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

[Doc Holliday]

To what bunk said about Batman breaking his rule, sure the public thinks he did, but they don't know Joker was trying to get Batman to do it. And we as the audience know he didn't really kill, thus we know Joker didn't really win.

 

[FaT_tONle]

So you are telling these following would hold up in a court of law... Batman walking into a bar (with no witnesses I'd imagine) shooting a corrupt cop... then tracking down and (killing) Ramirez.... then Batman walking into Maroni's car... lodging a bullet into the driver's head... and getting convicted for five murders based on admittance of guilt and Gordon's approval (who in know way would let Batman go down for life if he had to testify...)... it's ridiculous... people saying this works as a stand alone film... I disagree... not with that ending. Nolan needs a lot of explaining to do in the next movie.

 

[Doc Holliday]

So you are telling these following would hold up in a court of law... Batman walking into a bar (with no witnesses I'd imagine) shooting a corrupt cop... then tracking down and (killing) Ramirez.... then Batman walking into Maroni's car... lodging a bullet into the driver's head... and getting convicted for five murders based on admittance of guilt and Gordon's approval (who in know way would let Batman go down for life if he had to testify...)... it's ridiculous... people saying this works as a stand alone film... I disagree... not with that ending. Nolan needs a lot of explaining to do in the next movie.

I agree the ending isn't as final as many say it is, but I think the idea behind Bats running from the cops is that since Gordon's in control, they'll never actually catch him. He just has to put on the facade that they're chasing Bats while he's purposely staying one step behind.

 

[AJGoodfella7]

Isn't it obvious the reason that Batman had to take the fall. Dent dies not only in the presence of Gordon, Barbara, kids and Batman, but also in a crime scene completely surrounded by the police. Therefore Gordon has to blame Dent's death on the only other person at the scene of the crime which is Batman. That's really all you need to know because the other tacked on deaths to Batman are really irrellevant. The police knew there was a situation where Gordon was heading. Someone had to kill Harvey Dent and the only person that could have killed him (especially when the scene is surrounded by GPD) is Batman. End of story.

 

[Parquagh]

When I read the title of the thread I thought it was some king of philosophical argument about how Batman falling after saving Gordon son represents life, death and more stuff about Harvey being death/alive... lol

But I say that it was necessary that Batman got blamed for Harvey's crimes, it's needed to explain the message of the story and I say Harvey dying is necessary too for this tu be completed, IMO.
I hope we get a third movie to find the answers to our questions and arguments...

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Haha - nice one =)
I'm sorry, that argument doesn't work at all because he would have had to DESTROY EVIDENCE in order to erase Dent's connection to the crimes. So integrity is already out the window right there, and as for reputation - it doesn't concern your reputation if no one else knows about it.

It would be a lot easier to destroy and over look evidence to cover up Dents involvement that it would be to create false evidence to implicate others.

Then you also end up with the possibility that you might end up prosecuting some one for something they didnt do.

At least in Blaming Batman they were blaming a guy that they wouldnt catch.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Exactly. Batman can take the heat and is someone people hated at the present time (blaming him for the Joker's chaos), thus he was an easy target for the blame.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Isn't it obvious the reason that Batman had to take the fall. Dent dies not only in the presence of Gordon, Barbara, kids and Batman, but also in a crime scene completely surrounded by the police. Therefore Gordon has to blame Dent's death on the only other person at the scene of the crime which is Batman. That's really all you need to know because the other tacked on deaths to Batman are really irrellevant. The police knew there was a situation where Gordon was heading. Someone had to kill Harvey Dent and the only person that could have killed him (especially when the scene is surrounded by GPD) is Batman. End of story.

I am just curious as to how Gordon's family got kidnapped when the cops had Batman with them on the rooftop. The logical thing is... Dent HAS to be responisble for Gordon's family being there... what his motives were are unknown to the public but still... Batman can't be held responsible. I just can't get how Dent gets off this easy while everything falls on Batman. The only thing Batman has a chance of remotely being convicted of (other than his other crimes) is manslaughter for trying to save Gordon's son. That isn't reason enough to issue a manhunt. Dent should be responsible. They can't cover something like that up.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

I am just curious as to how Gordon's family got kidnapped when the cops had Batman with them on the rooftop. The logical thing is... Dent HAS to be responisble for Gordon's family being there... what his motives were are unknown to the public but still... Batman can't be held responsible. I just can't get how Dent gets off this easy while everything falls on Batman. The only thing Batman has a chance of remotely being convicted of (other than his other crimes) is manslaughter for trying to save Gordon's son. That isn't reason enough to issue a manhunt. Dent should be responsible. They can't cover something like that up.

Sure they can.

Simply put Gordan and Batman felt that the idea of Harvey Dent "THE WHITE KNIGHT" of Gotham could not be tarnished.

They felt that Gotham needed its hero intact so that the people would not lose hope in a better tomorrow.

 

[AJGoodfella7]

I am just curious as to how Gordon's family got kidnapped when the cops had Batman with them on the rooftop. The logical thing is... Dent HAS to be responisble for Gordon's family being there... what his motives were are unknown to the public but still... Batman can't be held responsible. I just can't get how Dent gets off this easy while everything falls on Batman. The only thing Batman has a chance of remotely being convicted of (other than his other crimes) is manslaughter for trying to save Gordon's son. That isn't reason enough to issue a manhunt. Dent should be responsible. They can't cover something like that up.

I'm sure Gordon is not going to tell everyone that Batman killed Dent while trying to save his son. Obviously he's going to have to bend the truth alot to be able to blame everything on Batman. I'm almost positive it's something that's never going to be explained so why bother trying? The only thing I'm sure of is Batman had to be blamed for Dent's death. I don't know exactly how Gordon will frame everything to make it look like Batman did everything but don't think it really matters because we will likely never find out anyway... at least until the next movie. I mean honestly, you can't have a plothole when the outcome of the plot is not explained anyway. Therefore the outcome could be anything.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Batman could have kidnapped them before the rooftop sequence, and then gotten free to call Gordon. Then, Batman beats Joker and goes there himself. Gets confronted by Harvey and Gordon. No cop would know when Batman got there (he hides in the shadows).

When you have people so ready to blame Batman for the Joker's chaos, they'll buy a story like this much more easily.

 

[AJGoodfella7]

And before everyone gets carried away with this... What do we really know happened?

We know that Batman told Gordon to blame everything on him.

We know that the citizens have turned their back on Batman as displayed by the broken floodlight.

We know that Gordon makes a speech at a Harvey Dent memorial service which is likely his funeral service. And this funeral service likely takes place 3-4 days after he died.

And we know that the police are chasing Batman. That's it... who's to say what happens if the police investigate the murders more? Maybe things will be explained in a sequel... but the ending scene was not a plothole at all because like I said we have no idea what happens next.

 

[FaT_tONle]

but as you said... I don't know if the sequel is going to explain everything... Nolan left too much to assumption... sometimes those details need to be there. You aren't dumbing down or catering to your audience by adding them... you only confuse them. He needs to flesh it these details out in the sequel for sure.

 

[Doc Holliday]

but as you said... I don't know if the sequel is going to explain everything... Nolan left too much to assumption... sometimes those details need to be there. You aren't dumbing down or catering to your audience by adding them... you only confuse them. He needs to flesh it these details out in the sequel for sure.

That's the idea. The story is finished, but it is set up very well for a sequel. It gets you curious about how things will play out since nobody likes Batman anymore, so you want to go see the sequel.

Not to mention that any sequel the caliber of TDK will undoubtedly be awesome.

 

[Viper81]

So you are telling these following would hold up in a court of law... Batman walking into a bar (with no witnesses I'd imagine) shooting a corrupt cop... then tracking down and (killing) Ramirez.... then Batman walking into Maroni's car... lodging a bullet into the driver's head... and getting convicted for five murders based on admittance of guilt and Gordon's approval (who in know way would let Batman go down for life if he had to testify...)... it's ridiculous... people saying this works as a stand alone film... I disagree... not with that ending. Nolan needs a lot of explaining to do in the next movie.

Not every movie needs to explain away every little detail and makes us all feel happy and resolved and content in how things ended.

That's WHY this movie is so good. It allows us, the audience, to USE OUR IMAGINATIONS (God forbid) to put the pieces together that really don't need explaining.

As I said on the last page, and as others have said, Batman HAD to be blamed for Dent's death because he was the only other person there. that's reason ENOUGH for them to come up with this scheme.

 

[believe_batman]

I assume Gordon would say that Batman blamed him for Rachel's death and for Joker's escape (he does share some of the blame). Then, Batman and Dent struggled over his son, and Dent fell to his death, with Batman escaping.

I wonder also about Batman taking the fall for this... it should scare criminals in Gotham even more, because now they have reason to believe that Batman will break his rule... so Maroni's statement that criminals aren't scared of him is now invalid.

 

[bethehero7404]

FUNNY THAT THESE MOMENTS IN THE DARK KNIGHT RAISES SO MANY QUESTIONS...

The Dark Knight Redemption (2011)

 

[The Guard]

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 )

I think he used the cape when he and Rachel fell...they just didn't use the same visual for it. They did a similar thing with Maroni when he used the cape to glide to the street.

 

[Doc Holliday]

FUNNY THAT THESE MOMENTS IN THE DARK KNIGHT RAISES SO MANY QUESTIONS...

The Dark Knight Redemption (2011)

"Too many questions, Mr. Wayne? My work raises too many questions? Why hasn't anyone...put you in your place?"

 

[Dang1ing Nuts]

I think Batman realized he needed to keep Dents reputation positive and tarnish his own instead. Revealing that Dent did kill all those people would make people think that nothing is helping and even the guy that claimed he was gonna save Gotham just made it worse.

I dont really know how to explain it but I did to the best of my abilities.

 

[Nepenthes]

thanks to Saint for helping me reconcile this

 

[I Am The Knight]

Can someone explain to me why Batman would kidnap Gordon's family?

 

[CaptainClown]

Can someone explain to me why Batman would kidnap Gordon's family?

To show off his cool new suit. Also to recruit batgirl..

 

[AIRWOLF]

This is not really off here but I need to know what you guys think. In first movie, did Batman really kill Ra's in Begins? In technicality if you look at it, Batman destroyed the controls of the train and it wasn't able to stop. Now he asked Gordon to take down the tracks, thus he set it all up to bring the train down. Afterward he decided to leave Ra's on the moving train that would soon derail, which eventually caused his death. Not saving him when he had the capacity to save him is same as being a murderer or at least aiding in murder. Now isn't Batman guilty here of breaking his own rule? You can't really say he was just defending himself, he could have easily taken advantage of the situation and knocked Ra's out and glided out with him. He spared Joker but didn't spare Ra's, what's wrong here? Joker was the most cruel of them all. I would like to know how others see it.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Can someone explain to me why Batman would kidnap Gordon's family?

Why would they have to explain that???

In the long run its just a story to tell the public of Gotham and they really dont know what to make of Batman and his motivations.

So I'm sure there's enough doubt about Batman in the publics eye to consider that he might be as crazy and would do just about anything.

This is not really off here but I need to know what you guys think. In first movie, did Batman really kill Ra's in Begins? In technicality if you look at it, Batman destroyed the controls of the train and it wasn't able to stop. Now he asked Gordon to take down the tracks, thus he set it all up to bring the train down. Afterward he decided to leave Ra's on the moving train that would soon derail, which eventually caused his death. Not saving him when he had the capacity to save him is same as being a murderer or at least aiding in murder. Now isn't Batman guilty here of breaking his own rule? You can't really say he was just defending himself, he could have easily taken advantage of the situation and knocked Ra's out and glided out with him. He spared Joker but didn't spare Ra's, what's wrong here? Joker was the most cruel of them all. I would like to know how others see it.

Forget about wether he may or may not be responsible for Ras death....what about all the other members of the League of Shadows that died in that fire Bruce started in "BEGINS".

I remember a few guys lying on the ground when Bruce made his excape so even if they werent already dead from the fight they would have died from ether the smoke or the flames from a fire that Bruce started.

Not to mention any other possible prisoners they may have had in there.