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

[Avengers-Report]

Batman was thinking to fast and was obsessed with not having the Joker win.

"No. The Joker can't win. I killed these people."

 

[Raptor2k]

For a second after reading the thread title, I thought the OP was going to talk about why Batman fell down physically.

He had plenty of time to get the grapple gun out, didn't he? t:

 

[Hobodeluxe]

C'mon guys this sets up a good premise for a third film and I'd bet Nolan has an idea for a story and this is just the prelude for it. He is probably going to hold out for megabucks though. Which he will get. I wouldn't worry too much until we see how he works it all out in the final film.

 

[Saint]

The justice system would care. The blame had to go somewhere. Ethically, Batman couldn't frame a living person. Framing a dead person would require them to account for evidence, motive, and so on in ways that simply couldn't be done on the fly. Covering up that Dent did it is a lot simpler than proving a dead mobster did it--the locations of dead mobsters can be accounted for. How could he kill these people if he was over here? Why did he do it? But Batman, nobody knows where Batman is at any given time. Everybody knows he leaves no trace, so the lack of evidence doesn't matter. Saying "I saw Batman do it" is enough. That gives them something to pursue, with with the mentality being that they'll prove or disprove it when Batman is captured. If you say "This dead mobster here did it," you've got to prove it. If you say "Batman did it, let's chase him" you only have to prove it once he's caught. Until then, you only have to make him a viable suspect--which, with Batman, is easy. The best solution was to say "Batman started offing bad guys."

Ha, how silly of me! I forgot the biggest reason of all: since Batman cannot ethically frame the living, that leaves only the dead--and there's literally no dead people to pin the murders on. There are no dead mobsters that died after Dent's killings, so Gordon couldn't say "A dead mobster did it."

Likewise, there are no dead Joker henchmen that died after Dent's killings, so the murders can't be blamed on a dead clown.

Batman is the only person that could reasonably have the murders pinned to him.

 

[Godman]

Well #1.) When you see the writers grand intention in the film, the film is far too obvious and the writer is not doing a very good job and being behind the scenes where they belong and #2.) I agree Batman should fall at the end of part two of a trio, that is good structure, however he should fall in a logical and believable way. Not in a way which makes him seem rash or foolish or having a death-wish. It should have never been a personal choice in his part - certainly not in a situation where it was entirely unnecessary for him to do so.

HE took the fall Harvey took for him at once cause if not for Him the city would not have gotten a radical cat like the Joker in the first place. Batman took responsibility beyond just Harvey Dent or himself. It was a very logical and rational thing to do. It sets up the third movie perfectly. This time Batman has to be vigilant and edgy as hell. I think we will finally get BATMAN at his prime

 

[Godman]

The first movie established the Bat mythos

The second has established the Bat universe

The third will establish the legacy

 

[The Battousai]

edit

 

[Godman]

Is this what you meant?

lol, yea thanks

 

[Aidan2209]

It was a very poignant climax to the film. Was it contrived? No. I'm pretty sure we aren't debating whether it was necessary to preserve Harvey's (hero, White Knight, Gotham's hope) image for the good of Gotham city. Okay, good.

The question, is why should Batman take the fall? Well, because he can take it. Because blaming The Joker (or any other thug), apart from being potentially ruinous if it was able to be disproved BY THE GUY WHO'S SITTING RIGHT HERE, MAN, wouldn't have been heroic at all. The whole film was more or less about morals and ethics, and you'd expect Batman, the guy who wouldn't break his one rule even when pushed to the brink, to be so cowardly and so completely un-heroic as to frame someone for murder? Self-sacrifice is his bag, not sacrificing others. And this is something he can endure.

And they can't really put him on trial. They'll never catch him. By night, he's the goddamn Batman, and by day he's Bruce, "Hey, I'm Bruce Wayne, who were you looking for," Wayne.

 

[Godman]

It was a very poignant climax to the film. Was it contrived? No. I'm pretty sure we aren't debating whether it was necessary to preserve Harvey's (hero, White Knight, Gotham's hope) image for the good of Gotham city. Okay, good.

The question, is why should Batman take the fall? Well, because he can take it. Because blaming The Joker (or any other thug), apart from being potentially ruinous if it was able to be disproved BY THE GUY WHO'S SITTING RIGHT HERE, MAN, wouldn't have been heroic at all. The whole film was more or less about morals and ethics, and you'd expect Batman, the guy who wouldn't break his one rule even when pushed to the brink, to be so cowardly and so completely un-heroic as to frame someone for murder? Self-sacrifice is his bag, not sacrificing others. And this is something he can endure.

And they can't really put him on trial. They'll never catch him. By night, he's the goddamn Batman, and by day he's Bruce, "Hey, I'm Bruce Wayne, who were you looking for," Wayne.

Damn if only I could have found the words to use at the time...you nailed it and that seals the deal. No more about this it's DONE!!!!

SACRIFICE???!!!! Pitting it on anyone else is practically a DEATH sentence to that person which is unethical for Bruce to wanna do. He was never meant to be the Hero, but the idea of hope and the symbol of justice. A hero is a person. He had to uphold the revolution and stop Gotham from going back to what he witnessed as a child.

 

[BaleISBatman4ev]

I like some of the ideas posted but there's one thing that hasnt been mentioned that my friend and I talked about. When Harvey Two face is laying there and the whole perimeter is surrounded by police they needed a quick alibi to get the cops away and hide/dispose of harvey to hide what he had done. Batman quickly tells gordon to 'call it in' so that he can lure the police away from Harvey to cover up what had just happened.

Of course the grander implication of Batman's decision is to restore Gotham's hope, and keep the crooks Dent put away behind bars, all that is more important than trying to convince the public that Batman is really the hero instead of the vigilante they all already believe him to be.

 

[the_scream]

Blaming Batman took the heat off Dent and any possible investigation. If they blamed anyone else, they would have denied it. If the police left them unsolved, someone would have probed deeper. Instead, they have a suspect - Batman - who is known for his brutality towards the mob and is on the run.

 

[the_scream]

It was a very poignant climax to the film. Was it contrived? No. I'm pretty sure we aren't debating whether it was necessary to preserve Harvey's (hero, White Knight, Gotham's hope) image for the good of Gotham city. Okay, good.

The question, is why should Batman take the fall? Well, because he can take it. Because blaming The Joker (or any other thug), apart from being potentially ruinous if it was able to be disproved BY THE GUY WHO'S SITTING RIGHT HERE, MAN, wouldn't have been heroic at all. The whole film was more or less about morals and ethics, and you'd expect Batman, the guy who wouldn't break his one rule even when pushed to the brink, to be so cowardly and so completely un-heroic as to frame someone for murder? Self-sacrifice is his bag, not sacrificing others. And this is something he can endure.

And they can't really put him on trial. They'll never catch him. By night, he's the goddamn Batman, and by day he's Bruce, "Hey, I'm Bruce Wayne, who were you looking for," Wayne.

Nicely put.

 

[Godman]

I like some of the ideas posted but there's one thing that hasnt been mentioned that my friend and I talked about. When Harvey Two face is laying there and the whole perimeter is surrounded by police they needed a quick alibi to get the cops away and hide/dispose of harvey to hide what he had done. Batman quickly tells gordon to 'call it in' so that he can lure the police away from Harvey to cover up what had just happened.

Of course the grander implication of Batman's decision is to restore Gotham's hope, and keep the crooks Dent put away behind bars, all that is more important than trying to convince the public that Batman is really the hero instead of the vigilante they all already believe him to be.

Also remember Gordan told Dent that nobody new the situation in the building but Batman who only figured it out when the Joker told him.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

ending was perfect and it made sense for a lot of reasons SOME of you did not even notice:

1. criminals were not afraid of batman anymore, because they knew he does not kill. he HAD to do something about it (without actually kiling someone of course)

2. he owed harvey one, he did the same for him earlier in the movie. also rachel was very upset because of that, so in a way he also did it for rachel.

3. most important: he is the dark knight! it should be obvious that he does not drive around in a car while the crowd applouds him...people hate him, fear him and are afraid of him, thats the way it should be.

I agree that those are awesome thematic reasons. And as I have already said, I do love the idea of him taking the fall at the end. Thats not the part I have a problem with.

I have a problem with the logistics of the story. First off, how do Gordon and Batman already know everything that Harvey has done and who he's killed? Second, what kind of evidence does Gordon have to fake or destroy or cover up in order to make this believable? Third, if Gordon did destroy the evidence that connected Harvey to the crimes, why would anyone need to be blamed, why not just leave the murders unsolved?

Any way you look at it, Gordon has a whole lot of crap to mess with in the evidence department. How is he going to tamper with 5 murder scenes and convince everyone what he is saying (Batman did it) is true when the facts don't add up?

 

[BatmanFanatic]

The justice system would care.

This is Gotham. WHAT justice system.

The blame had to go somewhere. Ethically, Batman couldn't frame a living person. Framing a dead person would require them to account for evidence, motive, and so on in ways that simply couldn't be done on the fly. Covering up that Dent did it is a lot simpler than proving a dead mobster did it--the locations of dead mobsters can be accounted for. How could he kill these people if he was over here? Why did he do it?

Like I keep saying, no one needs to be framed actually. Just erase whatever evidence there might be leading to Dent, and say "case unsolved." In real life, most murders are NOT solved. This isn't a strange thing to have happen, especially in all the chaos Gotham just went through... maybe evidence was lost, misplaced, the scene wasn't sealed correctly, etc. And therefore you can't actually blame or take anyone to trial.

But Batman, nobody knows where Batman is at any given time. Everybody knows he leaves no trace, so the lack of evidence doesn't matter. Saying "I saw Batman do it" is enough. That gives them something to pursue, with with the mentality being that they'll prove or disprove it when Batman is captured. If you say "This dead mobster here did it," you've got to prove it. If you say "Batman did it, let's chase him" you only have to prove it once he's caught. Until then, you only have to make him a viable suspect--which, with Batman, is easy. The best solution was to say "Batman started offing bad guys."

The best logical solution is to destroy evidence which links the murders to Dent and say nothing at all - that way they can have their cake (Dent still remembered as a hero) and eat it too (Batman can continue to help wipe out crime, without worrying about the cops on his tail and freaked out citizens.)

I know for thematic purposes Batman had to fall. I just think he should have fallen in a different way... or in a more logical way.

Haven't they heard of Occams Razor?

 

[BatmanFanatic]

1) You shouldn't see a writer's grand intention? You mean like in Empire seeing that Vader being Luke's father is going to play a major role in the next one as he has to accept him as his father and own up to the crimes of his father? Or that the Rebels were going to have to beat the Empire after a crushing defeat? Or Smegal would be a problem in destroying the ring and try to get the hobbits killed? Okay.

2) Who said Nolan's Batman isn't rash? I'd say he is guilty enough that he self-destructive right now if not suicidal. Think about that.

Yes. Actually, what I want to see in the 3rd film, is let's go even darker... and lets have a self-cutting, borderline, emo Batman. That would be sweet.







Not.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

Yeah people, a few mob deaths, and a cop is one thing, but how the hell do you think Gordon could explain Dent's death? Especially considering he was at the scene of the crime. As was Batman. I mean, there are really only two ways to respond to that situation... put the blame on Harvey, or put the blame on Batman.

How would anyone know that Gordon was at the scene unless he actually did what Batman suggested though? He could have easily taken his family away from the scene, done nothing, kept quiet, and when Dents body is discovered act shocked. And when evidence from the other murders goes back to police headquarters, tamper with it to remove Dents fingerprints, etc.

No one needs to know it was just Batman, Gordon, Dent and Gordons family. In fact... no one else does

 

[CaptainClown]

How would anyone know that Gordon was at the scene unless he actually did what Batman suggested though? He could have easily taken his family away from the scene, done nothing, kept quiet, and when Dents body is discovered act shocked. And when evidence from the other murders goes back to police headquarters, tamper with it to remove Dents fingerprints, etc.

No one needs to know it was just Batman, Gordon, Dent and Gordons family. In fact... no one else does

"I told you to come alone"
"They are making a perimiter"

The cops knew Gordon or his family was held hostage, it is also possible rameriez told them.

 

[the_scream]

This is Gotham. WHAT justice system.



Like I keep saying, no one needs to be framed actually. Just erase whatever evidence there might be leading to Dent, and say "case unsolved." In real life, most murders are NOT solved. This isn't a strange thing to have happen, especially in all the chaos Gotham just went through... maybe evidence was lost, misplaced, the scene wasn't sealed correctly, etc. And therefore you can't actually blame or take anyone to trial.



The best logical solution is to destroy evidence which links the murders to Dent and say nothing at all - that way they can have their cake (Dent still remembered as a hero) and eat it too (Batman can continue to help wipe out crime, without worrying about the cops on his tail and freaked out citizens.)

I know for thematic purposes Batman had to fall. I just think he should have fallen in a different way... or in a more logical way.

Haven't they heard of Occams Razor?

I don't agree. I think it is much easier to pass the buck to Batman than run around cleaning up crime scenes.

Secondly, as people have pointed out, Batman wanted to take the burden because that's what heroes do.

Thirdly, Gordon got the police on the trail of Batman so he could sort the whole mess up. The whole point was to redirect the police away from Dent. Your answer won't stop people from snooping around.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

Ha, how silly of me! I forgot the biggest reason of all: since Batman cannot ethically frame the living, that leaves only the dead--and there's literally no dead people to pin the murders on. There are no dead mobsters that died after Dent's killings, so Gordon couldn't say "A dead mobster did it."

Likewise, there are no dead Joker henchmen that died after Dent's killings, so the murders can't be blamed on a dead clown.

Batman is the only person that could reasonably have the murders pinned to him.

Occams razor says - there is no need for pinning it on anyone. Leave them unsolved.

I only harp on these sorts of things and catch them in films now days because I am up to my eyeballs in screenwriting books and realize that it's such a common error in storytelling to overcomplicate things beyond reason, just to make something fit a theme. The solution is to find a way to fit the theme, but in a simpler, more logical, more elegant way.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

It was a very poignant climax to the film. Was it contrived? No. I'm pretty sure we aren't debating whether it was necessary to preserve Harvey's (hero, White Knight, Gotham's hope) image for the good of Gotham city. Okay, good.

The question, is why should Batman take the fall? Well, because he can take it. Because blaming The Joker (or any other thug), apart from being potentially ruinous if it was able to be disproved BY THE GUY WHO'S SITTING RIGHT HERE, MAN, wouldn't have been heroic at all. The whole film was more or less about morals and ethics, and you'd expect Batman, the guy who wouldn't break his one rule even when pushed to the brink, to be so cowardly and so completely un-heroic as to frame someone for murder? Self-sacrifice is his bag, not sacrificing others. And this is something he can endure.

And they can't really put him on trial. They'll never catch him. By night, he's the goddamn Batman, and by day he's Bruce, "Hey, I'm Bruce Wayne, who were you looking for," Wayne.

And I LOVE the self-sacrificing, dark, brooding, world-on-my-shoulders aspect of Batman. But he sacrifices when it NEEDS to be done, not when it's pointless and irrational.

No one had to be blamed for the murders in order for Dents reputation to remain clean. The public wouldn't want to believe anything bad about Dent anyway, so you'd really have to have a lot of evidence against him in order to "prove" he did it... a little trip to the evidence locker by Jim Gordon, and Dent's memory will remain untarnished, while Batman can pretend he was never there.

 

[the_scream]

Occams razor says - there is no need for pinning it on anyone. Leave them unsolved.

I only harp on these sorts of things and catch them in films now days because I am up to my eyeballs in screenwriting books and realize that it's such a common error in storytelling to overcomplicate things beyond reason, just to make something fit a theme. The solution is to find a way to fit the theme, but in a simpler, more logical, more elegant way.

Occams razor says the simplest answer is the best. Doesn't mean it is the one that is believed.

 

[the_scream]

And I LOVE the self-sacrificing, dark, brooding, world-on-my-shoulders aspect of Batman. But he sacrifices when it NEEDS to be done, not when it's pointless and irrational.

No one had to be blamed for the murders in order for Dents reputation to remain clean. The public wouldn't want to believe anything bad about Dent anyway, so you'd really have to have a lot of evidence against him in order to "prove" he did it... a little trip to the evidence locker by Jim Gordon, and Dent's memory will remain untarnished, while Batman can pretend he was never there.

Man, now it seems like people are trying to not make this work.

How hard is it to understand that Dent was critical for the hope of Gotham. Batman wasn't going to take any chances sacrificing Dent's image because it would mean all of Gotham would have lost hope. Now, Gordon and Batman could have sat around waiting for things to happen and cleaned up a few crime scenes or they could do one simple thing: finger Batman for the crimes and get Dent off immediately. All the other suggestions on this board so far would be weak and ultimately wouldn't hold up.

 

[Aidan2209]

^ This is true, also. A scapegoat in Batman is a lot better than a giant question mark that warrants investigation.