What The New Dark Knight Rises Poster Reveals About The Plot

Earlier today, Warner Bros. released the above teaser poster for next summer's The Dark Knight Rises, which will most assuredly be the biggest movie of 2012, especially if Joe Johnston does his usual thing and completely screws up Captain America, and in the process tarnishes all our hopes and dreams for what the Avengers movie could be. But I'm getting distracted. BATMAN. And with the teaser trailer announced to be attached to the final Harry Potter movie, the rumor mills are once again turning as everyone tries to guess at what to expect from Nolan's third installment.

And I'm here to say all those other rumors can just shut the hell up. This poster tells us everything we need to know about the direction this movie will take. And for those of you unable to decipher this Da Vinci Code of the box office on your own, you are lucky I have free time and overdosed on NyQuil. Blessed NyQuil.

Batman Fucking Hates Buildings

It appears The Dark Knight Rises begins with Batman's insatiable hatred of all things skyscraper. "Since when does Batman hate buildings?" you ask, because you are foolish and untrained in the art of speculation. But this is not the first time Batman has acted out against the steel jungle.

I bet some of you thought that building-a-blaze in the background was supposed to represent The Joker's anarchy. But then WHY IS IT THE SHAPE OF THE BAT-SIGNAL?! No, this was all Batman. I mean, just look at the way he's standing there, all smug and shit. "That's what you get for having so many GODDAMN STAIRS" is what he's thinking.

And really, it makes sense. Of course Batman hates tall buildings. That's why he built his Bat-cave underground. It's the little things that give it away, people. So really, it was only a matter of time before Batman just decided fuck it, everything has to go, and bring down every building more than three stories high. And he'll do it because...

Batman Is The Fucking Bad Guy

You could argue that any superhero is, to some extent, a bad guy, because they very technically are. Aside from a few exceptions like Captain America, who does work directly with the government, most superheros are vigilantes acting outside the law. But we accept this, because even though taking the law into your own hand would be vehemently frowned upon in real life, it is great escapism, especially when the cause being acted out is a noble one. Sure, Batman may be out of line in many ways, but he's doing it for the good of Gotham City.

Except that by the end of The Dark Knight, the city has turned against him. Sure, they do so unfairly, and at Batman's urging. But people dressed up in bat costumes should never be trusted to emotionally stable.

"These people," Batman murmurs to himself. "I protect them, save them from exploding boats, and this is how they thank me? FUCK. This is bullshit. What's that Alfred? I voluntarily cast myself as the villain? YOU'RE ONE OF THEM AREN'T YOU"

It's a spurned-lover effect. After awhile of being treated like shit, you want to show them what life would be like without you. How bad things would really be if you weren't there to step in. They want me to be the villain, goddamnit I'll be the best villain EVER.

And don't think Batman is above making such points. This is a guy who cost the city millions in property damage by letting a train derail simply so he could prove to one guy that he could kill him without actually doing it himself. Destroying the infrastructure of your city simply to prove some sort of ideological point the general public doesn't care about...

Ohhhhhhh

Batman Is A Fucking Republican

This really should not come as a surprise. Batman is also Bruce Wayne, who is an extremely wealthy billionaire. Capitalism, free market, don't fucking tax me and all that stuff. It only makes sense that Bruce's politics would eventually worm their way into Batman's as well.

And it already has. In Batman Begins, the "bad guy" is the League of Shadows, a group who sets out to stop civilizations that become too corrupt. And Gotham is shown to be really fucking corrupt, even by Batman's admission. But rather than allow this organization to stop the corruption (like by introducing, say, health care reform), he cock blocks them, preferring to keep things at the status quo and fix things his own way whenever he feels like it (whatever the Republicans were doing).

And sure, in The Dark Knight The Joker is crazy. But deep down, he just wants to bring about change to Gotham. Batman doesn't want change. Batman hates change. This is a totally logical theory and argument to make so stop looking at me like that.

So anyway, this is the premise for the new Batman movie according to the new poster. Uh, spoiler alert. Shit. I need more NyQuil.

Bachmann Pledges To Protect Marriage, Because What Else Is She Going To Do

This week, presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann became the first and thus far (and hopefully) only candidate to sign The Marriage Vow, a pledge created by THE FAMiLY LEADER, a moral majority type group that in addition to wanting to protect the sanctity of marriage, seems to think having a lower case "i" in their name will make them as popular as Apple products.

To their credit, the group's pledge does not solely focus on "The Gays" as the reason marriage's sanctity is in trouble. It groups them with lots of other issues, such as high divorce rates, infidelity among heterosexual couples, and good ole pornography. So, you know, points for that.

Then you start actually reading the pledge. In addition to a seemingly pro-slavery sentiment, which I'll let this short post cover, it lists a number of things the candidate (Bachmann) "vows" to do and uphold. And this is where it gets fun.

In addition to things you would expect (defending and advocating the Defense of Marriage Act, opposing any change to the definition of the Institute of Marriage), there are a lot of other things that come out of left field, such as opposing Sharia Law. No joke, that is really in there. Now, Sharia Law is extremely oppressive, especially towards women, and is something I would never wish to be instated. But it's also one of those things we really don't have to worry about living in the USA. Similar to how we don't really bother worrying about lion attacks, Sharia Law is pretty much outside of what we encounter on a day to day basis. It's also funny that this vow makes a point to reject the totalitarianism of Sharia Law, while SETTING OUT TO TELL YOU WHO YOU CAN AND CAN'T MARRY.

This hypocrisy is driven home even more by the last "vow," which invokes "Fierce defense of First Amendment's rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech." Obviously, this means they are free to say they think marriage is between a man and a woman. It also means people have the freedom to say it can also be between a man and a man or a women and a women. Religious Liberty does not mean we have to protect one specific view, it means we accept ALL views, including ones we may not like, assuming they do not interfere with the rights of others. This is why people like THE FAMiLY LEADER infuriate me. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry does NOTHING to curb their freedoms. They can still marry heterosexuality and can even go on believing it's wrong if they want. But to take their side ACTIVELY PREVENTS other people from practicing their rights. People like Bachmann may be offended that The Gays can marry and are capable of having human emotions, but they lose no rights over the issue.

And then there is the childbearing vow, which states that "robust childbearing and reproduction is benificial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security." By "robust" I assume they mean "the fucking Duggar family." And I have a problem with this, because 1) It carries on the oppressive mentality that sex can ONLY be for making babies, so if you want sex you need to have lots of kids and 2) It is NOT strictly beneficial. We are quickly becoming an over-populated country and world. Job growth is struggling to keep up with population increase, and we are draining more resources faster to provide for everyone. That isn't to say we should stop having kids, but people like Bachmann take it too far in the other direction. Hell, in the first Republican Primary debate they were wearing how many kids they had as a badge of honor, as if that was some sort of qualification for holding office.

So what can we take away from this? Mostly, that Bachman is hitching her wagon to the furthest right-thinking segment of the population. This will surely help somewhat in the primary with Tea Party voters, but will (hopefully) alienate her in a general election. While she and THE FAMiLY LEADERS (seriously, why is that "i" lower case?) claim to represent the "christian majority" in this country, I doubt this is the case. For all my problems with religion, most of the people I know who are religious shake their head at crap like this. I take solace in the fact that none of the other potential candidate, and not even not-really-running-but-loves-the-attention-Sarah Palin, have signed this pledge (yet anyway). I choose to be somewhat optimistic and believe the general public is NOT completely insane and will see what absolute bullshit this pledge is. But I've been wrong before.