The Dark Knight About Batman's decision...

[Fudgie]

Posted this a few months back, and feel it has relevance to this topic:

"Who said Batman wants to be redeemed? In addition to preserving Dent's image as Gotham's hero, there's a reason Batman didn't simply have Gordon tell people that Dent just fell (despite the polce already knowing a situation was up). Even though Batman gets the job done, he realises that his methods are not pure, that he does cross a line that a "hero" shouldn't cross. It's why he tries to set Dent up to take his title. Not just so he could be with Rachel but because he believed the image of Harvey Dent, of someone who could get the job done within the boundaries of the law, was the type of "hero" Gotham should be worshiping. If Batman clears Dent's name but doesn't take the blame for his crimes, then the people of Gotham will automatically turn to him [Batman] as their hero, and Batman simply can't have that.

Obviously Batman is so much a part of Bruce & means so much that he cannot find it in himself to cast the persona aside (really, what is keeping Batman from taking off his mask when he's confronting Two-Face & bringing Harvey back?) and will continue to go out & do what he has to do, but not as Gotham's "true hero", because like Bruce said: "Gotham needs a hero with a face.""

This is where the great tragedy in Nolan's Batman films lie, IMO, and what makes them such a great films. Gordon fully believes Batman is the hero Gotham deserves because he is willing to sacrifice his public image and reputation in order for the city to carry on. But Batman doesn't fully believe that himself. A true hero in his mind wouldn't cross the lines he crosses, and would act more like Harvey in that he uses the law to bring criminals to justice. But at the same time, Batman is a persona Bruce just can't let go of, can't live without. The two are inseparable, so while he believes that Batman cannot be Gotham's true hero, he also realises that because he can't let go of Batman that Batman becomes easily redefinable to suit Gotham's needs.

Bruce has locked himself onto a course which he may not be able to escape. A course in which he is dedicated to serve Gotham, no matter what the circumstances, until the day he dies.

Spot on.

 

[Brother Jack]

I'm still amazed at how easily Batman decided that lying to everybody was the answer. He just took a decision for everyone else fo what would be the best thing for everybody. He assumed everyone didn't want to know the truth so he assumed this paternalistic figure and took the personal right to decide on himself.

That's the thing, for Batman (Bruce) it wasn't really lying. Yes he wasn't the one holding the gun and pulling the trigger, but to him he as guilty as anyone, if not more so, for bringing all the mayhem and craziness upon Gotham--by trying to be the symbol of hope that he really couldn't be.

 

[GothamAlleys]

while it wouldnt hurt for gothams citizens to see a valuable hero in batman, thats not really the point.

with batman taking the wrap, heres what it creates:
-batman killed harvey dent, gotham lost its white knight, its lost its hope.
-gothams citizens believe there is a masked vigilante killing off good people like harvey. the city lives in fear.
-the cops are made to look incompetent.
-batmans mission to do good is now much harder due to the fact that the cops are gonna be all over him.
-batman choosing to lie proves the joker right, in regards to gothams citizens being so easily broken. which would be entirely hypocritical to the rest of the movie.

whats the alternative? tell the truth. harvey was a good man who pushed to a breaking point under bad circumstances. the city gets really bummed out by the tragedy of harvey dent. but his good deeds arent forgotten and in the end they rally to persevere another day like they always have before.

fact of the matter is, nolan wanted the movie to end to set up a sequel with batman being a wanted man. im totally cool with all that, its a great story. but the completely contrived execution of it is just stupid.

I must agree as well. As I explained, it makes no sense for the cops who were at the scene for Batman to suddenly change from being a hero and working with Gordon to clone himself somehow and kidnap Gordon's family and try to kill him 5 minutes later. The public can buy it cause they didnt see Batman saving hostages and catching Joker, but they still lose a protector and hero. Batman crushing cop cars was a past - that was when he wasnt known and no one knew that hes helping out. Since then, hes even freely cooperating with police, appearing in crime scenes and even in police station. And people know hes a hero, he inspired them, as evidenced by the people dressing up as him. This way he destroyed another symbol. I still see nothing wrong in saying that just about anybody in bat cape tried to kill batman who was wounded with a gun shot to rpove it, and killed Dent. Cops didnt see anything, they arrived only when batman was already running. Just like the poster above, I also think the execution and the logic behind that ending is deeply flawed

 

[Fudgie]

It don't matter what the Cops believe. Without evidence to the contrary, they can't do jack about it. They saw Batman running off leaving Joker laughing. They dunno what that was about. They saw Joker get under Batmans skin in the Cop station. They could easily figure Joker said or did something to drive Batman off the deep end. But at the end of the day it doesnt matter if they dont believe he's guilty deep down. They have him confessing to it, and the Police Commissioner backing him up with eye witness testimony.

The copycats were the WORST kind of inspiration. They were basically vigilantes with guns. Thats not the kind of inspiration he wanted, and he said so. Dent was the real symbol of hope, not Bats.

 

[General Vulcun]

That's the thing, for Batman (Bruce) it wasn't really lying. Yes he wasn't the one holding the gun and pulling the trigger, but to him he as guilty as anyone, if not more so, for bringing all the mayhem and craziness upon Gotham--by trying to be the symbol of hope that he really couldn't be.

Agreed. Because of Bruce's obsession with being Batman he naively believed he could carry on as is and try to fix everything himself. As I stated in my previous post, what is really keeping Bruce from taking off the cowl in front of Harvey and showing him that he isn't the only one who lost the people he loved? Nothing, except his own obsession.

I must agree as well. As I explained, it makes no sense for the cops who were at the scene for Batman to suddenly change from being a hero and working with Gordon to clone himself somehow and kidnap Gordon's family and try to kill him 5 minutes later. The public can buy it cause they didnt see Batman saving hostages and catching Joker, but they still lose a protector and hero. Batman crushing cop cars was a past - that was when he wasnt known and no one knew that hes helping out. Since then, hes even freely cooperating with police, appearing in crime scenes and even in police station. And people know hes a hero, he inspired them, as evidenced by the people dressing up as him. This way he destroyed another symbol. I still see nothing wrong in saying that just about anybody in bat cape tried to kill batman who was wounded with a gun shot to rpove it, and killed Dent. Cops didnt see anything, they arrived only when batman was already running. Just like the poster above, I also think the execution and the logic behind that ending is deeply flawed

I disagree. Batman may have proved to have been a hero, but that doesn't mean all cops believe that he should be their hero ("no moar ded cops!"). The MCU is in Batman's corner because of Gordon, but even they question Batman as a hero at times ("It's because of you these people are dead").And even though Batman was trying to stop the SWAT from killing the hostages, it didn't stop the SWAT, and Gordon, from turning a gun on Batman at some point. So clearly, to me, Batman's biggest (and possibly only) fan in the GCPD is Gordon, and even their trust starts to become shakey nearing the end.

And when it comes to the vigilante's, sure it inspired people to take the law into their own hands, but they're approaching it in murderous fashion, ie the guns, so how does that reflect well on the vigilantes if they're packing hardware a mobster would carry, or on Batman who is their direct inspiration? I say the image isn't a very favorable one at all.

You can say Batman destroyed his symbol by taking the blame for the murders, but I firmly believe, as I stated in my previous post, that Batman didn't want people to look up to him as their hero, because of the way he operates outside the law. That's why he takes the burden of Dent's crimes for himself and decides to preserve his image (as Dent did earlier for Batman), because Batman believes Dent is the ideal hero Gotham needs whereas his own methods need to be seen for what they are: criminal.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Sure it doesnt matter what cops know or believe because its the public that gets fed the BS, but Batman lets Joker win either way. He proves that even a good person can turn bad, what Joker was trying to do all along. My gripe isnt that much with the list of inconsistencies and things that dont add up to probably whats the world most sudden 180 in person in history, but why batman made HIMSELF a murderer in peoples eyes, showing that even a protector can become a murderous psycho. Why not just about anybody else - thats the question. AGAIN, cops were far away, Dent was dead, it was all over anyway, and Batman was wounded with a gunshot, lying next to Dent with Gordon helping him out. Whoever did this was already on the run or outta there

 

[Motown Marvel]

It didn't lose it's hope. That was the whole point of it. Harvey being revealed as a killer would have lost the hope.

As already mentioned, the City already lives in fear. It doesn't matter if Gotham is afraid of Batman, or hate him, or whatever. As long as he can do the job he wants to do, public opinion of him doesn't mean diddly squat.

In what way?

They never stopped him before. They won't now.

Yes, the Joker was right in that regard. And Batman can't let him get his way. What kind of hero would willingly let the villain win like that?

And how do you know the people of Gotham would react this way? You can't guarantee that. It's too much of a risk to gamble on. Batman chose the lesser of two evils.

i could pick this apart a million ways from sunday....but i've had that debate a hundred times before here....its just kinda boring now. but i stand by what i stated. i'll let others take it from here.

(im sure one night i'll be even more bored than the debate itself and jump back in, ha ha ha).

 

[The Joker]

i could pick this apart a million ways from sunday....but i've had that debate a hundred times before here....its just kinda boring now.

A hundred times before eh. Met a lot of resistance to those criticisms before? What a surprise

(im sure one night i'll be even more bored than the debate itself and jump back in, ha ha ha).

I'll be ready and waiting

 

[The Demon's Head]

I'd like to point everyone towards Rachel's letter to Bruce. "Now I see the day won't come when you no longer need Batman." The mission was very clear-cut to Bruce in Batman Begins. He wanted to become a symbol of hope in order to motivate Gotham's citizens into action, and fight the mob's hold over the city. Arguably, his job was already done in TDK, and he wanted to quit. He saw Harvey Dent as a worthy sucssesor, and the mob's hold over the city was slipping away. So he saw a chance for a normal life with Rachel, but she knew that he has no chance for a normal life anymore. Being Batman is the only way he can live with the pain of his parents' deaths, and the only way for him to channel his anger. Bruce's obssesion is the only thing keeping him sane.

His antics have also attracted a new breed of criminals to Gotham City, with the arrival of The Joker. "The Better class of Criminal" that Joker talked about won't go away any time soon, and as Alfred said, they won't be motivated by money like the old mob. Because of that, Batman's mission is ever-lasting.

 

[General Vulcun]

Sure it doesnt matter what cops know or believe because its the public that gets fed the BS, but Batman lets Joker win either way. He proves that even a good person can turn bad, what Joker was trying to do all along. My gripe isnt that much with the list of inconsistencies and things that dont add up to probably whats the world most sudden 180 in person in history, but why batman made HIMSELF a murderer in peoples eyes, showing that even a protector can become a murderous psycho. Why not just about anybody else - thats the question. AGAIN, cops were far away, Dent was dead, it was all over anyway, and Batman was wounded with a gunshot, lying next to Dent with Gordon helping him out. Whoever did this was already on the run or outta there

Batman would not allow himself to be looked upon as a hero. He knows his image is ultimately that of someone who operates outside the law, and to have a city look up to someone like him over people like Dent was not acceptable. Not only does taking the blame for Dent's murders help preserve the public image of Harvey Dent as Gotham's hero, it also allows Batman to expose himself for who he believes he is; not specifically a "murderer", but someone who the people of Gotham shouldn't believe is their hero.

Bruce makes it explicitly clear with the line "Gotham needs a hero with a face" exactly who the people of Gotham should look up to as their hero, or more specifically who they shouldn't look up to, so it's no surprise to me that the films ends the way it does. Any other ending would've been a cheat, IMO.

 

[Motown Marvel]

A hundred times before eh. Met a lot of resistance to those criticisms before? What a surprise

as crazy as it sounds, there are a FEW people on these boards who...react...when someone doesnt blindly bow to the altar of nolan.

....they happen.

 

[El Payaso]

That's the thing, for Batman (Bruce) it wasn't really lying. Yes he wasn't the one holding the gun and pulling the trigger, but to him he as guilty as anyone, if not more so, for bringing all the mayhem and craziness upon Gotham--by trying to be the symbol of hope that he really couldn't be.

So, he was actually lying. He didn't do it, he said he did it, that's lying. Bruce just happened to think it would be better for people if they didn't know the truth.

And he admits it himself: "Sometimes the truth isn't good enough."

Now, okay Bruce, according to you *sometimes* truth is not good enough. Now when is truth not good enough? When you personally decide so?

"Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded."

Okay again Bruce is so paternalistic, so *better* than the rest of the people that he doesn't only decide when people needs to be lied to, but also when people needs a reward. And he knows all that just because he knows. Because he didn't ask anyone else if they wanted not to know something or if they wanted rewards. Father Batman knows better than anyone else, that's why he doesn't feel like asking. He doesn't believe that people can take the awful reality, he thinks they just can't deal with it so they need to be protected - like children - by someone superior: himself. That's close to being fascist.

And the fact that he sacrificed himself doesn't make his lying any better. It just emphasizes his messianic delusions.

 

[Fudgie]

Oh no Batman told a lie in order to save the hope of Gotham? The facist bastard!!! Why that's so much worse than flipping over and crushing Cop cars, and blowing up stuff. In fact how dare he think he's above the law at all by going out in a cape and cowl and taking the law into his own hands in the first place. Who does he think he is?

Heh then we could also look at Keaton's Batman who is basically the Punisher in a cape and cowl

 

[Travesty]

Gordon fully believes Batman is the hero Gotham deserves because he is willing to sacrifice his public image and reputation in order for the city to carry on. But Batman doesn't fully believe that himself. A true hero in his mind wouldn't cross the lines he crosses, and would act more like Harvey in that he uses the law to bring criminals to justice.

But this isn't exactly true. We know that Harvey has a temper, and that people even call him "Two-Face"(what a coincident ) behind his back. We also know that he'll push the line by holding a gun to someones face(Thomas Shift), to try and get info from them. He still crosses lines. He was also working with Batman, and even let him get Lau back. He crosses the line physically, and behind closed doors as well.

And people know hes a hero, he inspired them, as evidenced by the people dressing up as him. This way he destroyed another symbol. I still see nothing wrong in saying that just about anybody in bat cape tried to kill batman who was wounded with a gun shot to rpove it, and killed Dent. Cops didnt see anything, they arrived only when batman was already running. Just like the poster above, I also think the execution and the logic behind that ending is deeply flawed

I agree, and it's a bit contradictory of what was established in BB. In BB, Bruce says, "People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy, and I can’t do that as Bruce Wayne. As a man, I’m flesh and blood. I can be ignored, I can be destroyed. But as a symbol … as a symbol, I can be incorruptible. I can be everlasting".

So now I'm sure some of you will argue that Dent is the new symbol, and that's all fine and dandy, but he's friggin dead now. He was "flesh and blood", and he was "destroyed". There is no more symbols for Gotham to hold onto after the death of Harvey. The Bat-symbol is gone, The Joker caused a lot of chaos and destruction throughout Gotham, and now Batman is a cop killing murderer on the run.

And Nolan better address the Reese story. Batman is a wanted individual, and Reese knows his true identity. There is no way they can just forget that plot point they created.

It don't matter what the Cops believe. Without evidence to the contrary, they can't do jack about it.

There are people who could testify to the contrary. Ramirez being one of them that knows the truth outside of Batman, Gordon, and Gordon's family.

That's the thing, for Batman (Bruce) it wasn't really lying. Yes he wasn't the one holding the gun and pulling the trigger, but to him he as guilty as anyone, if not more so, for bringing all the mayhem and craziness upon Gotham--by trying to be the symbol of hope that he really couldn't be.

This to me, just doesn't hold that much validity to it. So Bruce/Batman felt guilty about what he has created in Gotham, so he takes the blame for it, and then, puts the mask back on? If he truley felt a sense of responsibility for what Batman has created in Gotham, then why blame himself for something he didn't do, and keep putting the mask back on? It's a bit hypocritical.

Let's face it, The Joker won by pushing Harvey over the edge, but it could have been covered up, so he didn't necessarily win at all. They could have blamed it on a number of people, or just covered it up altogether. Plus, I'm sure there are cops that Two-Face visited, but didn't kill, because the coin didn't land on the bad side-Ramirez being an example. If they can cover that up, and make those cops not talk, then it would have been just as easy to cover up everything altogether.

Just like jamesCameronOni said, we get why they did it, but the execution and logic behind it is deeply flawed.

 

[El Payaso]

Oh no Batman told a lie in order to save the hope of Gotham? The facist bastard!!!

Absolutely. He decided Gotham's hope was in danger and he decided for everyone else.

After all if Gotham's faith and hope must hinge oina lie then it's not very valuable.

Why that's so much worse than flipping over and crushing Cop cars, and blowing up stuff.

It is not. Who said otherwise? I've talked a lot about those issues too.

In fact how dare he think he's above the law at all by going out in a cape and cowl and taking the law into his own hands in the first place. Who does he think he is?

One thing is to protect the innocent. Another very different is to decide for them without even consulting them.

Heh then we could also look at Keaton's Batman who is basically the Punisher in a cape and cowl

As far as I can remember Keaton's Batman never claimed he sacred human life as Bale's Batman did all the time.

 

[raybia]

One thing is to protect the innocent. Another very different is to decide for them without even consulting them.

Welcome to the world of politics.

 

[The Joker]

I'm sure there were cops that Two-Face didn't kill, who could testify to the contrary. Ramirez being one of them that knows the truth outside of Batman, Gordon, and Gordon's family.

What Cops? There was only Wurtz and Ramirez. Wurtz is dead. Ramirez was a bent Cop working for Maroni who helped deliver Rachel to the Joker's men. She's not going to open her mouth about anything. She doesn't have to be coerced into keeping quiet.

I agree, and it's a bit contradictory of what was established in BB. In BB, Bruce says, "People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy, and I can’t do that as Bruce Wayne. As a man, I’m flesh and blood. I can be ignored, I can be destroyed. But as a symbol … as a symbol, I can be incorruptible. I can be everlasting".

That was in Batman Begins, before he even started being Batman, when he thought his mission as Batman was going to be finite.

Bale on doing a second BATMAN: “We have progressed from an angry young man trying to come to terms with his own pain and starting on an endeavor which he believes to be finite, [to] somebody who's attained that power, and is now having to recognize the responsibilities that come with it"

http://www.batman-on-film.com/TDK-nolan-bale-gyllenhaal-talk-TDK-MTV_3-19-08.html

He thought he could simply come along, knock Falcone and the mob off their perch, and let Gotham clean themselves up afterward and then go live happily ever after with Rachel. Circumstances changed in The Dark knight. Bruce evolved, as did his mission. He faced an adversary, and situations he never expected or was prepared for. His ideals on his mission had to evolve and change, because his original plan was obviously not going to cut it.

As Alfred told him: "Batman can be the outcast". Batman has been the outcast many, many times in the comics. He was an outcast in Nolan's movies. They were even doing news stories on TV about Batman being hunted down by the Major crimes unit. He doesn't need Gotham to love him. For the bulk of the Nolan movies, they haven't. As you say, The Joker won by pushing Harvey over the edge. He succeeded in destroying Gotham's real symbol of hope. So Batman can either let Joker have that victory by letting Gotham know what Harvey did, kill a bunch of people, and tried to murder a child, too. Or he can shoulder the blame and let Gotham continue hating him. They certainly didn't love him in either movie. At best some of them were luke warm about him. In fact the only regular citizens you saw say a positive word about Batman in both movies was that posh woman at the hotel dinner in Begins.

Nolan never ever led us to believe that Gotham City loved Batman, or held him in any kind of high esteem. The copycats were whackos going around with guns taking pot shots at criminals. Is that the kind of symbol of hope and inspiration Batman wanted to be? No.

One thing is to protect the innocent. Another very different is to decide for them without even consulting them.

Payaso me old chum, you don't really believe that, do you? Who did Batman consult before he went to take the law into his own hands and go out on Gotham's streets dressed as a giant bat and beat up criminals, and cause all kinds of property destruction in the process? Nobody at all. By your logic he has no more right to operate as Batman than he does to cover up Harvey's crimes for Gotham's own good just because he never consulted Gotham, legally or otherwise, about it beforehand.

He does it for a greater good. Just like he did what he did at the end of TDK for a greater good.

 

[Fudgie]

Let's face it, The Joker won by pushing Harvey over the edge, but it could have been covered up, so he didn't necessarily win at all. They could have blamed it on a number of people, or just covered it up altogether.

No they couldn't. Look at the facts of the flick. Fact 1, Gordon went to the warehouse alone, without telling the Cops why he was going there, or what was going on - 'All they know is there's a situation. They don't know who or what'. Why would he do that unless he was trying to protect someone he cared about or trusted and didn't want to get them in trouble? Cops are gonna think he was trying to protect Batman, and talk him out of doing something stupid or bad, until Batman killed Harvey.
Fact 2, Gordon said the Cops created a perimeter outside. So who the hell is gonna manage to kill Harvey and elude Batman and Gordon as well, and then escape from there without being spotted by a platoon of Cops surrounding the place? They'd have to be as good as Batman or better to stand a chance of pulling off a feat like that. So they had no other scapegoat to pin it on. Heh I guess they coulda' blamed Gordon's missus. Say it was that time of the month

 

[Fudgie]

***********

 

[Travesty]

Ramirez was a bent Cop working for Maroni who helped deliver Rachel to the Joker's men. She's not going to open her mouth about anything. She doesn't have to be coerced into keeping quiet.

My point is that there are other people who know what Harvey did.

As Alfred told him: "Batman can be the outcast". Batman has been the outcast many, many times in the comics. He was an outcast in Nolan's movies. They were even doing news stories on TV about Batman being hunted down by the Major crimes unit. He doesn't need Gotham to love him. For the bulk of the Nolan movies, they haven't. As you say, The Joker won by pushing Harvey over the edge. He succeeded in destroying Gotham's real symbol of hope. So Batman can either let Joker have that victory by letting Gotham know what Harvey did, kill a bunch of people, and tried to murder a child, too. Or he can shoulder the blame and let Gotham continue hating him. They certainly didn't love him in either movie. At best some of them were luke warm about him. In fact the only regular citizens you saw say a positive word about Batman in both movies was that posh woman at the hotel dinner in Begins.

Again, you're missing the point. The point is that it was useless to take the blame, when it could have been covered up, or blamed on someone else. Gotham's symbol of hope is dead, and now so is Batman's reputation to the public. How is that even close to being productive? The whole point of Batman, was to create a symbol of hope for Gotham. He saw that in Harvey, who is now dead, along with Batman's reputation to the public. So now that one symbol is dead(Harvey), he needs to destroy another?

Again, I understand why he did it. I'm just saying its a weak and flawed ending.

Nolan never ever led us to believe that Gotham City loved Batman, or held him in any kind of high esteem.

Yeah he did. Bruce's date, when talking about raising kids in Gotham replied, "I don't know? In a city that idolizes a masked vigilante....", to which Harvey replied, "Gotham City is proud of an ordinary citizen to stand up for what is right". Nolan also showed us that common criminals were scared to do crime in the streets, cause they saw the bat-signal in the air, along with cops letting him go about his business on a crime scene, and a jail cell. Just because we didn't see people doing cartwheels, screaming, "ohz my gawd!!! I luvz da Batman!!!!", doesn't mean we were never shown peoples admiration for him.

The copycats were whackos going around with guns taking pot shots at criminals. Is that the kind of symbol of hope and inspiration Batman wanted to be? No.

So now he wants copy-cat criminals who shoot at cops dressed in a Bat-costume? People were just following Batman's lead, because they were obsessed with his persona. If people were that obsessed with Batman, what's to stop them from following his new image?

 

[Travesty]

No they couldn't. Look at the facts of the flick. Fact 1, Gordon went to the warehouse alone, without telling the Cops why he was going there, or what was going on - 'All they know is there's a situation. They don't know who or what'. Why would he do that unless he was trying to protect someone he cared about or trusted and didn't want to get them in trouble? Cops are gonna think he was trying to protect Batman, and talk him out of doing something stupid or bad, until Batman killed Harvey.
Fact 2, Gordon said the Cops created a perimeter outside. So who the hell is gonna manage to kill Harvey and elude Batman and Gordon as well, and then escape from there without being spotted by a platoon of Cops surrounding the place? They'd have to be as good as Batman or better to stand a chance of pulling off a feat like that. So they had no other scapegoat to pin it on. Heh I guess they coulda' blamed Gordon's missus. Say it was that time of the month

All of your points are about Batman taking the blame for killing Harvey, which again, could have been explained easily, with, oh I don't know, a guy with half a face is outta the hospital, traumatized, and accidentally fell off the side a building.

And the cops didn't come towards the building, until Batman told Gordon to call it in. He could have waiting for Batman to leave, and then called the cops in, and said it was anybody or anything. How else did Batman get inside of the perimeter?

It's just a weak ending.....

 

[Fudgie]

All of your points are about Batman taking the blame for killing Harvey, which again, could have been explained easily, with, oh I don't know, a guy with half a face is outta the hospital, traumatized, and accidentally fell off the side a building.

Then gotham city loses its hope, and Harveys prosecutions are undone.

And the cops didn't come towards the building, until Batman told Gordon to call it in. He could have waiting for Batman to leave, and then called the cops in, and said it was anybody or anything. How else did Batman get inside of the perimeter?

That a serious question? He's Batman. He can fly on glider wings. He uses grappling hooks. He runs over rooftops. Thats how he got through the perimeter.

It's just a weak ending.....

Nah youre just makin weak arguments.

 

[Fudgie]

My point is that there are other people who know what Harvey did.

One is dead one is a mob lackey. Who are your other people?

Again, you're missing the point. The point is that it was useless to take the blame, when it could have been covered up, or blamed on someone else. Gotham's symbol of hope is dead, and now so is Batman's reputation to the public. How is that even close to being productive? The whole point of Batman, was to create a symbol of hope for Gotham. He saw that in Harvey, who is now dead, along with Batman's reputation to the public. So now that one symbol is dead(Harvey), he needs to destroy another?

Gotham didnt need Batman to be their symbol of hope. They turned on him in a heartbeat as soon as Joker started dropping bodies in his name. Even after when Joker stopped killin people in his name, ya never saw any protests when Mr Reese was gonna drop Batman's secret ID on live TV did ya? They didnt give a tinkers cuss about Batman. With harvey out of action ya would think they need him more than ever, and wouldnt want Reese to out him like that. But no.

Yeah he did. Bruce's date, when talking about raising kids in Gotham replied, "I don't know? In a city that idolizes a masked vigilante....", to which Harvey replied, "Gotham City is proud of an ordinary citizen to stand up for what is right".

Yeah a russian ballerina. A foreigner to Gotham. She was really indicative of the public opinion. Harvey was a self professed Batman supporter. Might as well have asked Alfred.

Nolan also showed us that common criminals were scared to do crime in the streets, cause they saw the bat-signal in the air, along with cops letting him go about his business on a crime scene, and a jail cell.

That was Gordon's influence. Like when he told Ramirez to shut up and leave when she turned on Batman at the crime scene of those two Joker victims. Batman was never able to go to any official scenes without Gordon bein there. There was no question criminals were scared of him. Nobody said different. Irrelevant point there.

Just because we didn't see people doing cartwheels, screaming, "ohz my gawd!!! I luvz da Batman!!!!", doesn't mean we were never shown peoples admiration for him.

Yeah there was, since Gotham was shown to generally think little of him, and not give a crap if his ID was gonna be spilled on TV. If they valued him so much especially with their white knight out of action, theyd have stopped that.

So now he wants copy-cat criminals who shoot at cops dressed in a Bat-costume? People were just following Batman's lead, because they were obsessed with his persona. If people were that obsessed with Batman, what's to stop them from following his new image?

Since they were already doing it when batman wasnt doing it, what difference is it gonna make?

 

[returntovoid]

I got to agree with Travesty here, if the Harvey Dent symbol is destroyed then why destroy the Batman symbol to hide the truth about Dent's road to madness?

I don't have much more to say since I don't want to fuel this BB Vs. TDK debate or TDK is not all that.

 

[The Joker]

My point is that there are other people who know what Harvey did.

Well just Ramirez, and Gordon's family, of course. I don't see either of them spilling the truth, do you? Especially Ramirez.

Again, you're missing the point. The point is that it was useless to take the blame, when it could have been covered up, or blamed on someone else. Gotham's symbol of hope is dead, and now so is Batman's reputation to the public. How is that even close to being productive? The whole point of Batman, was to create a symbol of hope for Gotham. He saw that in Harvey, who is now dead, along with Batman's reputation to the public. So now that one symbol is dead(Harvey), he needs to destroy another?

How could you cover it up? There was dozens of Cops outside. Way too risky to expect all of them to keep their mouths shut. Less people that knew the truth, the better. Any one of them could spill the truth. Or sell it to the Press etc.

There was nobody else to blame.

So he had to choose the lesser of two evils. Let the ugly truth come out and devastate Gotham, or shoulder the blame himself. He made the right decision, I think.

Yeah he did. Bruce's date, when talking about raising kids in Gotham replied, "I don't know? In a city that idolizes a masked vigilante....", to which Harvey replied, "Gotham City is proud of an ordinary citizen to stand up for what is right". Nolan also showed us that common criminals were scared to do crime in the streets, cause they saw the bat-signal in the air, along with cops letting him go about his business on a crime scene, and a jail cell. Just because we didn't see people doing cartwheels, screaming, "ohz my gawd!!! I luvz da Batman!!!!", doesn't mean we were never shown peoples admiration for him.

Ok, that's true, the Russian lady was under the impression Gotham seemed to like Batman, but since she was just a visitor to Gotham and not a native, I question the validity of her statement. It pretty much flies in the face of how Batman's standing in Gotham was shown. We even kicked off the movie with the Mayor talking about the hunt for Batman on TV.

Harvey was biased. He and Gordon supported Batman through everything.

So now he wants copy-cat criminals who shoot at cops dressed in a Bat-costume? People were just following Batman's lead, because they were obsessed with his persona. If people were that obsessed with Batman, what's to stop them from following his new image?

Ok, look at it this way: When he was being the decent non killing Batman, he spawned all these trigger happy pretenders. Now that he's seen as an actual killer, who doesn't want pretenders out and about in his city, you think they're going to risk crossing him now?

Also I think what happened to Brian Douglas on TV will scare the hell out any future would be copycats.