Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Game Theory and The Dark Knight
scienceblogs.com — In the final battle the Joker has rigged two ferries carrying people out of Manhattan to explode. One ferry carries mostly civilians with a substantial National Guard presence. The other ferry contains large numbers of prison inmates and some guards. The Joker has rigged both two explode, and he has given the crew on each boat the detonators -- onl
SirPopper- 921 diggs
- digg it
- rrouse, on 07/21/2008, -16/+10I think author won't have hesitated to blow up the other ferry. He would consider it just a game.
- Harabeck, on 07/22/2008, -1/+8Considering that there is no batman in real life to save the day and foil the plot, I dont think it's unreasonable position to want to live.
- SJKat, on 07/22/2008, -20/+0This scene is actually one of the bigger plot-holes in this movie. It is not a game, because: YOU CAN ALWAYS NEGOTIATE THE OPTIMAL OUTCOME. That is: neither party risks dying by just waiting a couple of minutes. This means that you have just negotiated to NOT blow each other up, i.e., you have decided to spare eachother.
In the _original_ prisoners' dilemma, the parties don't know about each others decision until the end. And that creates a GAME. I'm kind of curious why Joker - being a super-masterminded-genius-criminal doesn't realize this fundamental, but simple difference between the cases.- macaddct1984, on 07/22/2008, -0/+5Did you even see the movie/read the article?
If neither of the boats blew the other up by midnight, the Joker would have blown both of them up anyway (unbeknownst to them, it was thwarted by Batman). - einrobstein, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2They do risk dying by waiting, because if they don't decide soon enough then both ferries get blown up.
- SJKat, on 07/22/2008, -10/+0Yes, but I have to admit I was asleep over half of it. The thing is: there still is no thriller: you're aware of the opponent's decision all the time.
Because in real world, saving 50% of the people is better that letting them all die. By the way: why didn't Joker automate the process of blowing the ferries just to get the final laugh?
The movie is just _so_ full of fail. - RiverBelow, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3Apparently you WERE alseep for half it, because each ship didn't negotiate and they didn't know the opponents decision whatsoever.
- SJKat, on 07/22/2008, -3/+0Look "RiverBelow": They know eachothers decision exactly: either they decide to not blow you up (meaning you are alive, and you should press the button as fast as possible to save 50% of people, unless you want to wait until 12:00 and kill 100% of the people), or they decide to blow you up (you're already dead). You are aware of the other party's choice all the time, so there is little depth to this part of the movie... And just as little for the rest of it.
But I understand that Batman fanbois fail to grasp the ultraFAIL behind the whole plot element.
- macaddct1984, on 07/22/2008, -0/+5Did you even see the movie/read the article?
- jam3p, on 07/21/2008, -11/+3Great article, DUGG.
- electricwaffles, on 07/21/2008, -4/+30Game theory was the first thing I thought of when Joker introduced the scenario, but the twist is that a no-action creates the worst possible outcome -- in theory -- which is generally the opposite for most game theory scenarios. Though when you throw Batman into the equation, ***** gets all ***** up!
- jstancom, on 07/22/2008, -0/+8I thought of the Prisoner's Dilemma too, and this is the main problem I have with game theory. People are not rational actors. They have emotions and inhibitions that keep them from making logical and rational decisions. While game theory is particularly useful in economics, since it is the objective of all the actors to earn maximum profit with minimum costs, in matters of life and death, I don't think game theory really applies to be honest. But that's me.
- FearlessFreep, on 07/22/2008, -0/+5The setup in Speed was actually a pretty realistic outcome with half the people on the bus getting very self-interested. Especially the old woman who almost got them all killed (and did get herself killed) when she tried to get off. Game Theory only looks at "what is the best approach" Real Life is a lot more complicated in terms of how people will really react when so faced
- logicalnoise, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1@fearless, they set that up with the tough business man though used it in a different way when he realized the other boat ahdn't blown them up yet and that he too was insipired to not play the game.
- tava0002, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3I was thinking about this as well but the author explains it much better than I possibly could since I've forgotten everything from my Game Theory classes
- Gerz1219, on 07/22/2008, -0/+9This is the genius of the Joker's plan -- if there was only one passenger on each boat, then it's pretty obvious they would each race to press the button, because as you pointed out, no-action produces the worst possible outcome. But in the Joker's scheme, there are hundreds of actors on each boat. Everyone rationally understands that someone on their boat has to push the button, but nobody wants to be the one person to act. Obviously, that individual would have to deal with moral responsibility for hundreds of deaths and possible legal consequences, not to mention their certain role in media coverage as "the guy who pressed the button." The Joker was hoping to completely morally debase that one individual, while leaving hundreds with a guilty conscience. The Joker would have been very upset if he'd needed to blow up both boats. He failed because the collective will for self-preservation was trumped by the personal morality of everyone on each boat. And because Batman showed up.
The outcome frankly stretched credibility for me during the movie, but the more I think about it I'm not sure there are really that many sociopaths out there who would have no problem pressing the button.- Otto, on 07/22/2008, -3/+1Hell, I would have pushed the button before he had time to finish the complete explanation.
Morality is for chumps. - jonnyeh, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3The other problem is that for someone to throw the switch, they'd need to trust the joker. What if the joker lied and rigged the detonators to blow up their own boat? Never trust a terrorist, especially a crazy one.
- lostwriter, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1I was kind of hoping to see the inmates push the button and blow up their own boat. That would have been perfect.
- Otto, on 07/22/2008, -3/+1Hell, I would have pushed the button before he had time to finish the complete explanation.
- levitron, on 07/22/2008, -0/+9I disagree. On the comments from the site, AP outlined it thusly:
The Joker represents a total rejection of the rules--complete anarchy. The fact that he develops this intricate series of "rules" for his game is contrary to that position.
He wants people to reject the rules--and that (to me) was the most interesting portion of the game. This means you have to assume (50/50) that the rules of the game are a lie.
Then you have the following Scenarios.
1. The whole game is a sham and the Joker intends to kill everyone no matter what. Nash Equilibrium for both boats: Do nothing--wait to be saved if possible.
2. The whole game is a sham and no one will die. Maybe a little flag that says "GOTCHA" will pop out. Nash Equilibrium: Do nothing. It doesn't matter if you see the "gotcha" and the alternative is death for one (or both of the boats)
3. The game is real, but the detonates are for your OWN boat. In this case the Joker is punishing the person who thinks the rules matter and rushes to push the button to detonate the other boat. Nash Equilibrium (if both boats distrust the Joker) is to do nothing (because there is an 50/50 chance your committing suicide).
4. The game is real, and the detonators work the way he describes. Nash Equilibrium: Run to push the button.
Now if you play all of these games simultaneously--you will note that 3 out of 4 of the possibilities require you to do nothing at all. There is only one scenario where pushing the button might save you.
(Also, a fifth scenario stated later is that each detonator controls both bombs, and that detonating one, will detonate the other. Action: do nothing.)- 9966, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0This is my contribution. I tried to post it below in this thread with the addition of the 5th possibility. Digg or don't. Cool to see someone else actually took the time to read it though.
-ap - ravithepimp, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1This seems to be reflected by the other social expiriment the Joker plays with Batman. The city decides not to play...Batman does. And so he loses.
- 9966, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0This is my contribution. I tried to post it below in this thread with the addition of the 5th possibility. Digg or don't. Cool to see someone else actually took the time to read it though.
- jstancom, on 07/22/2008, -0/+8I thought of the Prisoner's Dilemma too, and this is the main problem I have with game theory. People are not rational actors. They have emotions and inhibitions that keep them from making logical and rational decisions. While game theory is particularly useful in economics, since it is the objective of all the actors to earn maximum profit with minimum costs, in matters of life and death, I don't think game theory really applies to be honest. But that's me.
- gilbert42989, on 07/22/2008, -2/+59My gut feeling told me that the joker was lying to everybody. I think the detonators were for their own boat. Almost every plan the joker had in the movie had a twist to it. Same with this one too.
- Origin415, on 07/22/2008, -2/+9Its a possibility, but with the way the Joker works, he would want the boat that hit the button to live with the decision they made, most likely.
I would feel horrible for a very long time if I let my boat do it.- logicalnoise, on 07/22/2008, -1/+2on the flip side the other boat would/could've been blamed for pressing the button, though it's unclear whether or not the outside world knew the stakes.
- jc7012, on 07/22/2008, -0/+6Yea I've been wrestling with that theory, I thought the civilian boat would hit the switch-only to have their own boat explode...and I have a hard time believing that a man with his family on the boat wouldn't trigger the detonator.
however I do see what origin415 was saying...it seemed when talking to batman, joker wanted to prove a point, so who knows. - Fathom, on 07/22/2008, -0/+15No. The entire point of the joker's character is that he can convince/manipulate good people to evil (Harvey Dent). The ultimate victory for his character in that situation would be for those who seem good (regular ppl) to blow up convicts, after they threw it out the window (only noted by the audience, but the thought is what counts here), and then have those who were once good live with their lost humanity because of it, making them that much more like the joker himself.
- tas08, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1I agree with you. However when the civilian picked up the remote, for whatever reason in my head the first thing I thought was "oh *****, the remotes are for their own boats!". I think your reasoning is more likely, but I think it still would have been quite sinister to make the people decide to do an evil act and then punish them for it all in one.
- gilbert42989, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1i think you have a very good argument. I don't think there is a definite right or wrong answer. I think everyone probably has a different idea as to what boat the detonators would really blow up.
- Fathom, on 07/22/2008, -0/+11also, to have the switches actually blow up their own boats would be to punish those who do evil and reward those who refused, the inverse of the joker's character.
- dwightfagen, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2in this case, you can argue what you think the joker would have done based on his character, but the movie leaves that detail indeterminate. so there is no fact of the matter, no right or wrong argument (just good and bad ones).
- Samg85, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1It seems more like to Joker to have the people blow themselves up. That would be a very funny joke for the Joker. The people think that they are doing themselves a favor actually end up dying.
- SuperJimmyJimbo, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1the real question is, how did no one notice a dozen oil drums in the engine room before they left?
- Origin415, on 07/22/2008, -2/+9Its a possibility, but with the way the Joker works, he would want the boat that hit the button to live with the decision they made, most likely.
- asiogroup, on 07/22/2008, -10/+0Nice, Keep Posting , we'll keep digging it!!
- Narrwald, on 07/22/2008, -1/+3You're at least partially responsible for Digg's biggest problem, according to that reply.
- Haax, on 07/22/2008, -8/+131Um, spoiler warning please...
- dafragsta, on 07/22/2008, -2/+51No *****. I haven't seen this yet. Did he just give away the ***** climax of the movie in the article description? If so, Digg sucks for not burying it.
- orlyfactor, on 07/22/2008, -1/+4Agreed. Thankfully I just read part of it and then stopped reading. Way to ruin the movie, jackasses!
- fadetoone, on 07/22/2008, -1/+13Indeed, should be buried.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 07/22/2008, -0/+16Yup. Dick Move.
I'm glad I saw the movie yesterday or I'd be furious. - jedinate, on 07/22/2008, -6/+1A spoiler would have included the outcome. This ruined nothing for me.
- deadmann, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3Err, Batman saves them?
- jedinate, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Batman saves someone in a Batman movie?! You've just ruined every Batman movie I plan to see for the rest of my life. Thanks !
- Jimboquint88, on 07/22/2008, -4/+22In the final battle, that was your key to stop ***** reading
- Haax, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1At which point I did and posted.
- MosX, on 07/22/2008, -8/+9If you don't want the movie spoiled, don't read articles that DISCUSS THE MOVIE IN DEPTH. Are you stupid or something? Why wouldn't you assume there would be spoilers in this?
- NathanielJ, on 07/22/2008, -1/+6Considering there are about 5 TDK articles on the front page a day, it's a little hard to miss descriptions of TDK articles when perusing Digg. I've seen the movie twice already, but the description of this article is asshattery at its finest.
- NeverReturnKid, on 07/22/2008, -0/+13THE SPOILER WAS IN THE SUMMARY!
- orlyfactor, on 07/22/2008, -0/+5Yeah, dumbass, it's in the goddamn summary you idiot.
- KH47, on 07/22/2008, -2/+1Yeah the summary was stupid, but why are you guys in the comment section if you don't want spoilers?
- rentmitchum, on 07/22/2008, -2/+3***** *****.
- DisposableRob, on 07/22/2008, -1/+4Oh my God, I CAN'T STOP MYSELF FROM READING THE SUMMARY!!!!
- NaziHatinChimp, on 07/22/2008, -1/+3Glad I saw it. This guy is a dick, buried.
- mdude85, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2Dude there is a spoiler alert in the 2nd paragraph.
"Anyway, there is a scene in the movie that got me thinking about game theory, and that is what I want to talk about. Beware, if you haven't seen the film, this discussion includes some big spoilers."- tas08, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Agreed, but the article summary here on digg is a little spoiler, but as mentioned above "In the final battle" is a dead giveaway to stop reading.
- scubaman5000, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2Probably a good idea to avoid Digg all together till you see the movie. People can't help themselves.
Knowing this would happen I did everything in my power to make sure I'd seen the movie before coming back to work.- lostwriter, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1I have to agree. This is one of the few movies in my life where I want to discuss it with others. I loved Iron Man, and think it's better "popcorn movie" but this movie just hits you deep in your core.
- lostwriter, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1I think they should just automatically put a "Contains Spoilers" warning on ANY article that concerns a movie or TV show. What else is there to talk about but spoilers?
"Uh, yea, there's this new superhero-ish movie-like entertainment kind-of-thing possibly showing at a venue that concerns one or more people and/or animals and/or inanimate objects that could be dramatically challenged by one or more other grammatical constructs."
- dafragsta, on 07/22/2008, -2/+51No *****. I haven't seen this yet. Did he just give away the ***** climax of the movie in the article description? If so, Digg sucks for not burying it.
- dirtyhand, on 07/22/2008, -10/+20dugg for spoilers
- askewed, on 07/22/2008, -3/+56Yay for spoilers :/
- neotrantor, on 07/22/2008, -15/+72way to ruin the movie for some people, *****
- Cyrock, on 07/22/2008, -21/+5If you haven't seen the dark knight by now, you fail at life.
- supermanly, on 07/22/2008, -5/+4"Beware, if you haven't seen the film, this discussion includes some big spoilers."
Not to mention that even looking at the title, it appears to be an analysis of some part of the Dark Knight which will include spoilers.- Harabeck, on 07/22/2008, -1/+7He included the climax in the description of the article...
- tas08, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1"In the final battle..." + not having seen the movie = STOP READING
- dnields, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1'cause the over-hyping and over-sensationalizing of it hasn't ruined it already...
- zakenstein, on 07/22/2008, -2/+5did we really need the '*****' part? I would be pissed too, but cmon
- tas08, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Yeah, if only there was something to warn you not to read the summary or article if you haven't seen the movie... how about
1) The title of the article should make you suspicious
2) The 1st words of the description are "In the final battle", aka STOP READING THIS.
3) The spoiler alert in the article.
It could have been more clearly marked, but you could also have paid closer attention. What you got from the summary won't wreck the movie for you if that makes you feel better, though I understand your anger.
Also, "*****" was not needed. - AllButOneDay, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Ban for gay bashing and not seeing the dark knight at least twice by now.
- Jrr6415sun, on 07/22/2008, -9/+4I thought this was one of the worst parts of the movie. The prisoner's dilemma has been done many times and it's not smart or creative.
- Origin415, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4I think it did help create a tension for that scene, but they spent too much time on the boat, it had a different tone and didn't feel right with the rest of the movie.
- ghosthacked, on 07/22/2008, -0/+5i half agree with you. its been done, but i think it was more to show that the average citizen of gotham was worth saveing.
- rblancarte, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4I won't go into good part/bad part of the movie.
But on the prisoner's dilemma part, the thing that the author didn't seem to consider is that it was a rigged Game. The standard PD is:
..............................Convicts
Civs..................Press Don't Press
Press BadBad OKBad
Don't Press BadOK OKOK
HOWEVER, Joker rigged this as a no win scenario. 1) he added the social element (ie, the pressers thus are murderer), and 2) he rigged it such that there is no OK scenario. This really isn't any sort of game theory, what you are presented with is a no win scenario. If either side presses, sure they live, but now have to live with the fact that they just murdered a boat full of people. But you can't hold out and both end up living.
Granted, with Batman saving everyone the OK/OK is POSSIBLE, but has to be though of as highly unlikely.
Oh yea, and there is the fact that Joker still probably rigged the deck and was going to blow the boat that pressed the button anyway. - Fathom, on 07/22/2008, -0/+5not super original, but it was such a small part of the movie it didn't really matter to me, and it was necessary to have an example where the citizens of Gotham were themselves choosing good or evil to either contrast or align themselves with the story of Harvey Dent, and then apply that their feelings for Batman (final monologue)
- peruvianidol, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1I was thinking one of the boats would opt to blow up the other and instantly realize the Joker had given them the detonator to their own boat.
- joker10687, on 07/22/2008, -7/+37buried for spoiler...
- drqshadow, on 07/22/2008, -1/+9Spelling / grammar check next time plz.
- SoonerBluff, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2Hard to take the article seriously with all the grammatical errors
- unitedkronos, on 07/22/2008, -7/+21Buried for the god damn spoiler.
- Zzone, on 07/22/2008, -3/+35Thats an awful lot of spoilers for a god damn description.
- enikoo, on 07/22/2008, -6/+21Spoiler yeah, luckily it wasn't hard to understand when it says "In the final battle..." anyone who haven't seen the movie and keep reading after that deserves having the movie spoiled.
- Zzone, on 07/22/2008, -4/+3No, they don't. Quit trying to justify this ***** move the submitter did.
- darkphenox, on 07/22/2008, -2/+3it said in the final battle, the name of the movie is in the title and they kept reading, they wanted it spoiled for them or they would have stoped
- Fathom, on 07/22/2008, -2/+1it's not justification, it's telling you to stop whining,
- NathanielJ, on 07/22/2008, -1/+2@darkphenox - Not everyone is reading THAT carefully and can make snap judgments after every word they read to decide whether or not to read the next one. When most people read, they take in bits and pieces of the whole sentence right from the get-go.
- Zzone, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1All I'm saying is he could have easily hinted at it without spoiling the final ***** scene.
Personally I don't give a ***** because I already saw the film, but since when was it cool to drop spoilers like this on frontpage 3 days after the film is released. There is just no excuse for it.
- Jimboquint88, on 07/22/2008, -2/+1Harry potter dies in the last book.
- Zzone, on 07/22/2008, -4/+3No, they don't. Quit trying to justify this ***** move the submitter did.
- NYCEST124, on 07/22/2008, -5/+33I love the part where the end is spoiled...
- hammerpants, on 07/22/2008, -2/+7Buried for written by a ten-year-old. (Grammar/spell check)
- billybillyboy, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1Man, it seems like every grammar nazi out there just can't get it right these days.
- hammerpants, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2Edit:
[I] [b]uried [this submission] for [being] "written by a ten-year-old," [which is a hyperbolic statement to illustrate that I expect better grammar and spelling skills from an MD/PhD. student from Mt. Sinai] [,] [douche].
...and "Nazi" is capitalized. - billybillyboy, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1Lol, didn't mean to offend ya there bud. Get it right the first time and we won't have to have these little chat seesions.
- hammerpants, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2Edit:
- billybillyboy, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1Man, it seems like every grammar nazi out there just can't get it right these days.
- pantone286, on 07/22/2008, -11/+2Give me a ***** break. Comic book intellectuals should kill themselves already.
- Xihix, on 07/22/2008, -1/+13I lol'd at the spoilers in the description. They just come out of nowhere and just keep spoiling...
- PosedMagnet, on 07/22/2008, -3/+27What a bunch of lazy ***** submitters lately.
STOP COPYING the first paragraph and trying to use it as a summary, only to have it stop halfway mid-sentence and mid-word.
Are you that unoriginal and submission happy that you can't put 20 ***** seconds in to write your own synopsis so we don't have to read a half assed copy of what we'd read anyway had we clicked on the article? - TGMD, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3No no, it's not the nash equilibrium... It would only be Nash if there was a positive possible outcome from collusion. But people would do what is in their best interest.
So a true Nash would be if they both had detonators to eachother and if they both agree to not kill eachother they live, but the actual equilibrium would be for them to kill eachother out of self-interest.... however it's not really all that cut and dry... - TheCosmicFool, on 07/22/2008, -6/+1[/SPOILER]
- jc7012, on 07/22/2008, -9/+4Stop bitching about spoilers.
Go see the ***** movie!- TheCosmicFool, on 07/22/2008, -3/+1What if they were JUST about to go see the movie and saw this?
I'll make sure to forward every movie spoiler to you, then maybe one day you'll come across a spoiler for a move your about to see, and you'll know how the people bitching about spoilers felt.- jc7012, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1Snape kills Dumbledore.
- ozroy, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1It hasn't been released here yet you wanker!
Sorry about being so abusive. But posting spoilers on the front page pisses me off!
- TheCosmicFool, on 07/22/2008, -3/+1What if they were JUST about to go see the movie and saw this?
- teh_spazz, on 07/22/2008, -2/+2Further proof that if something needs to be discussed, you can find it on the internet.
- PresidentSoup, on 07/22/2008, -0/+23FTA: "In the final battle the Joker has rigged two ferries carrying people out of Manhattan to explode."
Lol, he thinks it takes place in Manhattan.- NuFadZoo, on 07/22/2008, -0/+6good catch
- Jimboquint88, on 07/22/2008, -6/+4Gotham is based on Manhattan.
- rohcky, on 07/22/2008, -3/+10Chicago.
- NathanielJ, on 07/22/2008, -2/+5TDK's Gotham is based on Chicago.
- angelrendon, on 07/22/2008, -4/+3No, assclown, it's filmed in Chicago but Gotham is based on New York City. FYI, Metropolis is traditionally based on a midwestern city--somewhere close enough to the corn fields where Clark Kent was raised.
- Jimboquint88, on 07/22/2008, -1/+3not the movies gotham, retards, the original batman story. now go allow Nolan to blow a load in your face.
- NathanielJ, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2I don't know if you noticed (insert witty insult such as "assclown" or "retard" here), but this article is about a movie called The Dark Knight. In The Dark Knight, Gotham City is filmed in AND based on the real-life city Chicago. The fact that the original Gotham is based on Manhattan is irrelevant because, I will repeat, this article is about The Dark Knight, so I'm pretty sure that scene involving the Joker and the two ferries has absolutely dick all to do with Manhattan.
- mdude85, on 07/22/2008, -2/+1Well, even if it based on Chicago in The Dark Knight story, the movie was quoted as saying the city had 30 million people which Chicago could never support. Imagine all of them trying to board the L in rush hour!!! :)
- SirBruce, on 07/22/2008, -1/+2You're all wrong.
While the "true location" of cities like Metropolis and Gotham City have varied from time to time, Gotham has always been an east coast city, somewhere between DC and New York. When Mayfair Games created the DC Heroes RPG, they placed Metropolis in Delaware and Gotham City across the river in south New Jersey. Other writers have placed both cities in New Jersey. Never are they synonymous with NYC.
http://www.karridian.net/dcusa_ne.html
http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/comics-racf ... - Jimboquint88, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1gotham is a nick name for new york.
- rinocom, on 07/22/2008, -1/+5Buried for spoilers!
Some of us have young kids and no support system and have to wait for Blu-Ray!- Jimboquint88, on 07/22/2008, -0/+5its called a baby sitter.
- rinocom, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1don't trust em... do you actually read the news?
- Jimboquint88, on 07/22/2008, -0/+5its called a baby sitter.
- brainscab, on 07/22/2008, -1/+13BAH!! Gotham city is not Manhattan!
- trafficlight, on 07/22/2008, -2/+2It essentially is.
- brainscab, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1this Gotham City was filmed in Chicago
- trafficlight, on 07/22/2008, -2/+2It essentially is.
- apollo168, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4Spoiler. Damn it. Are you serious? Banksy unmasked and some half-wit posts the final battle for TDK to the front page. The fine art of suspense and mystery is treated like so many of life's excitements: glorified in art and shamelessly fouled in real life. I've been watching Batman movies for days in prep for seeing TDK this weekend. Thanks for your negligence!
- Dundasbro, on 07/22/2008, -2/+10Has anyone complained about the spoilers yet?
- Jimboquint88, on 07/22/2008, -3/+1Do your eyes work properly? look at all the bitching on this page.
- Dundasbro, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1That whooshing noise along with a slight giggle is the sarcasm of my joke mocking you as it flies over your head.
- Jimboquint88, on 07/22/2008, -3/+1Do your eyes work properly? look at all the bitching on this page.
- Fathom, on 07/22/2008, -2/+3Buried for a "hey look at me, I'm smart!' way of saying absolutely nothing.
- mlvassallo, on 07/22/2008, -1/+3Hey look! Spoilers in the description! Hope you haven't waited to see this movie yet!
- mrtrevin, on 07/22/2008, -1/+3"The Joker has rigged both two explode" Really? Do people not proof read their articles at all??
- crispyphil, on 07/22/2008, -1/+13This jagoff is an idiot. The ferry leaves Manhattan? really genius? I never knew that the dock for Gotham City was all the way in NY. In fact, even if you were trying to indicate where the ferries REALLY left, that was shot in Chicago at Navy Pier. But I'm pretty sure you are just a moron
- pryoee4, on 07/22/2008, -1/+12Gotham city != Manhattan.
I have no idea why that irks me so damn much. - pumpedvideo, on 07/22/2008, -2/+1I have no doubt that i will blow up the other boat without thinking twice to save my own ass
- Jimboquint88, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1No, no you wouldnt.
- NolanFinn, on 07/22/2008, -3/+3Batman lives in Manhattan.
- Jimboquint88, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2Gotham is based off New York, London and Chicago. We'll Call it Manhattan tho.
- PhotonCannon, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1The joker wouldn't have broken the rules, he keeps to his word.
- kaniz, on 07/22/2008, -1/+6I wish in my Digg profile, I could setup "hide stories from XYZ domain", and "hide stories with XYZ in the title" so I could
- hide all stories about Dark Night, iPhone, etc
- hide all stories from theonion.com, break.com, and other sites that /always/ seem to get 1st page stories - if I wanted to see the site that often, I would go directly there.
Then maybe I'd see some more interesting stuff on the front page now and then.- br0ck, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4Wish granted: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/25791
- rironin, on 07/22/2008, -3/+1I haven't seen this movie yet. Nice job. Buried.
- marksands07, on 07/22/2008, -3/+8Neo is the one. Snape kills Dumbledore. Tyler Durden isn't real. Darth Vader is Luke's father. Rosebud was the name of his sled. Donnie Darko dies. The Village is part of a modern nature reserve. His friends are all part of his beautiful mind.
- welliwonder, on 07/22/2008, -3/+1lol, dugg because of the massive spoiler
- rentmitchum, on 07/22/2008, -2/+5***** BURY THIS! GOD, WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE. IT'S BEEN LIKE 4 ***** DAYS, DONT MAKE ME TALK IN ALL CAPS GOD DAMMIT.
- SethEllis, on 07/22/2008, -1/+5If you haven't gone out to see the movie yet you deserve to have it spoiled. It's a great movie WTF are you waiting for?
- bjs3171, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1how about the fact that it's sold out everywhere. i saw the movie already, but putting that information in the ***** description is a ***** ***** ass move.
- kifoth, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0Maybe I'm waiting for it to be released in my country? It pretty much got a USA only release this week.
- MudMan69, on 07/22/2008, -2/+1Hey Sir Popper: ***** YOU
- sodoh, on 07/22/2008, -2/+0buried for spoilers. Thanks for fuking up the movie.
- forku, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1Watching Adam Curtis' "The trap" the same weekend , I saw this movie seriously made me consider the whole movie to be propaganda. (I'll take off my tin foil hat for a bit now) Game theory was initially created by a man experiencing paranoid delusions at the time. It also does not take in to consideration that people sometime act in irrational ways and are driven by motives you do not fully understand.
- bjs3171, on 07/22/2008, -1/+2uh, buried. how do we get the person who put this info in the description banned?
- ch28kid, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1When I first saw the movie, everything from my Economics strategy course came up.
- jankind, on 07/22/2008, -0/+5What is The Dark Knight? I've NEVER heard of it...
- PFS1, on 07/22/2008, -1/+2FOR GOD'S SAKE, WHY THE SPOILER IN THE DESCRIPTION
I'm sure lots of people have complained about this already, but I'm not crawling through the comments and risking any more. -
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by