My thesis isn't complete but i'm pretty sure prince has to engage in retarded internet debates to physically sustain himself.

What you say here makes no sense...

i got you the first time and i answered

How could you have "got" something you thought made no sense?

ofc they're not analogous... the idea wasn't for it to be analogous, it was to get it to work in this context without everything having to be analogous

The ferry scene is not an example of a prisoner's dilemma, that is what I mean when I say it is not analogous. Since they are not analogous, it doesn't make any sense to even bring the prisoner's dilemma up. The IMDB trivia you quoted, very clearly thinks that the ferry scene is analogous to the ferry scene ("The situation with the two ferries is a classic example from game theory, also known as the prisoner's dilemma.").

ofc the difference being that in the movie's case Joker isn't the LAW, neither is Batman

No. That is not the difference between the prisoner's dilemma and the ferry scene. Did you know about the prisoner's dilemma before you read that IMDB trivia?

You're analysis of the Joker is also irrelevant, and also pretty nonsensical. For example you say that his plans are like acts of gambling that escalate with "larger bids and eventually larger bets", but in the next sentence you write "almost every action of his he bets his whole life". How do his bets escalate if he is always betting his whole life? But it really doesn't matter because this is irrelevant. I point it out only because you seem to just be throwing stuff out trying obfuscate something that is very straightforward.

I might add that you can like a movie and still acknowledge its plot holes. I like the 1989 Batman and I can't explain how Batman could build a fighter jet, the Joker could get a parade permit, etc.

You're analysis of the Joker is also irrelevant, and also pretty nonsensical. For example you say that his plans are like acts of gambling that escalate with "larger bids and eventually larger bets", but in the next sentence you write "almost every action of his he bets his whole life". How do his bets escalate if he is always betting his whole life? But it really doesn't matter because this is irrelevant. I point it out only because you seem to just be throwing stuff out trying obfuscate something that is very straightforward.

and that's why i'm done with your idiotic questioning of absolutely everything without seeing it in its subtextual and thematical importance to the plot

how is it not relevant that he's a gambler? also, the bets don't escalate for him, the bets escalate for everyone else

every time he bets his life by throwing himself into the maelstrom and dragging a lot of people with him the bets are larger

the gambler mentality thing has been pointed out a lot, especially recently, and it makes a ton of sense and also explains why it introduces the 'chance' angle to the ferry scene/dilemma, which to you it seems to break it

anyway i'm done

I think I see why you seemed to be misunderstanding me, and I found all your points irrelevant: you were cobbling together arguments from different threads.