directly undermine the story being told, and the effect it has on its audience.

The Joker's motivation is explained, though. By both himself and Alfred (huge Nolan fan and just rewatched the trilogy two days ago).

One key moment occurs when Bruce asks that he needs to figure out what the Joker is after, to which Alfred corrects him, since Bruce assumes he's after what fuels mundane villains (Ex: Money). That he simply wants to watch the world burn.

And just to be absolutely clear on the definition of motivating:

http://dictionary.re...owse/motivation

"To provide a reason to act in a certain way". I'd say that covers the Joker pretty well. He does what he does for a combination of factors: it's fun, he dislikes how others obsess over "order", etc. But the Joker isn't presented as unknowable in the same style as the giant talking robots.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 13 mai 2013 - 11:05 .

[o Ventus]

And so Joker in TDK amounts to "because I felt like doing it".

He doesn't have any reason at all for pursuing any of his goals.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

o Ventus wrote...

And so Joker in TDK amounts to "because I felt like doing it".

Pretty much, but I don't see that as a problem any more than someone asking me why I play video games. I would say "because they're fun".

He doesn't have any reason at all for pursuing any of his goals.

Not at all. More than a few motivations do leak through: his fascination with Batman, which appears through the interrogation scene. His enjoyment of killing/violence, he talks about why he likes using knives over guns, etc. The fact that he's always amused, with the killing/violence. And then there is his conversation with Harvey Dent, where he gets into the whole order vs chaos angle, which you may or may not buy.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 13 mai 2013 - 11:18 .

[drayfish]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

drayfish wrote...

What was the Joker's 'motivation' in The Dark Knight?  What was the 'motivation' of Lovecraft's ancient evil gods?  What made Moriarty want to be the greatest criminal who ever lived?  (Indeed, what made Sherlock the greatest hero?)

Not every fiction needs every motivating factor to be revealled and explained.  Indeed, I would argue that in each of these cases, giving such characters expansive backstories that showed why they are who they are would directly undermine the story being told, and the effect it has on its audience.

The Joker's motivation is explained, though. By both himself and Alfred (huge Nolan fan and just rewatched the trilogy two days ago).

One key moment occurs when Bruce asks that he needs to figure out what the Joker is after, to which Alfred corrects him, since Bruce assumes he's after what fuels mundane villains (Ex: Money). That he simply wants to watch the world burn.

And just to be absolutely clear on the definition of motivating:

http://dictionary.re...owse/motivation

"To provide a reason to act in a certain way". I'd say that covers the Joker pretty well. He does what he does for a combination of factors: it's fun, he dislikes how others obsess over "order", etc. But the Joker isn't presented as unknowable in the same style as the giant talking robots.

You've just projected that reading of the Joker's motivations onto him - just as Alfred projected his.

The man himself does not explain.  Is he just in love with anarchy?  Is he trying to prove a point?  Is he just obsessed with Batman and trying to tear him down?  Does he just have a beef with authority?

The film does not give a definitive answer, because having him haunt the irrational, irreconcilable avenues of the unexplainable world makes him far more terrifying.  He becomes a mirror for whatever anti-social bent you want him to represent.  Again: that's why we never get a definitive explaination for his scars.  His story shifts and mutates, becoming more fearful and impossible with each telling, and influenced by the reading that we the onlooked brings to it - just as you have done.

If we were to get to the end of the film and find out he was Peter McBoringname, a petty criminal who once flunked out of clown college and swore revenge on Gotham, his motivation would be known, but all of the terrifying frisson of his unknowable nature would be gone.

The Reapers coould have been something similar - a catalyst (I apologise for the use of the term) of galactic devastation, ultimately unknowable, that nonetheless allowed the current civilisations of the universe to get over themselves and band together for a threat to survival that they could not comprehend, nor fight alone.

Instead, we got Clippy the Genocidal Helper:

'It looks like you're trying to bleed out on the floor... Would you like me to explain my crazy intolerant nonsense to you, and force you to commit a war crime?'

[BaladasDemnevanni]

drayfish wrote...

You've just projected that reading of the Joker's motivations onto him - just as Alfred projected his.

"All you care about is money. This town deserves a better class of criminal. And I'm going to give it to 'em. "

""It's not about money...it's about sending a message. Everything burns "

Whatever  your assessment of Alfred's assessment, he pretty much hit on points which are very relevant to the Joker and which the man himself admits.

The man himself does not explain.  Is he just in love with anarchy?  Is he trying to prove a point?  Is he just obsessed with Batman and trying to tear him down?  Does he just have a beef with authority?

The Joker himself answers yes, to pretty much...all of these. Does this not constitute explanation?

(Joker laughing): Kill you? I don't want to kill you! What would I do without you? Go back to ripping off mob dealers? No, no...no. You...you (complete) me.

So I'd say, he does explain this pretty clearly. 

The film does not give a definitive answer, because having him haunt the irrational, irreconcilable avenues of the unexplainable world makes him far more terrifying.  He becomes a mirror for whatever anti-social bent you want him to represent.  Again: that's why we never get a definitive explaination for his scars.  His story shifts and mutates, becoming more fearful and impossible with each telling, and influenced by the reading that we the onlooked brings to it - just as you have done.

No, what the film does not do is give a singular answer. The film gives more than several answers, all of which I outlined. I think you're giving undue emphasis to the explanations he provides for his scars, which more than anything else was intended as a clever reference to the Killing Joke: "If I have to have a past, I'd prefer it be multiple choice".

If we were to get to the end of the film and find out he was Peter McBoringname, a petty criminal who once flunked out of clown college and swore revenge on Gotham, his motivation would be known, but all of the terrifying frisson of his unknowable nature would be gone.

And here, I think you're giving an undue emphasis on needing every last detail of his backstory in order to consider his motivation having been provided. We don't need a name, how he started wearing the make-up, etc. All this constitutes an Origin. He enjoys screwing with people. That is, at the core, a motivation and it's something that we see the Joker do definitively throughout the film. We see it when he laughs as Batman beats the living crap out of him, during the car chase, etc.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 13 mai 2013 - 11:57 .

[drayfish]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

drayfish wrote...

You've just projected that reading of the Joker's motivations onto him - just as Alfred projected his.

"All you care about is money. This town deserves a better class of criminal. And I'm going to give it to 'em. "

""It's not about money...it's about sending a message. "

Whatever  your assessment of Alfred's assessment, he pretty much hit on points which are very relevant to the Joker.

The man himself does not explain.  Is he just in love with anarchy?  Is he trying to prove a point?  Is he just obsessed with Batman and trying to tear him down?  Does he just have a beef with authority?

The Joker himself answers yes, to pretty much...all of these. Does this not constitute explanation?

(Joker laughing): Kill you? I don't want to kill you! What would I do without you? Go back to ripping off mob dealers? No, no...no. You...you (complete) me.

So I'd say, he does explain this pretty clearly. 

The film does not give a definitive answer, because having him haunt the irrational, irreconcilable avenues of the unexplainable world makes him far more terrifying.  He becomes a mirror for whatever anti-social bent you want him to represent.  Again: that's why we never get a definitive explaination for his scars.  His story shifts and mutates, becoming more fearful and impossible with each telling, and influenced by the reading that we the onlooked brings to it - just as you have done.

No, what the film does not do is give a singular answer. The film gives more than several answers, all of which I outlined. I think you're giving undue emphasis to the explanations he provides for his scars, which more than anything else was intended as a clever reference to the Killing Joke: "If I have to have a past, I'd prefer it be multiple choice".

If we were to get to the end of the film and find out he was Peter McBoringname, a petty criminal who once flunked out of clown college and swore revenge on Gotham, his motivation would be known, but all of the terrifying frisson of his unknowable nature would be gone.

And here, I think you're giving an undue emphasis on needing every last detail of his backstory in order to consider his motivation having been provided. We don't need a name, how he started wearing the make-up, etc. All this constitutes an Origin. He enjoys screwing with people. That is, at the core, a motivation and it's something that we see the Joker do definitively throughout the film. We see it when he laughs as Batman beats the living crap out of him, during the car chase, etc.

Again - none of this is his motivation.

Clearly creating havok is what he enjoys - but that does not explain why he does it in any recognisable cause-and-effect of narrative motivation.

He has no backstory, no identifying features or history, and repeatedly offers no definitive reason for why he is doing what he does.  His justifications for his actions when asked are either fluid (depending upon who he is talking to) or utterly nonspecific.  What made him who he is, and what therefore drives him on, necessarily remain mysteries, no matter how many contradictory, transitory 'reasons' he provides.

Again, you are projecting your reading onto him - which is precisely the point of such a cypher anti-character as the Joker.  His whole persona makes manifest humanity's irrational, anarchic impulse.  But to presume that you know what makes him who and what he is is a complete contradiction.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

drayfish wrote...

Clearly creating havok is what he enjoys - but that does not explain why he does it in any recognisable cause-and-effect of narrative motivation.

It's far more an explanation than the ME1 Reapers give and is more than adequate on its own. If we had been told that the Reapers follow the cycle because they enjoy committing genocide, you would not have posters claiming that they wanted to learn what the Reapers' motives are. Lame as the answer might be, the question is settled.

That's why I find it odd that people try to place the Joker with the Reapers, who based on ME1 tell us that we couldn't fathom their motive even if we even tried. The two are not on the same level.

He has no backstory, no identifying features or history, and repeatedly offers no definitive reason for why he is doing what he does.  His justifications for his actions when asked are either fluid (depending upon who he is talking to) or utterly nonspecific.  What made him who he is, and what therefore drives him on, necessarily remain mysteries, no matter how many contradictory, transitory 'reasons' he provides.

See my previous post. You're overemphasizing the importance of a backstory. In many cases, it can be important in understanding why characters behave the way they do, but it's by no means necessary.

Regardless, the placing of the Joker on the level of a lovecraftian horror is reaching, at best. You yourself said it: he enjoys creating havoc. Enjoyment can itself be a motive to action. It's just not in-depth Game of Thrones style
exposition, where we need an entire character's life outlined in advance.

Again, you are projecting your reading onto him - which is precisely the point of such a cypher anti-character as the Joker.  His whole persona makes manifest humanity's irrational, anarchic impulse.  But to presume that you know what makes him who and what he is is a complete contradiction

Pretty sure I just provided more than a few quotes by the man himself outlining his ideas, especially since that dialogue by the Joker isn't made with any particular character in the mind, but is actually the Joker musing to himself. 

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 13 mai 2013 - 12:27 .

[spirosz]

The very definition of Joker is that we won't get a straight or definite answer out of him and what is behind his "amusement out of watching the world burn". Sure, that is the effect he wants to commit, but we have no idea of the motivation behind any of this. It's always a "different" story from the Joker, on his past. The whole idea of "just because" isn't defining his motivation because there is always a route cause behind said ideas.

Modifié par spirosz, 13 mai 2013 - 12:47 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

spirosz wrote...

The very definition of Joker is that we won't get a straight or definite answer out of him and what is behind his "amusement out of watching the world burn". Sure, that is the effect he wants to commit, but we have no idea of the motivation behind any of this. It's always a "different" story from the Joker, on his past. The whole idea of "just because" isn't defining his motivation because there is always a route cause behind said ideas.

As I said, we aren't given a definitive background, but it's still not necessary. What you're asking for is a motivation for the motivation. Or a way for us to say "Oh, so that's why the Joker is such a messed up person". This might be nice, but is clearly not necessary. As per the definition of motivation I provided at the top of the page, enjoyment can be a motivation to action. You (and Drayfish) both comment on the fact that the Joker takes great pleasure in the unrest he spreads. That is still far more a motive than we get with the ME1 Reapers, who emphasize the fact that we cannot understand why they kill, period.

What I'm suggesting is that on the scale of "villains with motives", the Joker and the ME1 Reapers do not sit side by side next to each other. As I said before, if we were told that the Reapers commit genocide for fun, you would not likely have people running around asking: "What is the purpose of the Cycle?"

The Joker does not have an in-depth five hundred page outline on why he does the things he does. But he does have a fairly basic explanation for why he's a villain.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 13 mai 2013 - 12:59 .

[spirosz]

No they don't, that is true. From my mindset though, there is always more to it, then 'just for fun'.

[drayfish]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Clearly creating havok is what he enjoys - but that does not explain why he does it in any recognisable cause-and-effect of narrative motivation.

It's far more an explanation than the ME1 Reapers give and is more than adequate on its own. If we had been told that the Reapers follow the cycle because they enjoy committing genocide, you would not have posters claiming that they wanted to learn what the Reapers' motives are. Lame as the answer might be, the question is settled.

That's why I find it odd that people try to place the Joker with the Reapers, who based on ME1 tell us that we couldn't fathom their motive even if we even tried. The two are not on the same level.

He has no backstory, no identifying features or history, and repeatedly offers no definitive reason for why he is doing what he does.  His justifications for his actions when asked are either fluid (depending upon who he is talking to) or utterly nonspecific.  What made him who he is, and what therefore drives him on, necessarily remain mysteries, no matter how many contradictory, transitory 'reasons' he provides.

See my previous post. You're overemphasizing the importance of a backstory. In many cases, it can be important in understanding why characters behave the way they do, but it's by no means necessary.

Regardless, the placing of the Joker on the level of a lovecraftian horror is reaching, at best. You yourself said it: he enjoys creating havoc. Enjoyment can itself be a motive to action. It's just not in-depth Game of Thrones style
exposition, where we need an entire character's life outlined in advance.

Again, you are projecting your reading onto him - which is precisely the point of such a cypher anti-character as the Joker.  His whole persona makes manifest humanity's irrational, anarchic impulse.  But to presume that you know what makes him who and what he is is a complete contradiction

Pretty sure I just provided more than a few quotes by the man himself outlining his ideas, especially since that dialogue by the Joker isn't made with any particular character in the mind, but is actually the Joker musing to himself. 

Arguing that the Joker indicates he's having 'fun', and building this out into a bedrock upon which to rest an entire understanding of a character and motivation is rather flimsy. 

Can you explain his actions?  Rationalise them?  What his goals are?  His intent?  His endgame?  That is his motivation.  The joy along the way is a product of that ultimately unknowable intent. 

In contrast, the defining contradiction of the character is that he remains at once methodical and utterly unpredictable.  Anarchy personified; but meticulous and reasoned.  He was just doing it for the lols doesn't explain his crusade to level the Batman, to test and pervert Dent, to challenge and destroy the mob.  His actions are not random, nor are they knowable.  He is a metaphorical literalisation of the notion of terror; and to claim that you can 'know' the motivations of terror is a nonsense.

Modifié par drayfish, 13 mai 2013 - 01:02 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

spirosz wrote...

No they don't, that is true. From my mindset though, there is always more to it, then 'just for fun'.

There definitely can be.

To keep using the Batman example, Origins can provide a much clearer explanation for why a character acts as he does. Take Liam Neeson's character as the main villain of Batman Begins. He tells us the history of his wife who was lost to him, so he joined/created the League of Shadows to strike back against those who have no decency. Bruce Wayne's origin is something similar.

Both these backstories are far more in depth than the Joker's ever-changing history.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

drayfish wrote...

Arguing that the Joker indicates he's having 'fun', and building this out into a bedrock upon which to rest an entire understanding of a character and motivation is rather flimsy. 

Can you explain his actions?  Rationalise them?  What his goals are?  His intent?  His endgame?  That is his motivation.  The joy along the way is a product of that ultimately unknowable intent. 

In contrast, the defining contradiction of the character is that he remains at once methodical and utterly unpredictable.  Anarchy personified; but meticulous and reasoned.  He was just doing it for the lols doesn't explain his crusade to level the Batman, to test and pervert Dent, to challenge and destroy the mob.  His actions are not random, nor are they knowable.  He is a metaphorical literalisation of the notion of terror; and to claim that you can 'know' the motivations of terror is a nonsense.

And the impression I'm getting is that you simply don't like the answer, however simplistic. I can give you a million and one different lines uttered by the Joker himself which illustrates this and you would disregard it as "not good enough". I'm not suggesting that is all there is to the character. I'm suggesting that this is what we definitively know about the character regardless of his goals/ end game, it's more than enough to not place him on the level of Lovecraftian horror.

That you think the Joker sits alongside the Reapers is nonsense. The former takes pleasure in his wanton acts of destruction. The latter (as of ME1) refuse to give us absolutely anything on why they do what they do.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 13 mai 2013 - 01:11 .

[Nightwriter]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Nope.  I am proposing that they should have done what MEHEM did.  Cut out the starkid as an author's avatar entirely.  It doesn't work.

-Polaris

And how would you propose Shep find out the motives of the Reapers?  MEHEM does nothing to explain the Reaper's motives which is fine if you don't care but I do.

I think the idea is that if you're trying to convince us that the Nazgul aren't such bad guys after all, the worst mouthpiece to use is Sauron.

AKA: Anyone would have been better to use than the Catalyst.

[Iakus]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Megaton_Hope wrote...

If somebody's coming at you with a knife, his intent is to poke a hole in you from which the important fluids that sustain your life will drain out. What further dissection of his decision-making process is required to stop him from doing it?

But that's not what's happening here. The reapers are like someone whose been stalking you for twenty years, leaves you cryptic letters at unknown times in places while your not looking, and destroys small pieces of your propery once in a while.

This is a slow, maticulous thing being done, requireing lots of time, paitence, effort, and orginization to be accomplished. It's clearly not a spur of the moment idea, or act of desperation on their part. They've been doing this for millions of years now.

I would very much want to know what they want, if they did all of that and spent this much time and energy getting what they wanted done. I'd like to know what it is they wanted and why in the first place.

Maybe in ME1 or ME2 that was what was happening.

But in ME3, during a full-on invasion, they were breaking into your house with an axe, a riding crop, and a jar of strawberry jam.  At this pont "What do they want?" is no longer at th etop of the list. "How do we stop them" is.

[dsl08002]

"Your mission is to stop them, not in understanding them" Virgil, Ilos ME1

The thing is trying to explain the reapers motivation isnt a good idea becuase in every single way it wont be enough explanation for the fans

[dreamgazer]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

 I can give you a million and one different lines uttered by the Joker himself which illustrates this and you would disregard it as "not good enough". I'm not suggesting that is all there is to the character. I'm suggesting that this is what we definitively know about the character regardless of his goals/ end game, it's more than enough to not place him on the level of Lovecraftian horror. 

Pay attention to how often he contradicts himself, obscuring our knowledge of what we concretely know about him. That's intentional. 

[BaladasDemnevanni]

dreamgazer wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

 I can give you a million and one different lines uttered by the Joker himself which illustrates this and you would disregard it as "not good enough". I'm not suggesting that is all there is to the character. I'm suggesting that this is what we definitively know about the character regardless of his goals/ end game, it's more than enough to not place him on the level of Lovecraftian horror. 

Pay attention to how often he contradicts himself, obscuring our knowledge of what we concretely know about him. That's intentional. 

The two key points being his divergent stories as to the origin of his scars.

I wouldn't say there is anything inherently contradictory about him wanting to watch the world burn, while having fun playing with Batman, while enjoying killing people, etc. That's where I find the "obscuring our knowledge point" to be odd. Do people believe that he's lying when he laughs with glee at the thought of causing large scale suffering? Or when he talks about how much fun he considers Batman?

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 13 mai 2013 - 03:02 .

[nos_astra]

I bet it also makes him feel acknowledged, important, powerful and so on.

[Iakus]

Are we really spending an entire page arguing about the Joker?

Are people trying to get the thread locked?

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

Are we really spending an entire page arguing about the Joker?

Are people trying to get the thread locked?

They're largely debating the differences in motivation between villains, not conducting some intentional masterstroke to lock a critique thread. Seeing as how the the exposition about the Reapers' motivations is a major point of contention in the ending, especially whether it was effective or necessary, it's not entirely off the beaten path of discussion. 

Plus: How long has this thread gone on, saying the same things that have been reitorated for a year-plus?

[BaladasDemnevanni]

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

Are we really spending an entire page arguing about the Joker?

Are people trying to get the thread locked?

They're largely debating the differences in motivation between villains, not conducting some intentional masterstroke to lock a critique thread. Seeing as how the the exposition about the Reapers' motivations is a major point of contention in the ending, especially whether it was effective or necessary, it's not entirely off the beaten path of discussion. 

Plus: How long has this thread gone on, saying the same things that have been reitorated for a year-plus?

Agreed.

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

I'll believe when I actually see the results, bioware.

But if you actually want to earn the respect of your fans, stop dismissing criticism and actually defend your work rather than disappearing off the face of the internet for a year and leaving everyone else who felt confused and agitated in the dry.

[remydat]

Megatron,

Regarding you response on page 40. What folklore and mythology are you referring to. Most of the Gods in Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology were given human motives for their actions. Most folkore had trickster gods or beings whose motive was simply that to be a trickster. So I would challenge you idea that mythology and folklore is full of stories with motives when across cultures they share common themes where the only real difference between human and god motivations is that one is more powerful.

Modifié par remydat, 13 mai 2013 - 04:41 .

[Iakus]

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

I'll believe when I actually see the results, bioware.

But if you actually want to earn the respect of your fans, stop dismissing criticism and actually defend your work rather than disappearing off the face of the internet for a year and leaving everyone else who felt confused and agitated in the dry.

Didn't they say they'd discuss the endings at a later date, when more people have ahd a chance to complete the game?

Wasn't that said something like a year ago?