The Dark Knight Discussion of TDK finale

[Sonic1002]

A great ending the film had yes, but that part kinda killed the whole "Batman doesn't kill" that was repeated through the film.

And upon further thinking, he did the same damn thing in Batman Begins too.

"I won't be an executioner!!!"

*Fast forward to the end of the movie*
"I don't have to kill you, but i don't have to save you either"
YES YOU DID JUST KILL HIM!!! Unless the man can survive a 40 story drop by jumping out of the train car, yes, sir, you did just kill him, because there is NO WAY he could have saved himself.

 

[CJ]

And upon further thinking, he did the same damn thing in Batman Begins too.

"I won't be an executioner!!!"

*Fast forward to the end of the movie*
"I don't have to kill you, but i don't have to save you either"
YES YOU DID JUST KILL HIM!!! Unless the man can survive a 40 story drop by jumping out of the train car, yes, sir, you did just kill him, because there is NO WAY he could have saved himself.

I do agree with you somewhat, but I think his "i dont have to save you" line was refrencing earlier in the film, when Bruce saved Ducard. Instead of thanking Bruce, What does Ducard do? Nearly destroys the entire city of Gotham, burns his house down, and leaves him for dead. I think Bats was merely saying "I saved you once, and you had to go and f**k things up. You know what? I'm not gonna save you this time. You're on your own. See ya!"

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

And upon further thinking, he did the same damn thing in Batman Begins too.

"I won't be an executioner!!!"

*Fast forward to the end of the movie*
"I don't have to kill you, but i don't have to save you either"
YES YOU DID JUST KILL HIM!!! Unless the man can survive a 40 story drop by jumping out of the train car, yes, sir, you did just kill him, because there is NO WAY he could have saved himself.

Now, I don't like the whole "I don't have to save you" bit, but there is a big difference between that and outright killing someone.

He broke the window, which gives Ra's an exit. It's not his problem if Ra's doesn't have a grappling gun or a parachute or something! Bats came prepared, why shouldn't Ra's? He's not a child who needs his hand held.

That being said, I agree with you in spirit. Because not only does Batman not kill, he also always saves. Countless times has he risked his own life running back into a burning building or a sinking ship to rescue an enemy. Oh well, that's Hollywood.

 

[ultimatefan]

^Which is a remain from golden age superhero ethics that doesn´t really make much sense. It´s okay that Batman won´t kill for a number of reasons - he won´t go down to Punisher level, making himself judge and executioner, he walks on eggs with the law enforcement as it is, he wants his mission to be about more than revenge, etc. -, but that he´ll always risk his own life to save psycho killers and mass murderers is a bit of a stretch. They also do it in comics so they can keep bringing the villain back, which you don´t need to do in movies.

Plus, as we saw in TDK, the memory cloth cape wasn´t made to carry two people, and it was his only way out of the train, he wasn´t in a position to jump down and use his grappling hook on the tracks, the tracks were collapsing.

Likewise, in TDK his priority, as it is in any hostage situation, was to save the hostage, Gordon´s kid,. and he had to do ir right after being knocked down by a gunshot. Say "he couid have tried this or that" all you want, but it was a highly dangerous situation whatever his action was, you could have a sniper aiming at Harvey from a safe distance and it could still go all wrong and end up with the kid killed. Any hostage situation where the hostage turns out alive and well, especially without a proper police squad involved, is a success, ask any expert.

Of course it´s not your cliché action movie/comic book ending where the hero is knocked/injured and the second later he´s back at top shape and sharpness, but TDK was ALWAYS meant to go beyond being the cliché action movie/comic book movie.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Not to offend but we are discussing script decisions. You are discussing character decisions, which is invalid, because these are determined by the script decisions. Make up any excuse but one quick rewrite and Batman could be laying eggs that hatch superpowered Batbabies. Logic does not and never will apply like that to movies because circumstances are governed by script, not what is actually happening onscreen. This is why we are debating the actual decision by the makers to make Batman kill, not why Batman himself killed because many of us already believe that to be out of character for him.

 

[metalhead_dave]

This has been one of my few complaints about the movie. I don't think it hits his throat, but I honestly CANNOT tell where those blades hit him. You can see some knock the detonator out of his hand, but past that, you cannot tell where it hits him.

Here's your explanation.

For example, the Joker was not struck in the throat by the blades. They only grazed his face and you can see the cut on his cheek when he's hanging upside down.

 

[Rasputin911]

People are so damn squeamish. I always thought it was common consensus that if Batman had to choose between a criminal's life and an innocents, he would go with the innocent. But i guess not.

Just seems logical to me.

 

[Fenrir]

While we're at it, it should also be noted that Jonathan Nolan himself stated that the circumstances in TDK were created as such to really put to test Batman's "one rule" and to what extent is it possible for him to uphold it. That said, Batman did break his "one rule" in the end, because as The Joker put it so succintly in the interrogation room, "killing is making a choice, to choose between one life or the other" and in the end, Batman chose to save Gordon's son.

 

[JL Unlimited]

Not to offend but we are discussing script decisions. You are discussing character decisions, which is invalid, because these are determined by the script decisions. Make up any excuse but one quick rewrite and Batman could be laying eggs that hatch superpowered Batbabies. Logic does not and never will apply like that to movies because circumstances are governed by script, not what is actually happening onscreen. This is why we are debating the actual decision by the makers to make Batman kill, not why Batman himself killed because many of us already believe that to be out of character for him.

Does this debate stem more from the fact that people are mad that Two-Face died rather than Batman accidentally "killing"??

I mean, how differently could they have done it? Two-Face already flips the coin in the air so Batman has a split second to react. He's laying on the ground hurt from just being shot and he's a good 10-20 feet from Two-Face and Jimmy. It all seems logical to me. First priority is to save the innocent person from the psycho and the only way to do that in the amount of time he had was to dive at them.

 

[JL Unlimited]

While we're at it, it should also be noted that Jonathan Nolan himself stated that the circumstances in TDK were created as such to really put to test Batman's "one rule" and to what extent is it possible for him to uphold it. That said, Batman did break his "one rule" in the end, because as The Joker put it so succintly in the interrogation room, "killing is making a choice, to choose between one life or the other" and in the end, Batman chose to save Gordon's son.

This idea plays out a few more times particularly in the ferry scene and when Batman chooses to go save Rachel rather than Harvey. Actually, you can make a valid argument that Batman kills Rachel when he made his decision and spin it that way but people seem more fixated on Batman killing Two-Face.

 

[Fenrir]

This idea plays out a few more times particularly in the ferry scene and when Batman chooses to go save Rachel rather than Harvey. Actually, you can make a valid argument that Batman kills Rachel when he made his decision and spin it that way but people seem more fixated on Batman killing Two-Face.

Exactly. The entire notion of "killing is as simple as making a choice" is a recurring theme throughout the film. Batman chooses to save Rachel and in doing so, leaves Harvey to die which isn't that much different from what happened in the climax of BB (saving himself or Ra's). In the same way, The Joker forces the people of Gotham to choose between the lives of their loved ones in the hospitals or Reese. And then pits them against the convicts into saving themselves by blowing the other ship up.

In a way, TDK is a standing critique of Batman's "one rule" and how plausible it really is, especially in difficult circumstances. It also highlights the bitter truth that in a battle of good against evil, sometimes difficult decisions cannot be avoided and that sacrifices will have to be made. Batman's decision to save Gordon's son over upholding his "one rule" is a classic example of the clash between an idealistic choice and a pragmatic one. And this is what the filmmakers intended to explore with the constant dilemmas in TDK.

 

[Drizzle]

This thread is turning into the "Did Batman break his one rule?" thread from a while back.

 

[ultimatefan]

Not to offend but we are discussing script decisions. You are discussing character decisions, which is invalid, because these are determined by the script decisions. Make up any excuse but one quick rewrite and Batman could be laying eggs that hatch superpowered Batbabies. Logic does not and never will apply like that to movies because circumstances are governed by script, not what is actually happening onscreen. This is why we are debating the actual decision by the makers to make Batman kill, not why Batman himself killed because many of us already believe that to be out of character for him.

I doin´t want Batman to be laying eggs that hatch superpowered batbabies, the plot and character decisions were consistent with the bat-universe that Nolan created, where things don´t neatly tie al nicely to make the superhero prevail without any ambiguity or compromise or doubt. What is out of character is to make a character act out of his personality, and Batman didn´t, he acted first and foremost to protect an innocent life, which is what he always does.

 

[ultimatefan]

Exactly. The entire notion of "killing is as simple as making a choice" is a recurring theme throughout the film. Batman chooses to save Rachel and in doing so, leaves Harvey to die which isn't that much different from what happened in the climax of BB (saving himself or Ra's). In the same way, The Joker forces the people of Gotham to choose between the lives of their loved ones in the hospitals or Reese. And then pits them against the convicts into saving themselves by blowing the other ship up.

In a way, TDK is a standing critique of Batman's "one rule" and how plausible it really is, especially in difficult circumstances. It also highlights the bitter truth that in a battle of good against evil, sometimes difficult decisions cannot be avoided and that sacrifices will have to be made. Batman's decision to save Gordon's son over upholding his "one rule" is a classic example of the clash between an idealistic choice and a pragmatic one. And this is what the filmmakers intended to explore with the constant dilemmas in TDK.

Exactly, people criticize the writers for putting the characters in situations that set them into dubious moral decisions, but that´s the point, that moral decisions aren´t nearly as easy as some more conventional hero stories will have you believe. You can swear to God to never take a life and yet cause a death by accident or by being forced into a decision that leaves no choice.

 

[ultimatefan]

This idea plays out a few more times particularly in the ferry scene and when Batman chooses to go save Rachel rather than Harvey. Actually, you can make a valid argument that Batman kills Rachel when he made his decision and spin it that way but people seem more fixated on Batman killing Two-Face.

Exactly, people are so fixated on the death of Harvey, yet Batman arguably made much more of a mistake by choosing to save Rachel, which was a personal decision, understandable, yes, but if he chose Harvey he´d have most likely saved his loved one´s life and Harvey could have died on his terms, as a hero and a martyr.

 

[Fenrir]

Exactly, people are so fixated on the death of Harvey, yet Batman arguably made much more of a mistake by choosing to save Rachel, which was a personal decision, understandable, yes, but if he chose Harvey he´d have most likely saved his loved one´s life and Harvey could have died on his terms, as a hero and a martyr.

Hey, nice observation. It also makes me look at Batman's decision to sacrifice himself in order to protect Harvey's reputation in a fresh light as a sort of repentance for his selfish choice in choosing to save Rachel earlier - that this time, he chose to uphold the greater good; that which was best for others rather than himself.

That's what I love about Nolan's Batman. It's just teeming with layers for anyone who is willing to step out of their boxes of comic book conformity and look at the film for what it is.

 

[ultimatefan]

Hey, nice observation. It also makes me look at Batman's decision to sacrifice himself in order to protect Harvey's reputation in a fresh light as a sort of repentance for his selfish choice in choosing to save Rachel earlier - that this time, he chose to uphold the greater good; that which was best for others rather than himself.

That's what I love about Nolan's Batman. It's just teeming with layers for anyone who is willing to step out of their boxes of comic book conformity and look at the film for what it is.

Exactly, the canon isn´t a sacred book of laws, it´s a great foundation from which you can expand and constantly find new levels and interpretations.

 

[Franklin Richards]

ultimatefan? What hole did you crawl out of? You pimp!

 

[ultimatefan]

^The dark cave underneath my mansion... Nah, a pretty demanding job.

 

[Anjow1060]

And upon further thinking, he did the same damn thing in Batman Begins too.

"I won't be an executioner!!!"

*Fast forward to the end of the movie*
"I don't have to kill you, but i don't have to save you either"
YES YOU DID JUST KILL HIM!!! Unless the man can survive a 40 story drop by jumping out of the train car, yes, sir, you did just kill him, because there is NO WAY he could have saved himself.

If it had been anyone other than Ras I'd have been pissed. But you don't have Ras locked up in Arkham. Just doesn't happen my friend. He's "mysterious" and all that. Ras, IMHO, is very much alive. Biding his time.

- Jow

 

[Anjow1060]

Joker put it best;

"Killing is making a choice. Choose between one life or the other."

Batman had to choose to Dent or the boy. He had one hand to hold one person and another to hold onto the ledge. He could not have done both. This is not BTAS where he can grab 5 people mid-air in a giant hug and still hold his grappling gun. Tackling Dent was the best thing he could do. He could very well have tackled Dent before he even appeared. He came out of nowhere remember? He could have just attacked him then. But he doesn't. Because Batman exhausts all options to save someone. He tried to talk Dent out of it but there was no chance. If he had done that, I think that would be defined as killing.

You people need to understand 2 things;

1) The difference between homicide and manslaughter.

2) Batman DOES kill when all other options are exhausted. In cartoons and such they can't let him kill someone because the little kid groups would protest. But he does everything he can to save people and not kill. If that was the only option he has to take it. Not killing is his one rule. His one PROMISE is to never let another person go through what he did. He wasn't about to let another innocent kid be harmed by crime. Think about it. What would you do if you were Batman?

- Jow

 

[Doctor Jones]

Batman's choice between Rachel and Dent was great. If he saves Rachel, he can be with her, but he can't stop being Batman since Dent's dead and now has to continue, putting as stop on him wanting to be with her. If he saves Dent, Rachel's gone and that puts end to him begin together with Rachel, he could stop being Batman, but without being with Rachel. So either way, he would loose.

 

[Doc Samson]

Batman's choice between Rachel and Dent was great. If he saves Rachel, he can be with her, but he can't stop being Batman since Dent's dead and now has to continue, putting as stop on him wanting to be with her. If he saves Dent, Rachel's gone and that puts end to him begin together with Rachel, he could stop being Batman, but without being with Rachel. So either way, he would loose.

Exactly, like mentioned above, it was a pure selfish choice on his part to try and save Rachel, and I think the Joker was smart enough to assume he would do that, already seeing him jump out a window to save one person while leaving the Joker alone with a room full of innocent people.

Dent meant more to Gotham and its people, and yet Batman was willing to let him die in order to save a woman he could never be with without Dent's help anyway. Dent was the one who would allow him to hang it up, and, like he tells Alfred "I let that murdering psychopath blow him half to hell." Indeed he did, and lost the woman in the process. When you look at it that way, taking the blame for the murders was the least he could do...

 

[BestGirl]

If it had been anyone other than Ras I'd have been pissed. But you don't have Ras locked up in Arkham. Just doesn't happen my friend. He's "mysterious" and all that. Ras, IMHO, is very much alive. Biding his time.

- Jow

The BB novel said, IIRC, that there were no human remains found on the train, so I believe that Ra's did escape and is biding his time.* t:

*Yes, I know that movie tie-in novels shouldn't necessarily be trusted, but I thought the idea was interesting nonetheless. I want to believe it.

 

[Anjow1060]

If anything, O'Neil knew fanboys would read the novel and put that in there. I'm sure DC Comics had discussions with Nolan and WB about how to handle certain things. They, after all, do know best.

I'm sure that's why TDK has a slightly ambiguous vibe around Dent's Death, or non-death. Whatever it may be. We see him laying there, motionless. Could be dead. Could be knocked out. Could be paralyzed. Could be in a coma. And then we see an "honorary ceremony" going on. They could have said he died as part of the cover up. He could be in Arkham or a hospital on life support. We don't know.

And I think Nolan was like "in my world, he's dead. I won't use him again if I do another film. And my films will always be my world. If someone brings him back later on, I left the door unlocked for them to do it, but the door in my world is still shut."

- Jow