The Dark Knight The “Dark Knight” Debate – Did Batman Need To Fall?

[The Guard]

The real question is...did Batman need to actually, literally FALL at the end (and forget to use his glider cape)?

"I...I can't...hang on...I...can't...remember to use my cape."

 

[Raiden]

The real question is...did Batman need to actually, literally FALL at the end (and forget to use his glider cape)?

"I...I can't...hang on...I...can't...remember to use my cape."

That's what happens when Batman doesn't have prep time.

 

[The Guard]

Heh.

 

[I Am The Knight]

It's not public knowledge that he was working with the police.

Right, but the police itself knows. It's not just Bats, Gordon and Dent. And surely people are aware of the Bat Signal.

The SWAT team saw how there was immense friction between Gordon and Batman right before that encounter - Batman wants 5 minutes with Joker, Gordon gives him 2.

So Batman snaps and decides to kidnap Gordon's family over "friction" ?

And as Gordon says at the ruined building, all they know is that "there's a situation, they don't know who or what."

And coming up with an explanation could be problematic, I'd assume.

The real question is...did Batman need to actually, literally FALL at the end (and forget to use his glider cape)?

"I...I can't...hang on...I...can't...remember to use my cape."

Not dramatic enough.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Edit: Darn it, I hate being the last post, nobody ever sees it.

I believe that the point of his self sacrifice is for the good of Gotham. To keep the city's attitude and moral outlook positive. Throughout the movie, Harvey was professed as the "White Knight" of Gotham, the city's savior. Gotham's citizens had started to believe that. If the city learned that their "hero" had gone bad and murdered five people...then what kind of message does that send to the citizens that believed in Harvey and what he did?

We're going to have to wait til the third movie to see the repercussions from this.

This is exactly why Batman had to take the fall, at least that's how I interpreted it. Gotham needed hope.

And Gordon couldn't gloss over it and try to say a random Mobster did it or something like that. There were at least 20 cops right outside the construction site. They knew there was a "situation" the only people in that place besides Gordon and his family were Batman and Dent. You had to blame it on one of the latter two. Gordon couldn't say "oh it was one of Maroni's guys" because how in the heck did the guy get away? The place was surrounded by cops, he would have been seen.

There wasn't any other way to go about it without blaming Dent.

The real question is...did Batman need to actually, literally FALL at the end (and forget to use his glider cape)?

"I...I can't...hang on...I...can't...remember to use my cape."

I thought that too, especially when he feel off the roof with Rachel, that seemed like an ever steeper fall.

 

[The Guard]

I would have preffered the following: Dent has fallen, Gotham's going to find out eventually, their friend and ally is gone/turned to evil. Batman is wanted for his vigilante acts and the nature of the escalation Gotham feels he has caused. Hope is going to be scarce in Gotham. The hope at the end of the movie would be a glimmer, and would come from the audience knowing that despite all these elements, Batman will continue to fight for Gotham.

 

[The Guard]

Not dramatic enough.

Oh, I beg to differ. For one thing, the drama, instead of coming from the absurd "Is Batman dead" moment after he falls, could have come from "Is Harvey dead", with Batman landing beside his onetime friend and ally and frankly, being sick about what just happened, wanting to know if Dent is alive or not, etc, and how this affects him. He barely reacts, and it's sort of played as a foregone conclusion (I know, I know, he might not be dead...)

 

[bunk]

I thought that too, especially when he feel off the roof with Rachel, that seemed like an ever steeper fall.

Hey, let's be honest here... Rachel did seem to put on a few mysterious pounds from when we saw her last.

That was mean.

 

[Anita18]

Right, but the police itself knows. It's not just Bats, Gordon and Dent. And surely people are aware of the Bat Signal.

So Batman snaps and decides to kidnap Gordon's family over "friction"?.

Right, but the police aren't aware of Batman's ethics. They just know Gordon trusts him. Most of them don't trust him themselves.

The police don't have any idea what the hell is going on. Batman is there fighting off the Joker's goons and the SWAT teams, and Gordon has already left to find his family. Batman presumably finds him when he follows the SWAT team. I have no idea what kind of excuse they'll come up with, but that's why I don't do these kinds of things.

Falling from the ledge reflects his fall into the cave when he was a boy. That moment was pivotal in him becoming Batman, as is this moment. It's when he finds the reasons for Batman's existence - to be whatever Gotham needs him to be. It's like a rebirth.

You can consider that hokey, but it's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[bethehero7404]

I think that Gordon, who knows that Batman is "framing himself," will work with Batman in the future but a lot more secretively. Did you notice his hesitation before breaking the Bat-Symbol? In three, he'll work with Gordon. The third one will be a struggle with Gordon too. He knows Batman is innocent but will have to act accordingly as if he was guilty of killing those men. That will add to the third.

Dark Knight definately had a Empire Strikes Back feel to it. With Dent as Han Solo? That means he'll be back too. I hope.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Oh, I beg to differ. For one thing, the drama, instead of coming from the absurd "Is Batman dead" moment after he falls, could have come from "Is Harvey dead", with Batman landing beside his onetime friend and ally and frankly, being sick about what just happened, wanting to know if Dent is alive or not, etc, and how this affects him. He barely reacts, and it's sort of played as a foregone conclusion (I know, I know, he might not be dead...)

I wasn't being serious

Right, but the police aren't aware of Batman's ethics. They just know Gordon trusts him. Most of them don't trust him themselves.

The police don't have any idea what the hell is going on. Batman is there fighting off the Joker's goons and the SWAT teams, and Gordon has already left to find his family. Batman presumably finds him when he follows the SWAT team. I have no idea what kind of excuse they'll come up with, but that's why I don't do these kinds of things.

Falling from the ledge reflects his fall into the cave when he was a boy. That moment was pivotal in him becoming Batman, as is this moment. It's when he finds the reasons for Batman's existence - to be whatever Gotham needs him to be. It's like a rebirth.

You can consider that hokey, but it's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I suppose you could say that about the police. Gordon did say the official order is to arrest the vigilante known as "The Batman" after all, but I would say there are cops that trust him, and would be stunned to hear that he went on a killing spree and kidnapped Gordon's family...Not that the movie had time to touch on this, of course. I think the whole situation has gotten quite complicated, that is all. No easy answer to this, oh Nolan...

Well, I guess that's a good thing.

 

[Silver Souper]

I would have preffered the following: Dent has fallen, Gotham's going to find out eventually, their friend and ally is gone/turned to evil. Batman is wanted for his vigilante acts and the nature of the escalation Gotham feels he has caused. Hope is going to be scarce in Gotham. The hope at the end of the movie would be a glimmer, and would come from the audience knowing that despite all these elements, Batman will continue to fight for Gotham.

i like that. i haven't read this on the board yet but here's my take: we all are assuming too much about the intent of the filmmakers. Sure- bats and gordon's decision to lie and take dent's crimes on bats isn't logical or ethical, and perhaps nolan agrees with us! showing it does not mean nolan agrees with it. the whole movie is filled with ambiguity, grey areas and ethical questions. this extends to the final sequence.

perhaps in part III, bats and gordon will get their asses kicked for covering up the truth about dent and lying about it. they will learn from the slippery nature of good vs. evil which has got them AGAIN. maybe batman will come to regret the outcome with dent, realizing that his reactionary nature is skewing his one rule- that, although he didn't intend to kill dent, it happened because of bat's impulsiveness.

so let's not assume nolan sees the end as "within batman's limits and ethical." perhaps we'll see just how much it costs both men in 3.

however- if nolan portrays the end of 2 as heroic and noble in 3, i will be pissed. it's a serious departure from the nature of the characters.

 

[MCRapier9]

Dark Knight definately had a Empire Strikes Back feel to it. With Dent as Han Solo? That means he'll be back too. I hope.

man im so glad someone else felt this way

 

[Mr. Socko]

Batman's been helping the police, being a "good guy" ... Then all of a sudden he snaps, goes on a killing spree, kidnaps Gordon's family, and kills Dent

If anything the force is really going to come down on Gordon for such poor misconduct.

He lets an unstable maniac dressed as a bat, who conveniently covers his face with a mask so they won't know who he is, walk in on crime scene investigations while other cops are by and has meetings with him on the rooftop by calling him with a signal.

Gordon's badge should be taken away ASAP.

 

[wootbaby]

1) Batman does not CARE that the public thinks he is an ultra-violent vigilante. if anything everyone thinking he will kill makes his job easier
2) Dent dying a HEROIC death trying to stop Batman is totally different from him dying randomly
3) there's no ethical difference between Batman taking the rap or a random goon

So to those posters who say "but but but why couldn't they pin it on someone else?" you just 100% dont get it. The story they concocted is the most heroic possible death for dent... batman pushed beyond his edge by the joker goes wild and starts killing people, Harvey Dent, the white knight steps forward to give his life forcing the Batman to flee.

Try to put emotion aside and think logically. What is the primary goal here? A) To get batman off the hook? B)To sweep the deaths under the rug? Or is it C) to set up Harvey in death as a symbol for the city. You guys are running around like A or B is important at ALL. Batman couldn't care less about A. B happens EVERY DAY in Gotham. C will save the city. And what story best serves the purpose of C? It's a no brainer what are you all crying about?

To have a problem with Bruce and Gordon sweeping the real details under the rug is to be totally ignorant of the entire message of TDK. To cry about "what message does it send to the kids???" and all the bleeding heart crap is to totally misunderstand what's going on. A world like that where you have the luxury to sit around worrying about semantic messages rather than some maniac blowing up your entire block is far from the world that Batman lives in. in fact that sort of decent world DOESN'T NEED BATMAN. People in Nolan's universe CANNOT HANDLE THE TRUTH. Do you not understand? In the movie it explicitly states that if the truth about Dent got out the city would tear apart... that's not conjecture, the movie plainly says if A then B. People cant handle Harvey being a criminal. If you're given a choice between saving thousands of lives or telling a white lie which do you do?

Nolan being British and not from Hollywood, the movie is a bit old fashioned and does bear the markings of a sort of paternalistic old british feel... for example a time years ago when doctors for their own good wouldn't tell patients they were terminal, or if parents dont tell kids they're adopted so they can enjoy their childhood until they're ready to hear the truth

But this idea isn't evil it's realistic. The idea is that people need other people to lean on and help them. Sometimes as a fact of life people aren't at a place where they're ready to hear certain things... it's like when Alfred burned the letter... someday Bruce will know what it said but right now it would destroy him... for the common good Rachel's message is safeguarded by Alfred until Bruce is ready. Dont be too sad or freaked out... this IS a movie... there's no question that Batman WILL be redeemed and the world will some day know the truth. Right now, this is the hard choice Batman and Gordon HAD to make for the rest of the city. If you STILL simply cannot handle that... well go back to Kids WB you're not ready for the mature messages in this movie

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

The real question is...did Batman need to actually, literally FALL at the end (and forget to use his glider cape)?

"I...I can't...hang on...I...can't...remember to use my cape."

Ugggh ... he just took a bullet at close range to the midsection, and prior to that was getting beat with a pipe as three vicious dogs had attacked him ... maybe everything wasn't working right physically for him to get to his cape. I mean seriously ... you could make idiotic questions like this out of ANYTHING in any movie.

 

[Viper81]

1. The public already views Batman as the bad guy, remember? He let FIVE PEOPLE DIE because he wouldn't stand up and reveal himself to the Joker. The public is already outraged by Batman. They have already turned on him. Batman and Gordon realize this. Batman is not a symbol of hope to the people right now. Harvey is.

2. The public views Harvey as a heroic symbol. Where they view Batman as an outlaw and a criminal, Harvey has established himself as someone who is cleaning up their city, who is putting an end to the mob's control over Gotham and is putting a "face" (remember Bruce and Rachel on the balcony) to the hope of Gotham. So we know that NO DOUBT Harvey's reputation cannot be comprimised, or it will destroy all they worked for.

3. Motive. You can't have murder without a proper, believable motive. Who has motive to kill the people the Harvey killed? The mob? NO! The men killed were PART of the mob. The Joker? He was too busy terrorizing the entire city to even have the time to kill these people who died at the same time thousands of people were held hostage. They simply CAN'T place Joker at the scene of all those crimes, because too many people have already seen them. This leaves only ONE person, one LOGICAL person to have killed these people. It HAS to be Batman or Harvey, because they are the only two people (aside from Gordon, who has the whole police force vouching for his whereabouts) with the MOTIVE to kill these people. These aren't random people that Harvey killed. In fact, it's understandable why Harvey killed who he did, really. But he was acting in revenge, which would've destroyed his reputation.

So the ONLY logical explanation would be boiled down to three people: Gordon (whose whereabouts were verified by the police force), Harvey, or Batman.

They couldn't let Harvey take the fall, so it HAD to be Batman, because he's the only one with the "motive" aside from Harvey.

Let's also look at it like this. The police have created a perimeter. They don't know WHO is inside. All they know is that there is a situation. and the ONLY people ON the scene are Gordon, his family, Harvey, and Batman.

Well they know that it was Gordon's family who were the victims and that it COULD NOT be Gordon because the situation was already happening before he got there.

That leaves either Harvey or Batman, because they are the only two people at the scene of the crime.

Aside from the motive spiel, this is the singlemost logical reason why Batman took the rap. Now the police see a crime. They see Harvey dead and Gordon's family terrorized and who do they see fleeing the scene? None other than Batman.

So it was either Harvey or Batman. You take your pick. Batman choose to take it on himself to retain Dent's rep.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

I really get what your saying BatmanFanatic. I posed the same questions in the Two Face thread, I think. Some of the responses in this thread have helped me reconcile the ending a little more.

At the end of the day, I think what really works for me; is how the Joker really did get the last laugh.

He told Batman he'd "make him break his one rule". And he totally does. As far as the public is concerned, Batman did kill. He broke his one rule. Joker wins.

#1.) Agreed

#2.) No kidding! I wish the film would have dealt with that MASSIVE point.

I think it was important to see him fail. I would have preferred to have seen him fail and see Gotham turned against him, not just to see him force Gotham to turn against him out of some misguided sense of guilt. I don't think he HAD to fall quite the way he did, but it's nice to see them actually exploring the concept of a vigilante in Gotham.

I think you nailed my problem with it right there. As I keep saying - the themes are great, and I wanted everyone against him, but the idea that he *made* it happen, instead of just suffering through it happening through circumstances beyond his control, didn't sit well with me.

Some are going to claim its being picky over a tiny detail, but its a huge character point that little detail.

The real question is...did Batman need to actually, literally FALL at the end (and forget to use his glider cape)?

"I...I can't...hang on...I...can't...remember to use my cape."

HAHA!

It wouldn't have bothered me just the one time. It's the fact that he forgot how his cape works multiple times. WTF was with the Rachel fall? Falling from the penthouse skyscraper and Batman does what... breaks the fall with his BACK!?? (even Kevlar ain't that good )

 

[BatmanFanatic]

double post - sorry!

 

[BatmanFanatic]

eww stupid lag. Triple post. *hang head in shame*

 

[Dr. Crane]

one way you can look at it is.... gliding mechanisms have a top and bottom.. like a hang-glider... which i've tried... both times "he forgot" to use his cape.. he was primarily falling backward... if the cape is in-fact like a glider.. it wouldn't work unless he was able to rotate over before he hit. i think he tried with rachel in his arms, but he kept spinning...

the fall at the end?... no time.. not even for his grappling gun... i may be trying to justify a little.. who knows..... i guess i'm more surprised he didn't use his gun and cable during the fall with rachel.. but again, it looked as if they were constantly spinning.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Question: Did Batman really need to take the fall for everyone Dent killed? Was it simply a matter of needing to have it happen for thematic purposes? Couldn’t Gordon blame one of the Jokers dead goons or a mobster or some other person besides Gorham’s hero?

Wondering what you all think about this, I am conflicted. I do *love* the idea of Batman having everyone on his tail and being a real outlaw, but I don’t think the logic is there for how it happened in this version of that story.

agreed. the whole purpose was so Gotham wouldn't lose a hero, but they lost one anyways.

 

[FaT_tONle]

So what evidence do they have on Batman other than a sworn statement from Gordon?

 

[Spider-Fan]

Batman was at the scene at least for Dent.

 

[Lazlo Panaflex]

Having Batman take the fall served as a cliffhanger for it to be resolved in Batman 3 like all good trilogies (Star Wars, Back To The Future, Porky's).

It also reminds the audience to not always expect a triumphant outcome for all superhero movies, kind of like Star Wars Episode 5 where TDK sets itself as the darkest of the trilogy (if Nolan decides to do a third one).