I say this, not as a challenge, but as a genuine curiosity, but why do the things I mentioned not bother you? I love how you defend TFA, and it’s given me a greater appreciation of a movie that did let me down a bit. I’d love to read a good defense of TDK. Those confusing character motivations go beyond simple suspension of disbelief, and I can’t just buy the “Joker is crazy, so of course his plans don’t make sense” argument.
I tend to put a moratorium of voraciously defending movies after a bit. You might remember I was a pretty ardent defender of TDKR here when it came out, but after awhile I’d said everything that I could say and it was time to let the disses roll off. I’m already starting to lean off TFA defending. You can only argue the same things over and over so many times.
A lot of the things you mention are nitpicks which I am rarely bothered by in general. The perceived disconnect between Joker’s words and his actions are exactly that. Joker’s a liar. In the “dog chasing cars” moment, when Dent’s at his most vulnerable, the Joker’s manipulating him into doing what he wants. The Joker is a psychotic agent of chaos who wants to break down and expose the demented psychologies of everyone in Gotham and yeah, he’s crazy, but he’s definitely a schemer too.
A lot of ink has been spilt about the film and about the Joker specifically over the years, people talking a lot more about his motivations and the underlying philosophies of the film. Which is one of the reasons I don’t feel the need to spend time defending it - better writers than me already have.