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

[BatmanFanatic]

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.

Everything that we know about Gotham city from these films is that no one gives a $#!t about the crime or real justice. The one bright spot was Harvey Dent changing that in this film. With Harvey gone, things aren't exactly going to be lawful and wonderful all of a sudden. The city is wounded from top to bottom corruption, the people are traumatized, I doubt that there would be a great deal of interest in "getting to the bottom" of a few bad-guy killings. The only death that would really raise questions in Dents...

 

[BatmanFanatic]

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.

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

But this is sacrificing one hope for another hope.

Batmans ability to fight crime is going to be greatly diminished after all the cops are shooting at him on sight and all the citizens are terrified of him. So what other horrible things are going to happen now because Batman has made himself less effective?

 

[the_scream]

But this is sacrificing one hope for another hope.

Batmans ability to fight crime is going to be greatly diminished after all the cops are shooting at him on sight and all the citizens are terrified of him. So what other horrible things are going to happen now because Batman has made himself less effective?

Gotham lost faith in Batman. Don't you remember how they turned on him, calling for him to come forward. Dent was the "White Knight" of Gotham. Remember, these people are symbols and much more powerful as such. The people of Gotham would have come undone if the White Knight became a murderer. This symbol of hope is more important than Batman.

 

[CaptainClown]

In TDK the city seems to be concerned about justice. In BB it doesn't seem so. We have brave DAs willing to prosecute 500+ criminals, as well as Judges and citizens are demanding justice.

Gotham has gotten somewhat better from BB where anything could happen, but it has not fully healed and that is why Dent is important. If Dent died a villain, Gotham would have lost hoped and it would be back to BB. If dent died a hero then Gotham can still stand against the mob.

Joker put it best " A year ago these cops and lawyers wouldn't dare cross any of you I mean what happened."

 

[the_scream]

Everything that we know about Gotham city from these films is that no one gives a $#!t about the crime or real justice. The one bright spot was Harvey Dent changing that in this film. With Harvey gone, things aren't exactly going to be lawful and wonderful all of a sudden. The city is wounded from top to bottom corruption, the people are traumatized, I doubt that there would be a great deal of interest in "getting to the bottom" of a few bad-guy killings. The only death that would really raise questions in Dents...

C'mon. Gotham wasn't that far gone that murders were not investigated or prosecuted.

 

[Aidan2209]

But this is sacrificing one hope for another hope.

Batmans ability to fight crime is going to be greatly diminished after all the cops are shooting at him on sight and all the citizens are terrified of him. So what other horrible things are going to happen now because Batman has made himself less effective?

Again, he can take it. He's the goddamn Batman. He just made things harder for himself, sure, but he'll endure. Gotham has its hero in Harvey Dent, that was the most important thing. But, Batman is their silent guardian, a Dark Knight. Being the outcast, and being hunted, come with the territory, and it certainly won't stop him.

 

[FNSpidey]

I agree it could have been explained in a more believable way, but I also think the answer we need is in CaptainClown's post:

"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.

I'm not sure the cops knew there was a hostage situation, but they certainly knew that something was going down there AND that Gordon knew about it.

Think about it, they're setting a perimeter around the place and in a sec they'll come in and see Dent's body lying there. What can Gordon say? "Oh, I don't actually KNOW what happened, I just called you on a hunch and didn't really see anything myself, so... Yeah, unsolved murder, case closed"? Besides, it's very possible someone would see Bats leaving. I know normally he could just vanish, but here the police is right around the corner and he's badly injured. Not to mention any evidence that might suggest his presence there. The situation would at best be fishy, maybe tarnishing Dent's name (as mysterious death situations tend to do).

So, with the police knowing that Dent was dead there, that Gordon knew that something was going on, not to mention his family being there probably as hostages (he wouldn't just take them there for a family pic-nic, would he?) and possibly that Batman was there too, there are only two options available: blame Harvey or blame Bats.

Choose the second option, throw in the rest of Two-face's murders and you have a clean-cut case that makes Dent a hero and requires little investigation.

I, too, am usually VERY annoyed by plotholes, to the point that I just can't enjoy some otherwise well made films. But I think this case is relatively easily explained, even if it requires some thought.

P.S.: I know there' the question of why would Batman take Gordon's family as hostages, but I think an explanation could easily be thought of, or Gordon could simply say he has no idea why he'd do that.

 

[Fenrir]

I think one big obvious point BatmanFanatic consistently fails to grasp regarding the justice system in Gotham is that Dent's image as a martyr would inspire the courage and vigilance needed in the citizens to stand up against organized crime more than ever before. In such a situation, it would be ridiculous to have a "case unsolved" tag on Dent's body, considering he is Gotham's hero and the good people would leave no stone unturned in their attempt to discover the truth.

Secondly, Batman was never a ray of hope for Gotham in TDK. If anything, they despise him even more because he did not give in to The Joker's demands despite the general populace also wanting the same, what with people chanting words like "things are worse than ever" and The Joker going "THIS is how crrrrazy Batman has made Gotham". The citizens already blame Batman for all the misfortune that has recently befallen on their city. So it's not like Batman taking the blame for those murders is going to make any difference.

 

[Aidan2209]

I think one big obvious point BatmanFanatic consistently fails to grasp regarding the justice system in Gotham is that Dent's image as a martyr would inspire the courage and vigilance needed in the citizens to stand up against organized crime more than ever before. In such a situation, it would be ridiculous to have a "case unsolved" tag on Dent's body, considering he is Gotham's hero and the good people would leave no stone unturned in their attempt to discover the truth.

Secondly, Batman was never a ray of hope for Gotham in TDK. If anything, they despise him even more because he did not give in to The Joker's demands despite the general populace also wanting the same, what with people chanting words like "things are worse than ever" and The Joker going "THIS is how crrrrazy Batman has made Gotham". The citizens already blame Batman for all the misfortune that has recently befallen on their city. So it's not like Batman taking the blame for those murders is going to make any difference.

Both good points.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

I think one big obvious point BatmanFanatic consistently fails to grasp regarding the justice system in Gotham is that Dent's image as a martyr would inspire the courage and vigilance needed in the citizens to stand up against organized crime more than ever before. In such a situation, it would be ridiculous to have a "case unsolved" tag on Dent's body, considering he is Gotham's hero and the good people would leave no stone unturned in their attempt to discover the truth.

Secondly, Batman was never a ray of hope for Gotham in TDK. If anything, they despise him even more because he did not give in to The Joker's demands despite the general populace also wanting the same, what with people chanting words like "things are worse than ever" and The Joker going "THIS is how crrrrazy Batman has made Gotham". The citizens already blame Batman for all the misfortune that has recently befallen on their city. So it's not like Batman taking the blame for those murders is going to make any difference.

As I've repeatedly stated, I DO grasp the thematic reasons. And that is all you are describing... THEMATIC reasons.

What I have a problem with is the LOGISTICS. How are they going to pull of this little scheme? Is there a better way for the writers to have created a situation in which Batman could have been hunted? Does Gordon have to go removing all of Harveys finger prints from 5 other crime scenes now in order to make the Batman story more believable?

THOSE are my questions. Not the "why it needed to happen." But why what happened was in this exact way. Seems it could have been something tidier.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

Again, he can take it. He's the goddamn Batman. He just made things harder for himself, sure, but he'll endure. Gotham has its hero in Harvey Dent, that was the most important thing. But, Batman is their silent guardian, a Dark Knight. Being the outcast, and being hunted, come with the territory, and it certainly won't stop him.

Uh - huh ... well like I've said before "he can take it" is not actually a reason.

I can take a punch, doesn't make it okay for you to hit me. Sure, if the world depended on you hitting me and me taking the punch, that would be okay, but if you could save the world through other means that didn't harm anyone, that would be better, no?

 

[CaptainClown]

Who knows maybe Gordon's special unit will take care of it. Maybe its open ended for conflict in another movie. Maybe Dent isn't dead, who knows. Thinking that far into it is like arguing "what are the chances of a man dressing up as a bat would be in the same city as a man dressing up like a scarecrow"

 

[the_scream]

As I've repeatedly stated, I DO grasp the thematic reasons. And that is all you are describing... THEMATIC reasons.

What I have a problem with is the LOGISTICS. How are they going to pull of this little scheme? Is there a better way for the writers to have created a situation in which Batman could have been hunted? Does Gordon have to go removing all of Harveys finger prints from 5 other crime scenes now in order to make the Batman story more believable?

I think you should get your story straight. You just said

"I doubt that there would be a great deal of interest in "getting to the bottom" of a few bad-guy killings"

And now you are arguing that Gordon will have to remove fingerprints etc? Seems like it is ok to say the police are too corrupt to fit your own argument but when someone offers an alternative, all of a sudden the crime scene becomes important again?

Yes, there will be holes. Who knows what will happen in the next film. Gordon may get caught out and Dent might be pinned for the murders after all. It isn't perfect but Batman is doing everything in his power to save the image of Dent. To leave a big mystery over the murders instead would have been messy. Now, the police won't even bother too much about the crime scenes because they already have their suspect and he's on the run.

 

[Aidan2209]

Uh - huh ... well like I've said before "he can take it" is not actually a reason.

I can take a punch, doesn't make it okay for you to hit me. Sure, if the world depended on you hitting me and me taking the punch, that would be okay, but if you could save the world through other means that didn't harm anyone, that would be better, no?

I actually didn't bring that up as a reason for Batman's actions. I brought it up to undermine your argument that by making himself an outlaw, he was hampering his own crusade.

 

[Fenrir]

As I've repeatedly stated, I DO grasp the thematic reasons. And that is all you are describing... THEMATIC reasons.

What I have a problem with is the LOGISTICS. How are they going to pull of this little scheme? Is there a better way for the writers to have created a situation in which Batman could have been hunted? Does Gordon have to go removing all of Harveys finger prints from 5 other crime scenes now in order to make the Batman story more believable?

THOSE are my questions. Not the "why it needed to happen." But why what happened was in this exact way. Seems it could have been something tidier.

I don't see a reason why the film MUST explain these "logistics", especially when it is scene that caps off the film. The "logistics" - who, how, what, why...these details are obviously things that will be touched upon in the sequel and don't necessarily have to be explained in TDK.

And it seems to me like you're complaining simply for the sake of complaining. Because this really is a non-issue.

 

[Fenrir]

Sometimes, I can't stand these silly nitpickers. First they complain Nolan's Batman has too much exposition and doesn't leave anything to imagination. And when Nolan does leave things a bit open-ended, these guys jump the gun about things not making any sense and whatnot. Like babies who cry because they are hungry but also spit out the cereal when it is spoonfed to them.

 

[DeaDheaD]

Uh - huh ... well like I've said before "he can take it" is not actually a reason.

I can take a punch, doesn't make it okay for you to hit me. Sure, if the world depended on you hitting me and me taking the punch, that would be okay, but if you could save the world through other means that didn't harm anyone, that would be better, no?

Batman has to take the fall for the murders, because of his "One rule", if he takes the blame then all of Gotham will think he has broken his one rule, criminals need to think he will kill, and this is the perfect way to get that message out, plus if the crooked cops ever learned what Harvey did, it would undo every conviction he ever got.....just like when the mayor told him "If they get ANYTHING on you, you and me will be out on the streets"......they can't pin the Gordon's kidnapping on the Joker, and since Harvey, Batman, and Jim are the only ones there, Batman has to take the fall, its the only real believable way to clear Harvey's reputation.

 

[Aidan2209]

Batman has to take the fall for the murders, because of his "One rule", if he takes the blame then all of Gotham will think he has broken his one rule, criminals need to think he will kill, and this is the perfect way to get that message out, plus if the crooked cops ever learned what Harvey did, it would undo every conviction he ever got.....just like when the mayor told him "If they get ANYTHING on you, you and me will be out on the streets"......they can't pin the Gordon's kidnapping on the Joker, and since Harvey, Batman, and Jim are the only ones there, Batman has to take the fall, its the only real believable way to clear Harvey's reputation.

I've seen people bring this (the bold part) up before, and I totally disagree. I don't think that was ever the point of his self-sacrifice. Agree with the rest, though.

 

[DeaDheaD]

I've seen people bring this (the bold part) up before, and I totally disagree. I don't think that was ever the point of his self-sacrifice. Agree with the rest, though.

Well, all I heard in the whole movie from Maroni and the Joker was about his "One Rule", and in the end he takes the blame for 5-6 deaths.......I would say he was thinking about it.

 

[CaptainClown]

Batman needed that one rule to separate him from the baddies. Dent needed to be seen as not a killer and corrupt to give Gotham courage.
Batman or Dent. Batman chose to be seen as the bad guy in order for Gotham to heal.

 

[plod]

I thought it was a relationship building exercise between Gordon and Batman. Year One climaxes with Bruce saving Jimbo jr, this is a version of that. Gordon owes Batman, I always thought of there relationship as a quasi marriage of crime fighters. Dent's involvement just proves that three is a crowd.t: TDK helps to establish the going conflict between the Joker and Batman "I think we'll be doing this for a while." and long term the relationship between the Commish and Bats.

If they make a third film it'll probably be called Batman Redemption, the fall also symbolizes Batman's fall from grace. Although I don't think his claim for Dent's crimes will make him that unpopular with Joe Public.

 

[plod]

Batman needed that one rule to separate him from the baddies. Dent needed to be seen as not a killer and corrupt to give Gotham courage.
Batman or Dent. Batman chose to be seen as the bad guy in order for Gotham to heal.

Wasn't there a question of protecting Dent's legacy as a prosecutor. I think most of the crooks in Gotham had cut a deal with Dent's office, the Joker mentioned something about it. If his true nature was exposed then the sentences could be appealed? They were protecting the convictions that Dent had achieved against the "mid level guys" he was telling Garcia about.

 

[Lauryn2000]

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.

Why yes.....The Dark Knight is a vigilante....he cannot be nicely packaged as a hero like....lets say...Superman.Gotham needed a "real face" for someone who went up against the thugs....and didn't back down.That would be Harvey Dent.....

 

[Paradyme]

Obviously there will be people that don't believe Batman killed those men but a lot will and he did what he needed to save Gotham's faith. I'm sure it won't last long in the third, if they decide to make one but will be an interesting plot point.

 

[Batspider77]

Batman should never be tolerated by the Cops....except from Gordon