User blog comment:Crazywarfire/Indoctrination Theory is BS/@comment-3336886-20120623164245/@comment-4237253-20120704044915

@RejhaNarok

Seriously? Flawless? How is introducing a brand new conflict, for absolutely no reason, then leaving both that new conflict and the central conflict unresolved remotely a good idea? Nobody has given it a debunk? I wrote an entire [[User blog:The Milkman/Indoctrination: You're Doing It Wrong blog] on just some of the reasons it's a terrible idea. If you can honestly say no one has given anything remotely resembling a debunk, it's because you aren't looking.

The fact is, it shouldn't need to be debunked in the first place, because there is no evidence. All of the arguments for it are "well this scene looks kinda iffy" or "these colours represent these characters who believed in this!". People only accept it because they think it resolves the plot holes. Maybe it does, but it does so in a contrived, nonsensical, and confusing way that has no bearing on the plot. Don't give the Indoctrination Theory credit for clearing up a plot hole or two; this is fiction, after all. The Extended Cut managed to do that with a simple scene of Joker landing on Earth. They did that all without lying to the audience or leaving the story unfinished and the conflict unresolved.

The IT seems to go out of its way to accomplish absolutely nothing. You're telling me it's a good idea for the protagonist to get knocked out, then have the story end before we even know how the conflict is resolved? That's not how you tell a story, sorry.

Honestly, I don't know who I hate more: the idiots who defend garbage like the indoctrination theory, or the bad writers who couldn't do their jobs right, and allowed this to happen.