The Dark Knight Rises Anyone else think they overrated Harvey Dent's importance to the story?

[Green Goblin]

For all the times he was referenced I always felt that he wasn't too important.

His only real importance was with the Harvey Dent Act and how it kept the criminals in bars. With most of the film going back to Begins reminding us constantly Harveys story felt like they were trying to show TDKR as the final part in "what was always concieved as a trilogy" and/or trying to tie it into TDK's success.

Anyone agree?

 

[milost]

As far as the Dent act and "Harvey Dent Day", yes.

What The Dark Knight depicted was weighty enough, especially with that ceremony. Making a holiday in his honor and eatablishing this crazy conveinent act was too much. I'm not even sure how something like that would work. Pretty hard to swallow.

The fact that we only had Blake question "that night" infuriates me even more. They make Dent's death such a huge deal, more so than Dark Knight depicts, yet nobody seemed to want Batman's head on a platter for his numerous crimes. If Dent's death was that important where were the investigations and manhunt on Batman? They know who he's a man, they know some guy named Coleman Reese knew who Batman was days earlier to the crimes and Batman is a cop killer, a public servant killer, and humiliated the GCPD. If Dent's death made holidays and Acts, the city and GCPD should have wanted Batman's blood and went looking for him.

 

[BatLobster]

Nah.

To me, the single biggest question I had after seeing TDK was, "How will they show the impact of lying to to keep Harvey as Gotham's white knight?"

That was it. Not who the villain was going to be, not if Batman was going to continue trying to fight crime while being hunted, but that. Because to me that was the big cliffhanger. Obviously if they made a third film the truth would probably have to come out, but in order for that to have any impact the city would've had to have changed based on martyring Dent in the first place. So I saw no way they could make a third film without referencing that, but I feared that Nolan would try to make another "stand alone" movie and leave that stuff in the air.

Basically, I was worried that a third film would make me feel like Batman sacrificed his reputation for no good reason. Luckily, that wasn't the case.

 

[DACrowe]

I actually really loved the use of Harvey Dent, as Harvey the tragic villain--or even better, a tragic hero--has always been one of my favorite aspects of the Batman mythos. And save for The Long Halloween and Dark Victory, few have done it better than how Nolan handled it, IMO.

About 12-18 months passed between BB and TDK, and for 6-12 months of that (depending on how the timeline works), Dent was DA. In that time, he apparently rooted out hundreds of low-level gangsters, a few dirty cops, and nearly every money launderer with ties to the mob. He was certainly a big deal to the city, and assuming they could still prosecute what was left of organized crime after TDK, his Rico case likely served some importance.

So no, I don't think he was overblown. And if you think Gotham was shown as too gaga for him, keep in mind that he was a fresher face "hope and change" politician who inspired people. He also was cut down before he could disappoint anybody.

Another way to look at it: many on the right whine that JFK is put on a pedestal because he died, and that his only significant accomplishment in three years was preventing WWIII with the Cuban Missile Crisis (which the war hawks still blame him for, as he did not invade Cuba and start a war earlier during the Bay of Pigs).

Now, see how Kennedy is eulogized still to this day after what happened to him. It is very easy to see how a fallen politician who died fighting the good fight (in the public's eye) would be held up like that. In fact, it is one of the most believable aspects of the trilogy.

 

[DACrowe]

As far as the Dent act and "Harvey Dent Day", yes.

What The Dark Knight depicted was weighty enough, especially with that ceremony. Making a holiday in his honor and eatablishing this crazy conveinent act was too much. I'm not even sure how something like that would work. Pretty hard to swallow.

The fact that we only had Blake question "that night" infuriates me even more. They make Dent's death such a huge deal, more so than Dark Knight depicts, yet nobody seemed to want Batman's head on a platter for his numerous crimes. If Dent's death was that important where were the investigations and manhunt on Batman? They know who he's a man, they know some guy named Coleman Reese knew who Batman was days earlier to the crimes and Batman is a cop killer, a public servant killer, and humiliated the GCPD. If Dent's death made holidays and Acts, the city and GCPD should have wanted Batman's blood and went looking for him.

Well to keep my Kennedy metaphor going, after the young, charismatic, inspirational politician was assassinated, may attribute his death as galvanizing the Democrats (under LBJ's more deft legislative hand) to finally stand up to the Dixiecrat racists in their party and passing the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act of 1964.

So yes, a stolen hero can inspire political change. It is also apparently what happened in Nolan's world after the Waynes were murdered. This is not unheard of. Especially as the Dent Act is a parable for the Patriot Act, and we all know how that got written in a time of outrage and reactionary rhetoric that was certainly not for the best.

 

[Lord]

The revelation to the public was badly made, Bane was blocking the entire city and making its society go upside down by releasing a bunch of dangerous criminals, i think that finding out the truth about Harvey was the last thing one people's minds at the time, or even a good justification for what was being done.

By the way, what did the Harvel Dent Atc exactly consist of?

 

[The Joker]

The revelation of the Dent cover up was badly handled. All we got as a reaction to the big cover up ( and I don't know why anyone would just take Bane's word for it either) was Blake giving Gordon a flowery speech about the morality of what he'd done. No Gotham reaction at all to it.

 

[milost]

The President of the United States is a little different than a District Attorney. To this day people question and think there's a conspiracy about Kennedy's death. In TDKR, nobody seems to care about what went down. In fact, the only reaction we get to the big reveal is from . . . John Blake. Nobody else really seems to care that Batman didn't do anything while Dent did.

That's what I'm talking about here. Dent is only important when Nolan and Co. call for it in the story. Dent is either this figure that the city cares about . . . or he's not. You can't have it both ways. In The Dark Knight, the city views him as this White Knight, by TDKR? They don't really seem to care. The 8 year gap accentuates it even further. If the city cared, if the Mayor cared, if the GCPD (out of Gordon's control) cared, they all would have actively hunted down Batman. Not just let the whole ordeal get slid under the rug and just view Batman as this "dastardly, thug" that got away. We don't even get Bruce's response to the reveal, probably the most important reaction second to Gordon's.

Look at Lee Harvey Oswald, patsy or not, look at how the country looked at him. If the city cared, there would be investigations, Coleman Reese and Rameriez would be brought in, people would question how Batman killed Maroni or kidnapped Gordon's family at the same time as he subdued the Joker. You have eyewitnesses. Even Gordon says "you just can't sweep that up". There would be a massive man hunt for Batman, starting with Gordon. Yet we never see Gordon or the Police Deparment pressured into finding Dent's killer. That drama isn't even evident in the entire trilogy.

It's only "important" for the story so that Bruce can retire. That's it. It's no longer important to the citizens any more like it was originally in The Dark Knight (where you had no name character's callling in on Mike Engel's show to talk about Dent). Unfortunately, all Dent is in TDKR is a plot point, a red herring. They completely debauch the character's importance from the previous film by making the ramifications of the lie/pact that Gordon and Batman, larger than they should have been. I don't care if TDKR's story is grounded in realism or straight fantasy. The end of the Dark Knight should not have led to TDKR. It's completely ludicrous and only there to have our hero "frozen in time".

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Everything proposed in TDK about the covering was awfully handled in TDKR.

There were no consequences visible for anyone. Gordon lied, Batman lied, yet nothing was shown of the public reaction against them. Gordon ended up still being commissioner and Batman was honored with a statue.

Worst resolution of an interesting plot.

 

[DACrowe]

The President of the United States is a little different than a District Attorney. To this day people question and think there's a conspiracy about Kennedy's death. In TDKR, nobody seems to care about what went down. In fact, the only reaction we get to the big reveal is from . . . John Blake. Nobody else really seems to care that Batman didn't do anything while Dent did.

Yes, when he's said to be "the first legitimate ray of hope in Gotham in decades," it is music to your ears. When it is said that he is considered a great, martyred man in TDKR it is BS.

Why am I not surprised? I can only guess.

 

[milost]

But only the Mayor is shown saying that. We don't know how any of the citizens feel. They literally have no voice in TDKR. That's the difference. In the Dark Knight, Gotham's citizens were characters. The ferries, Mike Engel's program, the police, the televised batsignal event where Gordon is severing their ties with Batman. etc. You got complete randoms like Berg, the Ferry prisoner and the Ferry businessman that represented the city and it's views and reactions.

In TDKR, we got nadda. We have Foley, Blake, orphans, and father what's his face, but there is absolutely no reaction or care in the world about the big Dent reveal. Something audiences waited 4 years to see. Dent's only meaning is the holiday and act, but we're never shown or told how those things exactly work. Instead, they just do. The 8 year gap conveniently takes the Gotham from Dark Knight (everyone in that film) and conveniently tosses them aside. The Joker? Oh we can't talk about him. The Gordon's? Cleveland. Rameriez? Who cares? Coleman Reese, the man the city and police would be after for the identity of the man that killed Dent? Nope, nothing. Mike Engel, a public face and supporter of Dent and a detractor of the police and Batman, who is later saved by Batman? Nothing. The SWAT guys that clearly heard Dent call Gordon? Or the SWAT that came to the realization that the clowns were the hostages and the hostages after Batman visibly saved everyone's ass?

8 year gap "sweeps" all that up. The actual reveal is laughable. It ended up being a written letter that Gordon kept in his pocket for a few days, read by . . . the new villain of the week. The reaction to the reveal? A new comer that played no part in Begins and Dark Knight that is suddenly involved with everything thanks to a poorly written meeting that we as an audience had never seen.

 

[Green Goblin]

Sure was convenient how Gordon kept his confession with him days after the ceremony. ..

 

[BatLobster]

It was literally the following day.

 

[Shikamaru]

The revelation of the Dent cover up was badly handled. All we got as a reaction to the big cover up ( and I don't know why anyone would just take Bane's word for it either) was Blake giving Gordon a flowery speech about the morality of what he'd done. No Gotham reaction at all to it.

Yep. 4 years of buildup and no reaction seen from Gotham whatsoever.

Worse than that, Bane had no evidence that he was telling the truth. He just pulls out a sheet of paper and says it was written by Gordon. How does Gotham (presumably) just believe him? If he made Gordon tell the truth in front of the whole city, that would have been a different story.

 

[Lord]

And even then, with what was happening meanwhile, i don't think that many would care. It would be like having a burglar pointing a gun at somebody, and then also say that the person's neighbor had been stealing the person's food.

 

[milost]

Not according to the novelization. It's two days.

In the film I think it's 24 hours + though, you're right. They talk about the congressmen not coming home, then the whole next day is the stuff with Bruce, Alfred and Blake and the orphan. Later that evening is the ordeal with Selina and the prints, and then of course, the sewers.

It's still convenient that Gordon had something that important and that revealing in his pocket instead of just putting it away for next year. It's even more dull that Bane's goons would search him and take out a stupid, written paper. Then again, the city just buying (despite not shown to actually care) Bane's speech and trusting that those were Gordon's written words after this guy just blew up the city and killed the Mayor/Gotham rogues is just as bad. It's just a terrible way of exposing the secret.

I'm sure people will claim that is a nitpick, but I don't see how. A nitpick would be complaining that the newspaper picture of Bruce (that shows Bruce went bankrupt, the one Fox hands him when he's in his dad's robe) is a major continuity error because the picture of Bruce that they use is from later that day when he loses Wayne Enterprises and gets his car towed . . . which hasn't happened yet. The letter and reveal? The lack of explanation of how the lie worked for over a year when there's major contradictions to Batman actually committing the crimes? I don't see how anyone that loved the Dark Knight could buy into that so easily and not find fault with it. I mean, this huge plot point is "resolved" because of a written letter that the bumbling Commissioner kept in his pocket. The crux was solved because the new big bad just happened to find it. Then the pay off that we waited 4 years to see was simply Joseph Gordon Levitt getting pissed at Gordon because his "hands are filthy". Really? That's the best they had after 2008? A letter and a new character getting mad?

 

[BatLobster]

Here's the thing milost...and this is NOT the "TDK 2.0" argument. But what would you have preferred? A story that spent a tedious amount of time wrapping up plotlines from TDK? Or a story COMPLETELY removed from TDK entirely? I don't think you even have an answer, because from everything I can tell...your ideal scenario probably would've just been no third movie at all, leave it at TDK.

In short, yes I love TDK and yes I was fine with how that stuff played out in the film. Some narrative shortcuts were taken, sure, but that's so easily forgivable for me when condensing stuff like that paves the way for a story I'm interested in. And TDK itself takes TONS of narrative shortcuts, as does Nolan's work in general. It's how he's able to cram such a gigantic amount of plot into his movies. This isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it's one of his trademarks.

Were they making a political thriller about how a scandal goes public and the nuts and bolts of all of that? No. They were making an epic that deals with the ramifications of a society based on a lie and how evil can co-opt that. Therefore the way it was handled in the film played right into the symbolism they were going for of "evil rising". Gordon's conscience is struggling with this lie, so thematically it's a nice touch that it IS that simple...that the truth is right there on his person, waiting to be dug up by men with horrible intentions.

Also, the fact that it's a "new character" getting mad is utterly irrelevant.

Consider this- back in 2005, I thought Batman was going to be spending his time "looking into it", like he said. I thought the film was going to start with Batman having already spent time looking into The Joker. But nope. He's actually still more interested in taking down the mob and thinks The Joker can wait.

Turns out, The Joker doesn't even really register on his radar until a bunch of "new characters" that were never mentioned in the first film hire him to kill Batman.

I'm sorry milost, I'm sure you won't see that as a relevant parallel, but that's exactly the type of thing you'd hold against TDKR.

If you don't get how one can like it, fine, but it's sure as hell not due to a lack of trying on my part.

 

[milost]

I'd have preferred a sequel to The Dark Knight that was what Dark Knight was to Begins. Dark Knight was certainly no "Begins 2.0".

Your reasoning with Gordon's concience, well, it is there in the film. I think it could have been executed a lot better. Sure, it's not a political thriller, it's a big Batman movie, but I expected something a little less babified than a written letter. "This evil rises"? Why does it rise? Bane and Talia had no idea about the conspiracy. How convenient that it just played into their plan. How did they plan on winning the city over originally without that stupid letter? Justifying Blackgate. What if Gordon moved away with his family to Clevland while Talia and Bane spent those 3-5 years rigging Gotham up for destruction. It's just so stupid to me. You're intelligent Lobster, that doesn't feel unnatural to you? It's like early 2009-2010 fan fiction of how the reveal would go down. "Okay, there's this act and holiday that made Gotham peaceful and Batman isn't needed anymore. one holiday, Gordon made a letter about the truth. Instead of revealing it, he keeps it in his pocket for a day or two. There's gonna be Bane who is part of the LoS. He finds Gordon and the letter and spills the beans about Harvey Dent to justify his plan and to let the criminals out of teh jail. The city doesn't really care except for Robin."

You honestly love that reveal? That's good writing to you?

You mention Begins' and "I'll look into it". But where is the inconsistency in the Dark Knight with that and how is that a fair comparison. Dark Knight occurs in a short time frame after Begins, not eight looong years later. It was also mentioned that Batman had Scarecrow and half the inmates at Arkham to worry about which Dark Knight handles. But no, lets go after "I'll look into it". What in the Dark Knight contradicts that line? Batman clearly knows about him "him again", but doesn't seem to care. How does that negate him looking into it? "New characters"? You're really going to compare the different factions of mob families stepping up to take Falcone's place/survive to as "new characters" like Blake? The new characters that we're introduced to like Maroni, Dent, Lau, etc. aren't these all knowing characters that have just popped up and are questioning the story like Blake. Dent isn't just coming into the story saying that he met Bruce Wayne a few years ago offscreen and just KNEW he was Batman. He's not making it all his own until his character is built up. Blake? He just pops in and is pointing at Gordon questions everything. He's all knowing. He knows something is up, he knows Bruce is Batman, and he's the only one that seems to care about the lie. This is all with little to no development. Atleast with the new Dark Knight characters we had a viral story campaign. Dent or Maroni just doesn't pop in and make these huge advancements. In fact, that court meeting sets both of them up simutaneously (if we don't count Bruce's paranoia watching Dent and Rachel on his computer screens).

New characters in TDKR don't have that. Folley is just there, doing his thing. Blake is just there and knows everything. The situation, how Gordon feels, the sewer, Batman's identity, and we're barely introduced to him in the movie. It relies entirely on contrivities, from Blake's story of just knowing, to Alfred's new fantasy for Bruce that I guess manifested during Begins, to the lie just working and being undone because the villain reads a letter. A nuclear clean energy that happens all off screen. A whole new back story for a character, that's not really for the character, but for a different one revealed at the climax of the movie. The Dark Knight never once had to rely on these crazy story plots that happen on numerous time frames. I never had to sit there and listen to things that supposedly "happened", scene after scene. The story simply unfolded in the Dark Knight without rambling a of "8 years ago", "30 years ago", "this time I met you", "this unspecified time", "over here", "over there". Other than Rachel turning the coin over, how many previoualy filmed flashbacks did Dark Knight have to rely on? Zero.

 

[BatLobster]

Sorry milost, but I haven't spent the last year and a half defending this film by not speaking my honest opinion and just saying stuff for the sake of it. I stand behind everything I said, and most things I've said about the film this point are the same things I've been saying from Day 1. I like to think my post history holds up to scrutiny and that if nothing else, I've been extremely consistent in my stance on every debate point. What that all amounts to is a coherent reading of the film that doesn't seem to be shared by most people here. All we do here is debate the cogs and gears of the individual writing choices made in this film, and focus on each of them individually...but the truth is, when I take a step back and see it all in service of what the film is trying to accomplish, when I get that cathartic sense of satisfaction when the title card hits...I can only feel that each of those choices amounted to a worthwhile bigger picture, and therefore are worthy of my defense.

However, there's a difference between thinking something is "good" writing and not thinking that something is "bad" writing. The plot point with the letter itself is...fine, I don't love it or hate it. I do love the symbolism behind it and find it to be a nice character touch. I also think it's kind of elegant in its simplicity, but I understand why someone might think it's a tad convenient. Then again, that's nothing on how much good luck The Joker had in TDK.

If they never found the letter, I'm sure Bane could've still made a similar speech about the "injustices" of the Dent Act, the "oppressors of generations", etc. The thing is, the Dent truth was really just the cherry on top for them. I think some people were put off by that because they would've preferred that it was the whole cake. Which is fine. I CAN get why some people didn't like that, same as I "get" most of people's issues with TDKR. It doesn't mean I agree. I find the fact that it's merely fuel to "The Fire" to be precisely the point.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Here's the thing milost...and this is NOT the "TDK 2.0" argument. But what would you have preferred? A story that spent a tedious amount of time wrapping up plotlines from TDK? Or a story COMPLETELY removed from TDK entirely?

What about what any good writer would do; a story that would wrap up TDK's plotlines in a proper and exciting way? It doesn't have to be tedious, you see. Generally, good writers propose storylines for the future that they will have fun working with.

 

[BatLobster]

What about what any good writer would do; a story that would wrap up TDK's plotlines in a proper and exciting way? It doesn't have to be tedious, you see. Generally, good writers propose storylines for the future that they will have fun working with.

Go figure, that's exactly what I believe the good writers who wrote this movie to have done. Only they did what most good writers in their position would've done- write a sequel to the first two movies, not just the most recent movie, that brings the themes and plotlines of BOTH to a conclusion in an exciting, proper way.

 

[milost]

And what plotlines and themes from Begins needed to be concluded? Did we really need to see Ra's Al Ghul's wife or what drove him when it was already established and concluded his character in Begins? Begins ended with themes of escalation and Rachel holding out for Bruce. That continues with The Dark Knight.

The only way TDKR takes it back to Begins is by artificially pumping Begins with concepts that weren't there in 2005. Examples? Alfred's fantasy. That was never once indicated, expressed, or hinted at in Begins. Legacy characters like Blake? Bruce never wanted that. The alteration of teaching you to face and overcome your fears to the BS of "fear is why you fail". There was nothing from Begins to TDKR that needed to be concluded . . . until TDKR added things to Begins' history or inverted it's concepts to make something "new".

It's never had to go back to Begins. Those ideas were resolved in Dark Knight and didn't need to be revisited. That's why most Threequels (not all) have a knack for going back to the beginning (Spider-Man 3 for instance) for no apparent reason other than rehashing.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ofxfYinuKKc




[YT]ofxfYinuKKc[/YT]

 

[shauner111]

For me, they did wrap up TDK's plotines in a proper and exciting way. And i didn't think it was tedious. It's as simple as that.

 

[Walt Bickle]

they should have stuck to there guns after tdk. They could have still made a film based on dark knight returns, but have the media speculating on the contradictions of batmans murders. having batman continuing his career rather then retiring and have catwoman and gotham rogues already established... but the villains now think batman kills. have cole reese established as riddler exploiting batmans identity etc. this is only half of the things they could have done.... oh and change that bloody suit and cave and vehicles etc

 

[BatLobster]

Convenient how you're ignoring everything in my post addressed towards you, and pounce as soon as you have something new to harp on. Constant moving of the goal post is a sure sign that a typical TDKR debate is in effect.

But yeah, considering the fact that the series starts on the question of whether or not Gotham is "beyond saving", and Bruce had sacrificed so much to save it...it's pretty much Drama 101 to face Bruce in his final hour (as Batman) with the past coming back to haunt, and the threat of everything he's done for the city being all for nothing. Not to mention the fact that legacy themes (with Thomas Wayne) were a huge part of BB that simply was not touched on at all in TDK. If you're going to end a character's arc, you have to look at things in the beginning. It's the same principle as setting up something in Act 1 of a screenplay and paying it off in Act 3. It's just basic storytelling.

Lol and milost, you're stealing one from my playbook with the Scream 3 clip. I've posted that before to backup my own points. It really all depends on what one wants in a threequel. I'm actually a huge fan of the Scream franchise, and Scream 3 is probably the worst. But it's not because they tied it back to Scream 1. That was actually the best part of it IMO. It made a lot of sense tying Maureen Prescott's origins back to Hollywood, it fit the themes of the trilogy like a glove. It's the worst mostly because of the more comedic, "Scooby Doo" tone. But the commentary on trilogies and the way they dealt with it in their typical meta fashion was really cool.