The Dark Knight SPOILERS MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOWING--Did Batman break his one rule?

[Ace of Knaves]

that scene from begins cant really be counted, he knocked that hot piece of metal into the fireworks solely as a escape plan, he obviously didnt want to kill anyone by doing so. and if these guys have been training as ninjas all their lives then they should be able to escape anyway, so no blame to bruce IMO.
anyway back to TDK, i think its all a matter of perspective. The Jokers perspective is that Batman broke his one rule when he had to choose who to save. The rest of Gothams perspective is that Batman broke his one rule because they are led to believe that Batman killed the people who Harvey killed. Batmans and Gordons perspective is maybe he broke his one rule by knocking Harvey off the building, but my perspective is that he didn't because Harveys life is already ended and by saving Gordons son it makes up for the loss of life.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

that scene from begins cant really be counted, he knocked that hot piece of metal into the fireworks solely as a escape plan, he obviously didnt want to kill anyone by doing so..

BS....what doest matter is his intent.

Werther he intended to kill or not doesnt matter in this case.

The only thing that really counts is werther or not it was foreseeable that someone might die in that fire.

and if these guys have been training as ninjas all their lives then they should be able to escape anyway, so no blame to bruce IMO.

By that logic I can start a fire in a Fire Department house and if anyone dies there's no blame to me because their Firefughters and have been training all their lives to fight fires.

As I pointed out some of those guys were trying to excape when they were knocked off their feet and rendered un-able to get out.

And its Bruce's fault.

 

[Motown Marvel]

that scene from begins cant really be counted, he knocked that hot piece of metal into the fireworks solely as a escape plan, he obviously didnt want to kill anyone by doing so. and if these guys have been training as ninjas all their lives then they should be able to escape anyway, so no blame to bruce IMO.
anyway back to TDK, i think its all a matter of perspective. The Jokers perspective is that Batman broke his one rule when he had to choose who to save. The rest of Gothams perspective is that Batman broke his one rule because they are led to believe that Batman killed the people who Harvey killed. Batmans and Gordons perspective is maybe he broke his one rule by knocking Harvey off the building, but my perspective is that he didn't because Harveys life is already ended and by saving Gordons son it makes up for the loss of life.

his rule is "no killing", not "no killing, unless..."

he killed. he broke his rule. you might want to personally justify the actions. but he still killed someone.

 

[Fenrir]

What are you basing this on?

Are you TRYING to stupid or ignorant? He was exhausted from the battle with the SWAT and The Joker. You can clearly see it in the scene when he's talking to The Joker hanging upside down. He's taking out of breath and when he leaves, he sort of limps his way away. And even when he's talking to Harvey, he's taking deep breaths. He wasn't exactly in tip top condition before Harvey shot him. And after the shot, he was weakened even more. Plus, like Luscious pointed out, the separation of the plates on the new suit made him more vulnerable to gunfire. It might very well be possible that Batman got shot between those separated plates, most probably wounding him. And even if he wasn't being shot in the gut even while wearing armor completely takes the wind out of anyone. That's why when he jumped at Harvey, you can clearly see that it was a desperate lunge, not some calculated tackle. He barely had enough strength to just lift up the kid. By then, he hadn't any left to pull himself up. And so he fell. In the end, even he's running from the cops, he's limping all the way to the Batpod.

There's simply no question that Batman was both injured and exhausted in the final act of TDK. Anyone who doesn't see that is either deaf, blind or dumb.

 

[The Guard]

He said he was knocked out by the gunshot. I wanted to know what he was basing this on. I see Batman fall over, but I don't recall seeing him unconscious until he actually fell.

 

[AmazSpiderman1]

Yah this whole "intent" arguement is really what the problem is here. People think if his intent was good, then he somehow is cleansed of breaking his rule. Like, if he broke his rule for the right reasons, then he no longer broke his rule.

Also, Batman isn't "hated" by everyone in the end because he broke his one rule. People seem to be forgetting, and I didn't totally realize it until I re-saw it, but Batman was going down the path of being wanted by the police when he started beating the crap out of them in that construction building. He totally disobeyed Gordon, and went in and started beating up on cops. Then the next thing the cops know, he's said to have killed a bunch of people. Batman's one rule really doesn't matter to anyone but Batman. I mean, I don't think the cops knew that "no-killing" was Batman's rule anyway, it was something personal to Batman. If he was involved in deaths, then of course they'd go after him, like they did, but because, like, "Well..Batman has finally broken his rule..." The entire end of the movie, even without the killing of Two-Face, just really cements that speech Alfred gave about Batman doing what it takes to do the right thing, and being hated for it.

I don't think The Joker considered Batman only being able to go after one of them (Harvey or Rachel) as him breaking his one rule. The only one who really had a grudge about that was Two-Face. Batman as depressed about it, but not like "Oh no, Joker made me break my rule..."

But out of all seriousness, Batman's intentions don't matter in this debate. We all know Batman is a good guy and wouldn't kill someone unless he had to, this is obvious and nobody needs to explain this ever again. For real. I bet someone will post in the next day saying "Well, Batman is a good guy and had to do it to save the kid!" NO KIDDING! We're past this. We've been past this for, like, 20 pages. Batman still broke his rule, in order to do the right thing, and the Joker won because his "ace in the hole" got Batman to do it. Batman is shown to be human, and corruptable, which the Joker thought he wasn't. The thing is though, that Joker was trying to get Batman to kill out of anger, or some extreme emotion, but in the end he broke his rule to save somebody, so everybody wins in some way.

And for those of you saying that Nolan would of made a bigger deal about it if Two-Face was dead, I doubt that. There's alot of things I thought Nolan would make a bigger deal about, like Batman as a character all around (not some amatuer with a sore throat who makes mistakes). Nolan loves to be subtle, and that's how he handled the ending. Lots of subtle meaning.

 

[Fenrir]

He said he was knocked out by the gunshot. I wanted to know what he was basing this on. I see Batman fall over, but I don't recall seeing him unconscious until he actually fell.

So you're saying he was just playing dead until Harvey's third coin toss?
You'd have thought Harvey was smart enough to shoot Batman a couple more times when he saw that Batman was still alive and kicking.

 

[Motown Marvel]

So you're saying he was just playing dead until Harvey's third coin toss?
You'd have thought Harvey was smart enough to shoot Batman a couple more times when he saw that Batman was still alive and kicking.

you'd also think batman would be smart enough to NOT give up a suit with protection against guns and knives for a suit that protects him from dogs instead. but this is the film we're dealing with.

p.s. yes, apparently a dogs bite can do more damage than a bullet fired from gun. who knew?!

 

[Ace of Knaves]

his rule is "no killing", not "no killing, unless..."

he killed. he broke his rule. you might want to personally justify the actions. but he still killed someone.

what so he should of just stood there, let harvey toss the coin and see if he blows this kids brains out? as i said Harvey can already be considered dead IMO "you think i want to escape this?" therefore i dont think he broke his one rule.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

you'd also think batman would be smart enough to NOT give up a suit with protection against guns and knives for a suit that protects him from dogs instead. but this is the film we're dealing with.

p.s. yes, apparently a dogs bite can do more damage than a bullet fired from gun. who knew?!

Well I think the new suit had better flexibility as well.

 

[AmazSpiderman1]

I just re-read Under the Hood: Volume Two, where Batman was stuck in the exact situation were talking about now!

Red Hood (Jason Todd) had a gun up to Joker's head and was counting down until he was going to shoot him, unless Batman killed Jason first, because Batman had a gun at his feet during all this. So Jason is counting down "3.....2.....1" and Batman whips batarang which bounces off the pipe directly behind Jason, and slices him in the neck. Jason drops the gun and falls to the floor, in pain from the wound. Everyone lives.

Now why couldn't Batman do this in The Dark Knight? Because Nolan deems it too unrealistic (probably) and wanted to amp up the drama. If Batman was portrayed accurately, he could of done something like he did in the comic, for sure. I think I'd rather settle for something that is a little fantasy based, for the sake of Batman's one rule being intact. But Nolan wanted to break the rule, obviously, so that's why Batman pushed Harvey off the building.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Yah this whole "intent" arguement is really what the problem is here. People think if his intent was good, then he somehow is cleansed of breaking his rule. Like, if he broke his rule for the right reasons, then he no longer broke his rule..

I can see where "Intent" factors into the argument in regards to his actions with Harvey.

It is possible ,but out of the character, for Batman to have thought that he could save both Harvey and the child.

So "MAYBE" he intended to grab Harvey but lost his grip.

Maybe Bat's didnt realize how close to the edge Dent was standing.

Maybe Bat's didnt know how much of a drop was behind Dent.

Granted these are things that the comic book Batman would have known but is Nolans Batman that skilled?????

So Batman's "INTENT" may be an issue in Dent's apparent death.

But none of that applies to his actions in starting that fire.

 

[AmazSpiderman1]

Still doesnt change the fact Batman was responsible for a mans death, whether it was an accident or not. Intentionally, or unintentionally, he broke his rule to never kill.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

i think his guilt will play a very important role in the next film, maybe it brings back all the feelings of guilt for his mum and dads death. he could start doubting himself and be battling with his inner turmoil, maybe a visit to his parents grave asking for forgivness or to find the stength to carry on. a scene where hes at his parents grave has been missing up to this point so i deffinatly see it happening in the next installment.

 

[Fenrir]

you'd also think batman would be smart enough to NOT give up a suit with protection against guns and knives for a suit that protects him from dogs instead. but this is the film we're dealing with.

p.s. yes, apparently a dogs bite can do more damage than a bullet fired from gun. who knew?!

Umm, wrong again. He sacrificed the greater protection for greater mobility.
"My armor's carrying too much weight, I need to be faster".
But that doesn't mean he "gave up" protection. His new suit is bulletproof as well. It's just a little bit vulnerable in spots where the plates are separated. It's an understandable tradeoff.

The separation of the plates made the suit a lot more flexible resulting in even greater speed and agility for Batman. Next time bud, trying staying awake during the film you're trying to criticize. It'll keep you from screwing up endlessly in an argument.

 

[Bads316]

He didnt break his rule by tackling Harvey IMO
the guy driving the garbage truck on the other hand? Man that musta hurt

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Still doesnt change the fact Batman was responsible for a mans death, whether it was an accident or not. Intentionally, or unintentionally, he broke his rule to never kill.

I agree.....if Dent is dead.

And you already know my position on the Ninjas.

 

[plod]

I'm gonna say yes, he killed Dent by pushing him off the building. Wikipedia puts it as "...before Dent can determine the boy's fate, Batman tackles him, both falling over the side of the building." He was saving the boy, but he pushed Dent over the edge, he didn't pull Gordon away from Dent. He shoved Dent with enough force that he landed well over the side.

He also killed Ducard. I mean this whole crap about 'I don't have to kill you but I won't save you.' He ordered Gordon to shoot out the monorail and left Ducard in a position where he died. He also killed the people when he detonated the bomb in the monastery. I also felt that he would have had to killed some of the Jokers goons during the chase. In particular the Bikie driving the garbage truck. He smashed the cab of the truck, into the tunnel roof, like beer can. Then dragged it for a couple of meters for good measure.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

I'm gonna say yes, he killed Dent by pushing him off the building. Wikipedia puts it as "...before Dent can determine the boy's fate, Batman tackles him, both falling over the side of the building." He was saving the boy, but he pushed Dent over the edge, he didn't pull Gordon away from Dent. He shoved Dent with enough force that he landed well over the side.

He also killed Ducard. I mean this whole crap about 'I don't have to kill you but I won't save you.' He ordered Gordon to shoot out the monorail and left Ducard in a position where he died. He also killed the people when he detonated the bomb in the monastery. I also felt that he would have had to killed some of the Jokers goons during the chase. In particular the Bikie driving the garbage truck. He smashed the cab of the truck, into the tunnel roof, like beer can. Then dragged it for a couple of meters for good measure.

Ducard?????No disrespect but.....You do realise that was the "Real" Ras Al Ghul dont you?????

 

[Wesley Dodds]

HARVEY DENT IS DEAD. I feel they were clear enough on putting this across. I think the only reason people are a little confused about this is because they dont want admit to themselves that maybe, just MAYBE Nolan might've made a mistake... The only real confusing issue over the ending for me is the fact that earlier in the movie Lucious Fox (and Nolan) go to great lengths to point out that the new Batsuit is NOT bulletproof... When Batman is shot at the end by harvey, apart from falling over he's competely fine! Kinda contradicting your whole realistic reinterpretation thing there aint ya, Nolan?

 

[Motown Marvel]

what so he should of just stood there, let harvey toss the coin and see if he blows this kids brains out? as i said Harvey can already be considered dead IMO "you think i want to escape this?" therefore i dont think he broke his one rule.

where did i say he should do nothing? and no matter what you say, fact of the matter is, batman killed harvey, harvey is dead because of batman. he broke his "no killing" rule.

Umm, wrong again. He sacrificed the greater protection for greater mobility.
"My armor's carrying too much weight, I need to be faster".
But that doesn't mean he "gave up" protection. His new suit is bulletproof as well. It's just a little bit vulnerable in spots where the plates are separated. It's an understandable tradeoff.

The separation of the plates made the suit a lot more flexible resulting in even greater speed and agility for Batman. Next time bud, trying staying awake during the film you're trying to criticize. It'll keep you from screwing up endlessly in an argument.

dude, it was a joke, man. though, its still ridiculous that a dog could bite through his old suit, which was bullet proof and knife proof. that doesnt make any sense.

 

[The Guard]

It is possible ,but out of the character, for Batman to have thought that he could save both Harvey and the child.

It's possible, and that would have been a nice angle. Unfortunately, it's not played that way.

It's not played at all. He just dives out of nowhere and then bam, Dent has fallen to the ground and Batman is hanging on with the kid.

 

[Saint]

He did break the rule, but that doesn't mean he abandons the rule or believes any less in the rule. The idea was--and this is suggested in the Creative Screenwriting interview with Jonathan Nolan--that the grim reality is that Batman's rule is impossible. No matter how hard he tries, sometimes people will die. Jonathan says he wasn't looking to kill Harvey, but that "If you want to be out here doing this, things will go wrong." Invariably, things will go wrong. Batman probably recognized that risk and accepted it, because he can't always force the world to work his way, where everybody goes home alive, even if he wants that more than anything.

I think they want to test this ideal realistically, and realistically this is the sort thing that will happen.

Obviously some will not find this approach appealing. Or, some may feel the execution was lacking, because maybe Batman could have done something different and saved them both, or that the message wasn't clear enough, or that Batman's reaction wasn't strong enough.

 

[Saint]

dude, it was a joke, man. though, its still ridiculous that a dog could bite through his old suit, which was bullet proof and knife proof. that doesnt make any sense.

Sure it does. The dog bit the joint: the place on the suit that will have less armour than anywhere else. It's probably a safe bet that, even on that old suit, the joints aren't bullet proof.

 

[Motown Marvel]

He did break the rule, but that doesn't mean he abandons the rule or believes any less in the rule. The idea was--and this is suggested in the Creative Screenwriting interview with Jonathan Nolan--that the grim reality is that Batman's rule is impossible. No matter how hard he tries, sometimes people will die. Jonathan says he wasn't looking to kill Harvey, but that "If you want to be out here doing this, things will go wrong." Invariably, things will go wrong. Batman probably recognized that risk and accepted it, because he can't always force the world to work his way, where everybody goes home alive, even if he wants that more than anything.

I think they want to test this ideal realistically, and realistically this is the sort thing that will happen.

Obviously some will not find this approach appealing. Or, some may feel the execution was lacking, because maybe Batman could have done something different and saved them both, or that the message wasn't clear enough, or that Batman's reaction wasn't strong enough.

he says they're exploiting the grim reality of batmans rule being impossible...but fact of the matter is, the grim reality of batman in general is impossible. it DOES bug me that they're very selective with their "realism" and have no problem straying from it when it services the story and drama, but apparently have no problem embracing it when it corrupts the purity of the character. i have no problem with them testing batman's morality and his rules, but this was just a craptacular way of doing it. i mean, a batman who cant think and perform his way out of a simple hostage situation is a pretty watered down and incompetent batman. and that doesnt excite me.