Characterization of the Knight - Nolan and Bale's Bruce Wayne/Batman - Part 2

[JackWhite]

I knew TDKR was going to be a polarizing film, but not to the point that Christian Bale's Batman appreciation thread would be completely derailed.

At least this thread is getting hits!

[Nave 'Torment']

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

“Now that the Dent Act had made it all but impossible for the city’s criminals to cop an insanity plea, it (Blackgate Prison) had replaced Arkham Asylum as the preferred location for imprisoning both convicted and suspected felons. The worst of the worst were sent here, except for the Joker, who, rumor had it, was locked away as Arkham’s sole remaining inmate. Or perhaps he had escaped. Nobody was really sure. Not even Selina.”

-TDKR novelization

Look, I know you're going to say "conjecture!", but at least you can point the finger at Greg Cox this time.

Personally, I think its one thing to discredit viral marketing, but novelizations have always been companion pieces to films and aren't meant to contradict the films they represent. At the very least can't this be some food for thought? Must we have every single detail spoon fed within the confines of the film? Is it really that hard to believe a bill that gave law enforcement more power and criminals less loopholes could bring organized crime to a halt? I've certainly suspended disbelief for far more outrageous things in this franchise.

I guess people will point out the dilligence of "realism" associated with this film. I think a little ambiguity is still perfect, and even with these movies there's a lot about symbols that are at work, the Joker is used as a symbol for Batman's entire zany gallery of rogues from the comics, Batmans entire career is streamlined to the first few years of his activity, the idea is that a single item is used to imply the greater dynamics, and the Dent Act is one of that.

What I want to know is what the Dent Act implies for Batman's own legacy.

[Nave 'Torment']

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Unfortunately your astute thematic insight has been overruled on the account of it not being stated verbatim in the film, therefore rendering it total conjecture.

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

ohh you're letting it get to you

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

[The Guard]

The onus is on the movie to prove that. Not us. The only information offered by the movie regarding how the Dent Act works is in relation to denying convicted criminals any parole. Considering it was such a major thing in Gotham, and Nolan gave so little info on it, is what makes it so silly and nonsensical.

This.

Nolan has bent the laws before in the previous two movies, but at least he gave some kind of explanation as to how it worked in the context of his Batman world, even if it was not entirely realistic, he at least afforded his audience some kind of explanation and information.

Why was such a major thing like the Dent Act, which cleaned up the city and made Batman redundant, not given any elaboration on how it worked other than telling us that it denies parole for convicted criminals?

Also this.

Now these are major plot points with big consequences. It's really bad show that Nolan never gave any insights as to how Harvey Dent's legacy and Dent Act managed to do what it did, especially when he gives explanations for plot devices much smaller than this.

And this.

A prison is supposed to be a place where you're redeemed or purged, there is a sense of rehabilitation in it. With the Dent Act that entire idea is removed. If you're in prison you stay there. End of discussion.

Well yeah, until your sentence is up. You don't get early parole, but it doesn't mean you can never be released from prison.

I think the whole "Criminals would be scared of the Dent Act, Batman possibly returning, etc" argument is silly. Criminals go on about committing crimes despite the possibility of jail, life imprisonment, and even death. You think they care about the Dent Act anymore than that stuff?

Exactly. So why are you trying to constantly defend such a flimsy plot device as though you can justify it as something clever and rational when you're admitting here it is not.

This. Just admit it's a cheap, awkwardly utilized plot device and that it was a concept that wasn't written very thoroughly and be done with it.

The Joker's brought up some really good points. I don’t think a lot of you understand the difference between “guessing” the details of something and knowing them for a fact.

It isn't bad writing because it's a bad idea. It's subpar writing because it's a cheap, fairly abrupt and unrealistic plot device with no texturing or interesting exploration within the story.

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by The Guard

The Joker's brought up some really good points. I don’t think a lot of you understand the difference between “guessing” the details of something and knowing them for a fact.

Exactly, the Joker is in here making good points based on details coming from the films and the majority of people replying to him are using their own interpretation. It's a wonder he's still arguing, I'm getting tired just reading the back and forth.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

The lengths people are going to to defend this movie are ridiculous. I'm glad Fudgie and The Joker are in here arguing with you guys because I don't certainly have the patience for it

Originally Posted by The Batman

^ This.

Well thanks, guys, but at this point I'm basically debating about things that were not even in the movie. It's starting to lose it's appeal debating about something people are just making up now.

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

Well I'm not saying he's actually lurking, but the fact that he's in hiding does imply that he's still out there waiting to come back if the situation calls for it. The next Joker or freak would be mindful of that.

He's not in hiding, he's retired. Nobody in the movie says he's in hiding or implies he's in hiding. They think he's gone. Hence why they do the orphan scene to ask if he's coming back.

Coming back is only for something that is gone. Someone in hiding is not gone. They're still there. You just can't find them.

According to the world of the movie -- if Batman has disappeared completely with no trace of his name people (especially Blake, a new character, that orphan, and everyone else) would not have remembered him.

Nobody is going to forget the man who killed their beloved Harvey Dent, whether he disappeared without a trace or not.

He's become folklore for Gothamates based on these examples. If he's still remembered then he is remembered as a vigilante who's willing to commit murder. The reason I'm insisting on this is because it shows us that Gotham City exists in TDKR in a crazy balance where on one side you have the Dent Act perpetually condemning criminals to prison, and on the outside this "silent and watchful guardian" reminding everyone that he's still out there.

The Mayor mentioned Batman at his Harvey Dent Day speech. The Mayor of Gotham City reminding his people that the murderous vigilante in a cape betrayed Dent and murdered him in cold blood.

If that's folklore then I'm the King of England

Events that happened eight years ago and still being talked about. He's an urban legend in TDKR, like stories or myths that tell us how the world has become the way it is. I don't think we're really disagreeing here coz it's a different issue entirely from what we're talking about here...

It's not an urban legend. An urban legend is a story that may or may not be true. The death of Harvey Dent at the hands of Batman is as factual to Gotham's people as the murder of J.F.K. was to America.

It's not an urban legend. It's a traumatic event that happened 8 years ago and is not spoken of like it's an urban legend. The memorial for Dent at Wayne Manor is like a ceremony they'd have for the victims of 9/11.

True, but I meant were we really mistaken when we thought that Falcone was the one big guy? You said yourself that there was no indication of turf wars, and organised crime really does center itself around one hierarchy, to which the Chetchen and Gambol were probably smaller players who moved up due to the power vacuum. But like you said, this is pure conjecture.

If that were true then the mob meeting would not have 20+ guys at it since the subject of the money would not be relevant to them. Clearly the mob's kingdom extended beyond Falcone.

Nolan had not got time to make characters out of every single mob guy there. There was no need. Anyone with two eyes and half a brain saw that the mob was a more than those three based on the mob meeting Joker crashed with Lau.

Yes, the way I saw it based on the events in the movie. Some of it is left ambiguous and open to interpretation, that doesn't mean they're false or impossible to interpret in a different way. In other words, conjecture based on the ambiguity of the content can't be disregarded completely since multiple interpretations is very much possible. And I'm fine with the way you've tackled the issue of Batman being a factual figure, of the mob having moved in, but I'm still not convinced of the claim that this is all bad writing.

But you're not using anything in the movie to back up your claims. Where is your basis for any kind of rivalry between the mob in TDK?

You mentioned interpretation, so what scenes in TDK made you interpret a power struggle with the mob?

Well, both Harvey and those inmates who worked for the Joker were used as examples for "freaks," fact that there wasn't a full-scale invasion of freaks was a way of showing that Batman won that dispute with the Joker - the Joker "didn't win."

The inmates were not freaks. They were just crazies from Arkham that were attracted to the Joker's madness. They had no freak gimmick. They were just insane.

Harvey was not the new class of criminal Joker was referring to. Harvey was the ace in the hole to prove Joker's point that a good man can be torn down to Joker's level. TO make Gotham lose it's hope and it's soul by seeing they can't place their faith in a symbol of good like that because it's all a bad joke.

Well it goes both ways -- if I'm not told they're mob-bosses I won't assume they're mob-bosses

So why would they all need to be there at a meeting with Lau about the money if they were not mob bosses?

Gambol, Chetchen, Maroni, and Falcone's old empire, that's 4 major mob bosses, I don't think a city could handle any more. When Dent brings them to court they talk about charges ranging from racketeering to fraud, all of which doesn't necessarily have to mean you're a mob boss to do it.

Two things:

1. Maroni took over Falcone's empire
2. All of those charges would be charges that any mob boss would be guilty of. Falcone's empire alone would cover all of those and then some

Non-taken, but you can't disregard multiple interpretation completely. Harvey was out for blood to get all the "head-guys" because they had all decided to unleash the Joker on Batman, leading to Rachel's death. The fact is that in TDK they don't portray any other mob-bosses in Gotham City, it's just Gambol, Maroni, and the Chetchen.

No, Harvey was out to get the ones who he believed was responsible for what happened to him and Rachel. Dent was gunning for Maroni in court so it made sense Maroni would be the one to want to get rid of Dent. He already tried to have him shot in court.

Wurtz told him it was Maroni's men who must have picked up Rachel, that's also how he knew to go to Maroni.

It's all there in the movie. No conjecture here

So yeah, you may be right in saying that it's unrealistic to assume that after the events of TDK that crime would be wiped out completely, that there would be no one moving up to occupy that power-vacuum that took place in Gotham's underworld at the end of TDK, but looking back the way they told the story was that with Batman, Gordon, Joker, Two-Face, the old ways were gone, there were no more mob guys left and that Joker's "class" of criminals were the only ones left to face -- lunatics who weren't out for money but out for that sort of comic-book world of supervillain vs superhero fix, and Batman's absence left it out.

Gotham City never knew that Two Face even existed. The Joker would have inspired more freaks like him. His reign of terror would be legendary. Batman can inspire copycats after Batman Begins, and Joker was already attracting loonies in TDK and talking about creating a better class of criminal. The writing is in the wall. Then it's ignored in TDKR.

The mob had plenty of guys left. Three mob guys were taken out. Just three. Three out of a room of twenty mob guys. Do the math.

Come to think of it, I guess Frank Miller's DKR portrayed it better, that the streets were filled with petty thieves and criminals and juveniles like the Mutants while Batman's "rogues gallery" was made redundant because Batman wasn't there anymore (that makes sense to me). So the mobs are gone, the freaks were gone/never germinated (I think Nolan made it a point to keep this obscure), and the petty-criminals were dealt with severely with the Dent Act. So yeah, the streets were cleaned. But it was still rotten.

DKR had Batman retire when he was 40. That's when TDKR's Bruce came back. He was gone for 10 years and the crime rates were through the roof in DKR in his absence. A no parole law would not solve the city's problems.

To say Miller's story did a better job at showing it is an under statement.

I am.

I mean this in the nicest way but how? You're just doing what Shauner11 and Batlobsterises are doing; you're making things up that are not supported by the movies.

1. Maybe Dent took down all the other mob bosses as Two Face. Conjecture.
2. Batman was thought of as an urban legend. Not only conjecture but false. He was spoken of as very real and what he did, or what they thought he did to Dent, was spoken about very factually.

Not one of you can offer a decent explanation as to how the Dent Act solved the city's crime problems. The reason for that is the only thing about it you all know is that it prevents criminals from getting parole. Everything else after that is pure fairy tales you're talking because there is no other information offered about the Act and how it works as a cure for the city.

Those are again good points, Batman's actions are remembered, but because Batman isn't there any more you don't have another Joker popping out to challenge him (not until Bane at least, but I see him as a further evolution from the rogues gallery). Scarecrow, Joker, Two-Face, Catwoman, these are all "freaks" in the sense we're looking at it. As there were no more Batman (directly) there wasn't any Joker to inspire more crazies. Gotham City in TDKR is a city that has lost its source for inspiration in every area of its culture.

But that's just it, it didn't lose it's inspiration. It remembered Harvey Dent, but the evil doers are all forgotten except for Batman, who supposedly killed Harvey Dent, yet the Joker who scarred Dent, killed his girlfriend, turned Gotham City upside down, killed Judges, Police Commissioners, caused the city to evacuate, made Gotham turn against Batman etc is not given so much as a passing mention.

Dent is dead. Batman and the Joker are alive. Yet Dent is the only one who leaves an impression on Gotham City, and all through the ludicrous Dent Act.

Can you really not see how utterly shoddy and flimsy the writing is?

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

No the entire point in Batman Begins was that there was always incriminating evidence but there wasn't a "DA brave enough to prosecute."

Where did this come from? If there was always incriminating evidence they would have prosecuted. Batman gave them the incriminating evidence; "We've got Falcone at the scene. Drugs, prints, cargo manifests. This Bat character gave us everything".

There's your answer. Batman gave them the dirt to prosecute. The evidence was not always there, and they always had a D.A. willing to prosecute; Rachel Dawes. So was Finch. He agreed to support her once they had the evidence. He was also brave enough to poke his nose into Falcone's shipments after they had him in custody and it got him killed.

But I'm still going by what I said earlier about its thematic significance: prison. TDKR is a movie about imprisonment. The Dent Act removes redemption from possibility.

All the Dent Act does is stop convicted criminals from getting an early release and force them to serve their full sentences. Nothing more.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by The Guard

Well yeah, until your sentence is up. You don't get early parole, but it doesn't mean you can never be released from prison.

I think the whole "Criminals would be scared of the Dent Act, Batman possibly returning, etc" argument is silly. Criminals go on about committing crimes despite the possibility of jail, life imprisonment, and even death. You think they care about the Dent Act anymore than that stuff?

This. Just admit it's a cheap, awkwardly utilized plot device and that it was a concept that wasn't written very thoroughly and be done with it.

The Joker's brought up some really good points. I don’t think a lot of you understand the difference between “guessing” the details of something and knowing them for a fact.

It isn't bad writing because it's a bad idea. It's subpar writing because it's a cheap, fairly abrupt and unrealistic plot device with no texturing or interesting exploration within the story.

Thank you

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

Exactly, the Joker is in here making good points based on details coming from the films and the majority of people replying to him are using their own interpretation. It's a wonder he's still arguing, I'm getting tired just reading the back and forth.

Thank you. Yes, I am getting jaded of it at this point, too. I'm not discussing contents of the movie any more. I'm discussing theories people are making up to explain important plots that got no explanation in TDKR. Theories that the movies do not support.

That doesn't make for a very compelling discussion, IMO.

[shauner111]

Im personally getting sick of responding, it's just gonna keep on going. Let's just agree to disagree cuz it's not going anywhere. I have strong opinions on this trilogy and so does everyone else.

Im not gonna win with you guys, and you certainly aren't going to sway my opinions on this movie. We've had disagreements on Blake and the Robin thing, and now this Harvey Dent Act/8 year break. I still love Nolans version of Robin and i get it. Just like i get the Dent Act.

You can call it bad writing, that baffles me because i only consider something bad writing when i leave a theater and say "That just doesnt make sense for the story". Some of u dudes think of it like that but i dont. I understood everything.

I didnt need details, i got hints of it and i like that kind of thing. LOST is one of my 2 favourite shows of all time and im getting the same vibes here as it was when the final season was over. I loved everything they did to tie it all up, but of course you had the haters. I can't wrap my head around those people just like i cant wrap my head around u folks and the "hating" for this last Bat-movie.

It's 8 years, not everythings gonna be explained completely. It's a large gap to show that the plan worked and Bruce became a recluse, still frozen in time til he has to return. It's a story they wanted to tell, not your story. We have the option to go along for the ride or not. I'm with them on that story. You guys just aren't and i can care less at this point because i'm 100 % happy with this entire trilogy.

There's a few functions to the Dent Act, a main element would be something that gives the police a chance to decrease organized crime by a long shot. Joker and Two-Face and Batman took down a big amount. Shown or not (dont give a damn) we arrive at TDKR and there's no mob, streets are clean, Gordon is praised because of it. I put two and two together and said WELL OBVIOUSLY THEY LOCKED UP A ****LOAD OF MOBSTERS or else we would be seeing them wouldnt we!? Later in the movie Bane says 1000 men are locked up. Lmao well excuse me but i took that at face value and i never thought about it again. I proceeded to watch the rest of the movie and enjoyed the hell out of it, walked out of the theater on opening night and didn't see one dissapointed face. I get on this board and there's about half of you guys ripping the movie to shreds.

Oh well.

I walked out of Begins thinking it was the best Batman/CBM ever made. I walked out of TDK saying that they topped Begins. And i walked out of TDKR saying that they topped TDK. As cool as it could have been to see these characters, i was worried Dark Knight's sequel was going to repeat things by giving us a Riddler or another mob boss like Black Mask...so im glad they did the unexpected and brought the Dent Act into it because it gave the Nolans an excuse to move the story 8 years into the future. If we didnt get that Dent Act plot device, we would have had another crimelord centric movie or another villain using mindgames. Im happy it went the other way.

[Doc Samson]

Really this whole discussion (and to a larger extent, a good portion of my own personal issues with TDKR) stem primarily from the "grounded, plausible, semi-realistic, whatever you want to call it" approach Nolan took with his version of Batman, that he kinda-sorta strayed from here.

All sorts of outlandish things happen throughout this trilogy, but they were presented, at least IMO, in a more subtle, sober way before. TDKR overall is the most "comic-booky" of the three, and the tone of it requires more suspension of disbelief. Just seeing three people in the same scene decked out in costumes was a bit of a jarring moment for me, whereas before, Batman was the only one like that. (I wouldn't call what the Joker wore a costume, per se.)

I think a lot of people are zeroing in on the "unrealistic" elements essentially to prove that the movie isn't at all realistic. I don't think that distinction ever needed to be made, no superhero movie ever has been. But Nolan did establish certain rules & a kind of plausible setting. I personally believe since TDKR is more erratic in this regard, it's flaws are more pronounced than I feel they should be.

Like someone else mentioned, all the big mob figures sitting down and pooling all their money together with a single accountant is just as ludicrous, if not more so, than anything concerning the Dent Act, but it simply blended in better to the overall story.

I, for one, have no issue with the Dent Act & Bruce's exile, and IMO, it plausibly makes sense in a way, particularly when I consider this version of Batman and his reluctance to continue his mission from the very start. Not to mention his mentality isn't such that he'd be out dealing with marginal crooks like he would in other interpretations. Also, as I pointed out before, the real life mob has continuously limped on from a lack of intelligent leadership for decades. If every big figure was in that meeting the Joker crashed in TDK, and they all were arrested or killed as we saw, then denying the incarcerated parole would indeed cripple the mob infrastructure in a tangible way. IMO, of course...

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by The Guard

This. Just admit it's a cheap, awkwardly utilized plot device and that it was a concept that wasn't written very thoroughly and be done with it.

I've said it's a plot device. How much more can I honestly be expected to bend here? I honestly didn't find it cheap or awkward. Better yet, I felt the film used its time in the right areas. I can only agree that it was not thoroughly written, but I've argued that it didn't need to be. It is what it is: background information that moves the story forward. Harvey Dent stood for justice and putting the mob out of business. A legislation was passed in his name doing just that. Done, moving on. It moved it forward in a direction that some approved of, and others didn't. Let's just admit that there is room for subjectivity on the issue and be done with it.

Originally Posted by The Guard

It isn't bad writing because it's a bad idea. It's subpar writing because it's a cheap, fairly abrupt and unrealistic plot device with no texturing or interesting exploration within the story.

That's a compelling argument. But you're the only one making that argument while saying the Dent Act isn't a fundamentally bad idea, as far as I can see. Fudgie and others have directly and indirectly called it a bad idea. The reason we've gone down this path in the first place is because there seems to be a fundamental disagreement with idea of a organized crime-free Gotham and a retired after 1 year Batman. This is what has led to arguments over the merits of the Dent Act as a story element.

I'd argue that it is explored in a subtle way, but at this point I'm tired of retreading old ground, and at this point I'm well aware how you feel about ideas only being paid lip service and things not being handled well in the film, etc etc. No point going down that road again.

I agree with The Joker that this debate is starting to lose its luster and I'm sure it's getting tiring for both sides.

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

But I'm still going by what I said earlier about its thematic significance: prison. TDKR is a movie about imprisonment. The Dent Act removes redemption from possibility.

Absolutely. The fact that Bruce getting thrown in the Pit is immediately followed by Selina getting thrown in Blackgate (two characters in search of redemption and starting anew) strengthens the thematic tie between both the characters and the locations.

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

What I want to know is what the Dent Act implies for Batman's own legacy.

I think Nave is pointing the discussion back in a direction more in line with the spirit of the thread, so I'll take his cue.

What I feel is that the Dent Act implies about Batman's legacy is tied in with the film's ending: there will always be a need for a Batman or someone like him. No matter what, the systems of man are always vulnerable to corruption, whether it be from outside forces or from within. It reaffirms the need of an individual that operates outside the system.

[Nave 'Torment']

I don't see why everyone has to be so extreme about their positions. It's not a black-and-white answer. The whole concept of whether or not something is bad or good writing is by definition subjective.

As for whether or not the Dent Act was ridiculous or not, I think we already got the best answer to any narrative logic: it's not if it could have happened in reality it's the idea that it happened it this story. That was a brilliant point!

And, I dunno I actually got a bit excited about the mafiosos in Gotham, wiki'd a few links, and came across this:

In the early 1980s, the magistrates Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino began a campaign against Cosa Nostra. Their big break came with the arrest of Tommaso Buscetta, a mafioso who chose to turn informant in exchange for protection from the Corleonesi, who had already murdered many of his friends and relatives. Other mafiosi followed his example. Falcone and Borsellino compiled their testimonies and organized the Maxi Trial, which lasted from February 1986 to December 1987. It was held in a fortified courthouse specially built for the occasion. 474 mafiosi were put on trial, of which 342 were convicted. In January 1992 the Italian Supreme Court confirmed these convictions.

Seriously? A guy named Falcone involved with the Mafia in the 80s leading into a Maxi-trial consisting of the big-shots? That's pure TDK right there -- it took place in the 80s, around the same time Frank Miller wrote Year One which debuted Falcone in the comics. But there's more...

The Mafia retaliated violently. In 1988, they murdered a Palermo judge and his son; three years later a prosecutor and an anti-mafia businessman were also murdered. Salvatore Lima, a close political ally of the Mafia, was murdered for failing to reverse the convictions as promised. Falcone and Borsellino were killed by bombs in 1992. This led to a public outcry and a massive government crackdown, resulting in the arrest of Salvatore Riina in January 1993. More and more defectors emerged. Many would pay a high price for their cooperation, usually through the murder of relatives. For example, Francesco Marino Mannoia's mother, aunt and sister were murdered.[79]

Kinda like how the Joker kills off Judge Surrillo, and Harvey loses his family and life fighting the mob...

On a relevant note, sure there wasn't a Falcone Act or anything and most of those prosecuted got away, the Mafia lived on. But that just shows why the extreme conditions in Gotham City are taken to the extreme: the Dent Act is like Batman.

[Nave 'Torment']

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I agree with The Joker that this debate is starting to lose its luster and I'm sure it's getting tiring for both sides.

This.

Absolutely. The fact that Bruce getting thrown in the Pit is immediately followed by Selina getting thrown in Blackgate (two characters in search of redemption and starting anew) strengthens the thematic tie between both the characters and the locations.

And, then there's the idea that Gotham is now trapped, that Gordon and Blake are "on their own," and you finally have Bane, the ultimate prisoner who rules over prisons (from the comics) as the antagonist. Hell, we can trace this all the way back to the noir idea of a claustrophobic modern, urban city where people feel isolated and confined, that is to say, TDKR doesn't betray its noir roots.

By the same token, if we're talking about Bruce's imprisonment, on a deeper level we have this idea of legacy trapping people by its sheer existence. The Dent Act becomes the doctrine, or the new constitution, or Bible, so to speak, for the citizens of Gotham and it robs them of any sense of normalcy. To tie it into Batman's own, I think you said it better:

What I feel is that the Dent Act implies about Batman's legacy is tied in with the film's ending: there will always be a need for a Batman or someone like him. No matter what, the systems of man are always vulnerable to corruption, whether it be from outside forces or from within. It reaffirms the need of an individual that operates outside the system.

I'm reminded of something from V For Vendetta -- that line where he says that "inside this flesh is an idea and ideas are bulletproof."

That was a great line. But with TDKR, I think it says something else: ideas may be bulletproof but they can be deconstructed. And that's what we see with Gotham City (and Batman in this movie -- reduced to a man with a limp who has to reconstruct himself). I wonder how much of Joker's idea of a world without rules really does apply to Batman? Bane is the natural reaction to the Dent Act and Gotham's decadence, and it seems to me that if this continues, Ra's Al Ghul -> Batman -> Harvey Dent -> Bane, the cycle would be endless. Is Bruce, with TDKR, ultimately trying to find a way to escape that cycle instead?

[Bruce_Begins]

Originally Posted by The Joker

How is the Dent Act remotely like a real world Patriot Act?

Dent Act gives more powers to the administration than what they normally have under the constitution,.

That is, it allows the authorities certain privileges that are reportedly in conflict with ordinary citizens rights they did not have some years ago, according to many it is similar to Patriot act.

Here are some comments on other sites -

There is one other aspect to the film that bears on politics, in a way more directly because it relates specifically to one of the movie's main themes: the relationship between truth and justice. As the movie opens, Gotham is in an era of peace (if not broad prosperity), having vanquished the organized crime that dominated the first two films. The instrument for this victory was a set not Batman himself but a new law passed in the name of fallen hero Harvey Dent which give law enforcement extraordinary authority, including an end to parole (the Dent Law seems a stand-in for the PATRIOT Act).

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...k-knight-rises

This myth justifies a whole set of draconian laws called the Dent Act (similar to the Patriot Act) which brings sweeping powers to the police and leads to a thousand arrests and convictions. In one of the opening scenes, Commissioner Gordon wants to reveal the truth, but refrains from doing so. He knows that the myth of Harvey Dent has helped to create a seemingly safer city and he doesn’t want to undo all that.

http://bostonoccupier.com/2012/08/03...-knight-rises/

So it's a national anthem, but also a State of the Union address. The Dark Knight Rises informs us that Gotham City has become a much safer place since the passing of the Dent Act (named after another popular Gotham hero, the deceased prosecutor Harvey Dent), a law that sounds like a combination of elements from The Patriot Act and the NYPD's recent-vintage stop-and-frisk policy.

The Dent Act is a controversial bill because of the way it provides harsher penalties for criminals with some (possibly tenuous, meaningless) connection to organized crime. But civil-liberties advocates are no match for a law named after the only hero more admired than Batman (who is now, eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, a fugitive suspected of killing Dent). It helps that both Commissioner Gordon and Bruce Wayne's lips are sealed about Dent's own crimes.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/articl...ry-state-union

So, basically the Dent act does make Gotham a crime free City at the cost of suppressing the citizen's fundamental rights.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by The Guard

This.



Also this.



And this.



Well yeah, until your sentence is up. You don't get early parole, but it doesn't mean you can never be released from prison.

I think the whole "Criminals would be scared of the Dent Act, Batman possibly returning, etc" argument is silly. Criminals go on about committing crimes despite the possibility of jail, life imprisonment, and even death. You think they care about the Dent Act anymore than that stuff?



This. Just admit it's a cheap, awkwardly utilized plot device and that it was a concept that wasn't written very thoroughly and be done with it.

The Joker's brought up some really good points. I don’t think a lot of you understand the difference between “guessing” the details of something and knowing them for a fact.

It isn't bad writing because it's a bad idea. It's subpar writing because it's a cheap, fairly abrupt and unrealistic plot device with no texturing or interesting exploration within the story.

Originally Posted by The Joker

Well thanks, guys, but at this point I'm basically debating about things that were not even in the movie. It's starting to lose it's appeal debating about something people are just making up now.



He's not in hiding, he's retired. Nobody in the movie says he's in hiding or implies he's in hiding. They think he's gone. Hence why they do the orphan scene to ask if he's coming back.

Coming back is only for something that is gone. Someone in hiding is not gone. They're still there. You just can't find them.



Nobody is going to forget the man who killed their beloved Harvey Dent, whether he disappeared without a trace or not.



The Mayor mentioned Batman at his Harvey Dent Day speech. The Mayor of Gotham City reminding his people that the murderous vigilante in a cape betrayed Dent and murdered him in cold blood.

If that's folklore then I'm the King of England



It's not an urban legend. An urban legend is a story that may or may not be true. The death of Harvey Dent at the hands of Batman is as factual to Gotham's people as the murder of J.F.K. was to America.

It's not an urban legend. It's a traumatic event that happened 8 years ago and is not spoken of like it's an urban legend. The memorial for Dent at Wayne Manor is like a ceremony they'd have for the victims of 9/11.



If that were true then the mob meeting would not have 20+ guys at it since the subject of the money would not be relevant to them. Clearly the mob's kingdom extended beyond Falcone.

Nolan had not got time to make characters out of every single mob guy there. There was no need. Anyone with two eyes and half a brain saw that the mob was a more than those three based on the mob meeting Joker crashed with Lau.



But you're not using anything in the movie to back up your claims. Where is your basis for any kind of rivalry between the mob in TDK?

You mentioned interpretation, so what scenes in TDK made you interpret a power struggle with the mob?



The inmates were not freaks. They were just crazies from Arkham that were attracted to the Joker's madness. They had no freak gimmick. They were just insane.

Harvey was not the new class of criminal Joker was referring to. Harvey was the ace in the hole to prove Joker's point that a good man can be torn down to Joker's level. TO make Gotham lose it's hope and it's soul by seeing they can't place their faith in a symbol of good like that because it's all a bad joke.



So why would they all need to be there at a meeting with Lau about the money if they were not mob bosses?



Two things:

1. Maroni took over Falcone's empire
2. All of those charges would be charges that any mob boss would be guilty of. Falcone's empire alone would cover all of those and then some



No, Harvey was out to get the ones who he believed was responsible for what happened to him and Rachel. Dent was gunning for Maroni in court so it made sense Maroni would be the one to want to get rid of Dent. He already tried to have him shot in court.

Wurtz told him it was Maroni's men who must have picked up Rachel, that's also how he knew to go to Maroni.

It's all there in the movie. No conjecture here



Gotham City never knew that Two Face even existed. The Joker would have inspired more freaks like him. His reign of terror would be legendary. Batman can inspire copycats after Batman Begins, and Joker was already attracting loonies in TDK and talking about creating a better class of criminal. The writing is in the wall. Then it's ignored in TDKR.

The mob had plenty of guys left. Three mob guys were taken out. Just three. Three out of a room of twenty mob guys. Do the math.



DKR had Batman retire when he was 40. That's when TDKR's Bruce came back. He was gone for 10 years and the crime rates were through the roof in DKR in his absence. A no parole law would not solve the city's problems.

To say Miller's story did a better job at showing it is an under statement.



I mean this in the nicest way but how? You're just doing what Shauner11 and Batlobsterises are doing; you're making things up that are not supported by the movies.

1. Maybe Dent took down all the other mob bosses as Two Face. Conjecture.
2. Batman was thought of as an urban legend. Not only conjecture but false. He was spoken of as very real and what he did, or what they thought he did to Dent, was spoken about very factually.

Not one of you can offer a decent explanation as to how the Dent Act solved the city's crime problems. The reason for that is the only thing about it you all know is that it prevents criminals from getting parole. Everything else after that is pure fairy tales you're talking because there is no other information offered about the Act and how it works as a cure for the city.



But that's just it, it didn't lose it's inspiration. It remembered Harvey Dent, but the evil doers are all forgotten except for Batman, who supposedly killed Harvey Dent, yet the Joker who scarred Dent, killed his girlfriend, turned Gotham City upside down, killed Judges, Police Commissioners, caused the city to evacuate, made Gotham turn against Batman etc is not given so much as a passing mention.

Dent is dead. Batman and the Joker are alive. Yet Dent is the only one who leaves an impression on Gotham City, and all through the ludicrous Dent Act.

Can you really not see how utterly shoddy and flimsy the writing is?



Where did this come from? If there was always incriminating evidence they would have prosecuted. Batman gave them the incriminating evidence; "We've got Falcone at the scene. Drugs, prints, cargo manifests. This Bat character gave us everything".

There's your answer. Batman gave them the dirt to prosecute. The evidence was not always there, and they always had a D.A. willing to prosecute; Rachel Dawes. So was Finch. He agreed to support her once they had the evidence. He was also brave enough to poke his nose into Falcone's shipments after they had him in custody and it got him killed.


All the Dent Act does is stop convicted criminals from getting an early release and force them to serve their full sentences. Nothing more.

Best posts in the thread. All based on facts. Zero conjecture.

Originally Posted by Bruce_Begins

Dent Act gives more powers to the administration than what they normally have under the constitution,.

That is, it allows the authorities certain privileges that are reportedly in conflict with ordinary citizens rights they did not have some years ago, according to many it is similar to Patriot act.

Here are some comments on other sites -


http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...k-knight-rises




http://bostonoccupier.com/2012/08/03...-knight-rises/



http://www.capitalnewyork.com/articl...ry-state-union

So, basically the Dent act does make Gotham a crime free City at the cost of suppressing the citizen's fundamental rights.

Except the movie never said any of that. Nobody said citizens were denied anything because of the Dent Act.

You're conjecturing. Normal for this thread though.

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

Thousands were locked in Black Gate without parole thanks to the Dent Act.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

Except the movie never said any of that. Nobody said citizens were denied anything because of the Dent Act.

You're conjecturing. Normal for this thread though.

Saved me the trouble of pointing that out.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wooden Alligator

Thousands were locked in Black Gate without parole thanks to the Dent Act.

No, they were denied parole under the Dent Act.

[Bruce_Begins]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

You're conjecturing. Normal for this thread though.

It was heavily implied, when Blake accused Gordon of having his hands filthy, that could only happen if innocent citizens were victims of the Dent Act but Gordon kept his silence for the sake of keeping members of organized crime behind the bars.

And, why are you dismissing what are valid interpretations of the movie by merely asserting that these are conjectures ? They stand.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Bruce_Begins

It was heavily implied, when Blake accused Gordon of having his hands filthy, that could only happen if innocent citizens were victims of the Dent Act but Gordon kept his silence for the sake of keeping members of organized crime behind the bars.

"Those men were locked up for 8 years and denied parole under the Dent Act based on a lie?"

It was the fact that they were denied parole by an Act that was founded on a lie. That's why he accused Gordon's hands of being filthy. It had nothing to do with innocent citizens.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

This.



And, then there's the idea that Gotham is now trapped, that Gordon and Blake are "on their own," and you finally have Bane, the ultimate prisoner who rules over prisons (from the comics) as the antagonist. Hell, we can trace this all the way back to the noir idea of a claustrophobic modern, urban city where people feel isolated and confined, that is to say, TDKR doesn't betray its noir roots.

By the same token, if we're talking about Bruce's imprisonment, on a deeper level we have this idea of legacy trapping people by its sheer existence. The Dent Act becomes the doctrine, or the new constitution, or Bible, so to speak, for the citizens of Gotham and it robs them of any sense of normalcy. To tie it into Batman's own, I think you said it better:



I'm reminded of something from V For Vendetta -- that line where he says that "inside this flesh is an idea and ideas are bulletproof."

That was a great line. But with TDKR, I think it says something else: ideas may be bulletproof but they can be deconstructed. And that's what we see with Gotham City (and Batman in this movie -- reduced to a man with a limp who has to reconstruct himself). I wonder how much of Joker's idea of a world without rules really does apply to Batman? Bane is the natural reaction to the Dent Act and Gotham's decadence, and it seems to me that if this continues, Ra's Al Ghul -> Batman -> Harvey Dent -> Bane, the cycle would be endless. Is Bruce, with TDKR, ultimately trying to find a way to escape that cycle instead?

I think so, absolutely. The key to understanding this is, in the beginning of the film he's seeking a way out by death (subconsciously). By the end, his way out is the very conscious decision of choosing a successor and finally living his life. His peace is in both being able to escape the cycle (pain), and finding a way to allow his symbol to transcend him and become something larger.

I also think we should make the Dent Act its own thread if that debate is to continue.

[Bruce_Begins]

Originally Posted by The Joker

"Those men were locked up for 8 years and denied parole under the Dent Act based on a lie?"

It was the fact that they were denied parole by an Act that was founded on a lie. That's why he accused Gordon's hands of being filthy. It had nothing to do with innocent citizens.

"Those Men" could be anyone who was put behind the bars under Dent Act, they could be ordinary citizens wrongly suspected of being a part of Mafia and the real members of the organized crime.

It was obvious that in order to enforce law and order Dent act was blatantly misused, that would mean that many were arrested to clean up the streets, some deserved it and some did not they were unfortunate victims.

Blake would not have got angry at Gordon if this was not the case. Just denial of Parole is not reason enough for Blake to lash out at Gordon as it was (denial of parole) a feature of Dent Act which was passed by Mayor and City Council, not Gordon.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Bruce_Begins

"Those Men" could be anyone who was put behind the bars under Dent Act

Could be, and might not be. You're just talking what ifs here. Not facts.

they could be ordinary citizens wrongly suspected of being a part of Mafia and the real members of the organized crime.

You can't lock people up on suspicions. You need evidence.

It was obvious that in order to enforce law and order Dent act was blatantly misused, that would mean that many were arrested to clean up the streets, some deserved it and some did not they were unfortunate victims.

How was this obvious?

Blake would not have got angry at Gordon if this was not the case.

He was angry that they were denying men in jail parole chances based on a lie. Simple as that. That's why his only line he says was the only detail we know that the Dent Act does; denies parole to already convicted criminals. If there was more nasty repercussions to this he would have said so instead of just mentioning the denial of parole.

[TheBat812]

"You can't lock people up on suspicions. You need evidence"

In the novelization they say this is indeed the case. It may even have been in the script at some point, but was cut. Either way, it's trivial. They only need to mention one thing for us to get the jist, and they do. The point is that it's morally questionable for 'the good of the people,' a key theme throughout the whole series.

I still am not sure why you harp on this so badly. I get that you wanted more, but do you not see why more information is not crucial to the story being told? Disagreeing with the approach is one thing, but to say its objectively bad writing is a bit self-centered. At its base, what were saying is easily interpreted through the film, in the way the filmmakers meant the audience to. Vaguely, but obviously. To not believe why or how the dent act worked is irrelevant because it DID work in the story. and you don't have any proof that there were measures that weren't morally sketchy, when there is at least one example of it being so. If anything, you're the one who needs to show us proof of why it's so inconceivable. The dent act is crucial thematically and character wise as well. I just don't see any basis for it being a writing problem. Hard for you in particular to believe? Sure. But not at all out of the realm of possibility for the world they've created.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Originally Posted by JackWhite

I knew TDKR was going to be a polarizing film, but not to the point that Christian Bale's Batman appreciation thread would be completely derailed.

At least this thread is getting hits!

I don't think that it's a Polarizing film but independent of us internet geeks I don't think it is as well liked as the last film. I do think that people generally like it though.

I like the performances more than the actual film. I agree with the criticisms that have been leveled against the film, it has plot issues galore and I truely believe that it would have been a better film if Ledger had lived. Nolan seemed to completely drop the most interesting aspect of his last film and it is completely noticable in this film. I believe that he was so trumatized by Ledger's death that he and the writers came up with this inane last minute LOS plot and 8 years of no crime fighting thing. That's just my opinion I know that most on here will disagree.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by TheBat812

"You can't lock people up on suspicions. You need evidence"

In the novelization they say this is indeed the case. It may even have been in the script at some point, but was cut. Either way, it's trivial.

Of course it's trivial because common sense tells you that you need evidence to lock criminals up in prison. I don't need a novelization to confirm that simple fact.

They only need to mention one thing for us to get the jist, and they do.

What one thing is that?

I still am not sure why you harp on this so badly. I get that you wanted more, but do you not see why more information is not crucial to the story being told?

No I don't, since more information would make the Dent Act more credible and make sense. But alas it is a totally illogical inclusion in the movie.

I can't conjecture it away on unfounded theories like the two or three others who continually attempt to defend this shoddy writing with conjecture that the movie does not even support.

Disagreeing with the approach is one thing, but to say its objectively bad writing is a bit self-centered.

Self centered? I've heard it all now.

It is bad writing, and every single bit of conjecture that has been offered to explain it in this thread has successfully been torn down by myself and several other posters here. There's even some posters who find this conjecture so laughable and frustrating they don't even have the inclination or the patience to address it.

That's how bad the writing is when it's gotten to that point in a discussion.

At its base, what were saying is easily interpreted through the film, in the way the filmmakers meant the audience to. Vaguely, but obviously. To not believe why or how the dent act worked is irrelevant because it DID work in the story.

That's not good enough. You don't just say such a major plot point happened and not offer any information and explanation as to how such a major thing happened.

That's not how good writing works.

and you don't have any proof that there were measures that weren't morally sketchy, when there is at least one example of it being so. If anything, you're the one who needs to show us proof of why it's so inconceivable.

You don't have any proof it did. You and the two or three others supporting this brain fart are offering nothing but fairy tales. Worst of all they're fairy tales even the movies do not substantiate.

I love a good theory if it's based on something in the movie that suggests the possibility. Not one thing you or anyone else has said has done that. That's why you keep coming back to argue. If you had undoubtedly proved your point you wouldn't need to keep repeating it. But you haven't. You're talking complete and utter what ifs.

It's fan fiction. Total 100% fan fiction.

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

I don't think that it's a Polarizing film but independent of us internet geeks I don't think it is as well liked as the last film. I do think that people generally like it though.

I like the performances more than the actual film. I agree with the criticisms that have been leveled against the film, it has plot issues galore and I truely believe that it would have been a better film if Ledger had lived. Nolan seemed to completely drop the most interesting aspect of his last film and it is completely noticable in this film. I believe that he was so trumatized by Ledger's death that he and the writers came up with this inane last minute LOS plot and 8 years of no crime fighting thing. That's just my opinion I know that most on here will disagree.

You've got one person here who thinks you're right.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Originally Posted by The Joker

You've got one person here who thinks you're right.

It's the first thing me and my sister said. We said they showed a flashback of Two Face and mentioned Dent/Two Face but not once did they utter a word about the Joker. The guy in Clown faced make up who was like a mini city centric Osama Bin Laden? I mean that is just ridiculous and I'd like to sell a bridge to the person who believes that Ledger's death didn't drastically change the film that we all saw this past summer.

There is no other conclusion one can draw other than Ledger's death changing everything. When you have a filmmaker who can't even mention the big bad of the last film you have a filmmaker who is hindered by his emotions. It's understandable because he is human after all but I wish he and the writers hadn't let it get to their art that much. It's fine not to recast and show the Joker but it's ridiculous to not mention him or directly mention the effect he had on the city. You and others have been explaining the Joker thing better than I would have. After TDK I did expect to see some Joker immitators and the like. I mean the Joker was big freakin deal. And no I didn't expect the movie to be about the Joker at all but I did expect to feel his presence.

The whole full circle LOS plot seemed lazy to me when I heard it and when I finally saw it in action.