The Dark Knight The people Dent killed in the end... why didn't Gordon blame it on someone else?

[Motown Marvel]

Not the entire future, but the immediate future might. Who knows how they would react. I see this as Batman and Gordon were concerned that the good will of Gotham's citizens might reach its breaking point with Harvey Dent's fall from grace. Plus there's the thing about all the work Harvey Dent did to clean up Gotham's streets potentially being undone if that downfall were made public, which they brought up earlier.

like i said, i think it was grossly exaggerated the effect harvey's downfall would have on the city. it's a ridiculous idea to buy into, and was only presented to service a hollow plot point.

also, nothing harvey accomplished as a lawyer would be undone. his illegal affairs, which happened after the fact, had no bearing on his convictions in court. unless he obtained his convictions illegally, which he didnt, then they would be upheld in a court of law.

 

[3redlights]

i was about to post one of those long winded detail by detail rebuttal's, but thats a waste of time because it all comes down to the same point:

it was joker's plan to prove that the people of gotham were just like him. and it was batmans intentions to prove him otherwise. yet when the time comes for batman to back up his words with actions, he fails. it undermines everything he said he believes in, and it proves the joker right.

it's that simple.

The jokers plot (and the theme behind all his "jokes") is that morality doesn't really exist, and that people are at heart just dumb, malicious animals.

For the most part of the film he is proven right.

The thing he doesn't account for, however, is peoples ability to be inspired to do good. By hope, by blind faith (like the praying prisoner who throws out the detonator) and by heroic figures.

Batman, for all his actions, can't ever be a true heroic figure, he operates outside the law, he brutalises criminals, he needs to be feared to be respected and he inspires dangerous copycats. He's "not a hero" as the ending monologue points out. Neither can Harvey Dent, as he's ultimately shown to be fallible.

The symbol of a heroic figure however, is important, and is a myth worth preserving.

 

[darklord1967]

i also think its ridiculous to believe that the entire future of the city rested on harvey dent. its a ridiculous concept that only existed to service a ridiculous plot point.

and if the ferry scene is anything to indicate the nature of gotham's citizens (and that was its point) then im pretty sure they'd be entirely understanding to the plight of harvey dent.

Amen!!! No one has been able to adequately explain to me why The Batman needed to become the villain at the end of THE DARK KNIGHT when he was the one who saves the day. It was a ridiculously pretentious plot point in an already ridiculously pretentious film.

“You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” Really? Are those the only two options? What the hell does that exactly even mean?? And of course that nugget leads directly to this nonsense ending:

James Jr. Why's he running, Dad?
James Gordon: Because we have to chase him.
James Jr: He didn't do anything wrong.
James Gordon: Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.

The kid here seems to me to be the only character with LOGIC and SENSE when he points out that The Batman didn‘t do anything wrong. In fact, he saved Gordon’s entire family from being killed by Two-Face. And for that, Gotham needs to make him a villain????

Huh????????

Why couldn’t the people of Gotham City just have been told, “Listen, Harvey Dent was a good man. He tragically went nuts (partially because of what The Joker did to him). He became Two-Face, and became a homicidal, psychotic general pain-in-the-ass who tried to murder the family of the Police Commissioner. He’s gone now (good riddance), thanks to our hero The Batman. Yaaay!! Three cheers for Batman!!! Hip, hip… ”

Why couldn’t they be told this? After all, it was the truth!! So instead of that, Gordon and The Batman contrive a LIE to perpetrate upon the city of Gotham. And Why? So that Harvey Dent's reputation can stay un-blemished in the oh-so-fragile minds of the people of Gotham lest they lose all hope for their city??? Really???

What a load of crap.

The people of Gotham have a champion. It is The Batman! And when they look up and see that signal in the sky, it fills them with hope every time. It fills them with hope because they know that the appearance of that symbol means the criminals of Gotham have been put on notice!

I've never understood the need (by fans of this film) to embrace this convoluted mythically-based plot point of "perserving the symbol of a fallen heroic figure" like Harvey Dent (even to the point of perpetuating a LIE on an entire city to do it)... some thing that would NEVER happen in real life concerning a homicidal maniac. Meanwhile, these are the same people who disregard some of the fantasy elements of the comic book source material which the producers arbitrarily ignored as not a part of the "heightened reality" they were striving for.

Right.

This need to preserve Harvey Dent's reputation at the expense of The Batman's was NEVER an issue in the comics, I can tell you that. The city understood that, yes, Harvey was a good man, but he was un-hinged and became a psychotic villain after a tragic incident. They were never lied to. Despite this, Gotham still had it's Police Commissioner, The Batman, Robin, Batgirl, etc as their protectors and champions. Period. End of story. Simple. Easy.

Harvey Dent needing to appear as some sort of un-blemished white horse in the eyes of the city (even though he became a homicidal maniac) is a plot point that does absolutely nothing to further the "real world" logic that defenders of THE DARK KNIGHT claim the film stands for.

Speaking of "heightened reality": Even if I bought into the logic (which I most certainly do NOT) that any dirt on Harvey Dent would result in the release of the criminals he has put away, (as some fans of the film have suggested), that would have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on what happened to him and the crimes he perpetrated as Two-Face after the fact.

That is not based in any kind of "reality" that I know of, (and, FYI, I spent 10 years working in Federal Law Enforcement). Short of the arising of new evidence that indicates prosecutorial misconduct during trial, surpressed or planted evidence, improper investigations by law-enforcement, or false accusations to begin with, criminals CANNOT just arbitrarily be set free. It never works that way.

 

[Fudgie]

Intentionally framing someone else, even the Joker, without their expressed consent, would be a compromise of his moral code and integrity. Batman willingly accepted the penalties for the Two-Face killings. Had they framed Joker, then they would have betrayed everything that they fought to keep.

If they were concerned with the most effective means to resolve the situation, then yes, they might have framed Joker. If they believed the ends justify the means, any means, then Batman would have ran over the Joker, let him fall, or even just snapped his neck or shot him. But both Batman and Gordon were also concerned with holding onto their integrity through it. Integrity cannot be taken, only given. They paid a high price for it, between them Rachel Dawe's life, Harvey Dent's friendship (and eventually his life), Commissioner Loeb's life among others, and Batman his reputation and Gordon's partnership.

Just compare Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent at the end of the film as Batman and Two Face. Both suffered the same tragedy (Rachel's death) and respond in very different ways. Harvey Dent gave away his integrity, while Bruce Wayne refused to allow the Joker to take his away. In the end, Batman has his integrity but sacrifices his reputation while Harvey Dent sacrificed his integrity but keeps his reputation.

Framing another person completely changes the meaning of the ending entirely, one where Joker won.

This person gets it.

 

[TanneRain]

Agreed.

For that matter, why didn't they just kill him.

Their punishments must be more severe.

 

[wootbaby]

i was about to post one of those long winded detail by detail rebuttal's, but thats a waste of time because it all comes down to the same point:

it was joker's plan to prove that the people of gotham were just like him. and it was batmans intentions to prove him otherwise. yet when the time comes for batman to back up his words with actions, he fails. it undermines everything he said he believes in, and it proves the joker right.

it's that simple.

what's simple is that you didn't even understand what's basically a kid's movie.

Nolan's point is that people have the potential for BOTH good and evil. Not that they're "like Batman" or "like the Joker." They can be inspired for good or for evil

You didn't even understand that barge scene. It's when Deebo steps up and takes the detonator, Nolan is using him a surrogate for Batman himself. One man can make a difference. The mob was swaying and one man can step up and take on the burden and become the spark that rallies everyone else to do the right thing

You probably don't even realize why Nolan used a big black criminal for that role. HE IS BATMAN you freaking genius. Do you understand? In the public's eye Batman is a violent, dangerous vigilante. For most Gothamites Batman might be as big a criminal as Deebo.

This entire thread consists of people making rational, reasoned explanations of Gordon's actions and you going "no I don't agree" "no that's stupid" "no no no" like some kid.

The bottom line is that Gordan and Batman understood that despite everything, what BATMAN inspires are dudes with Uzis in hockey pads shooting up criminals and what DENT inspires are people on the boat who refuse to kill innocents. I mean you WATCH the movie? Do you not even realize why that one scene with the Batman copycats and the ppl on the boat are even in the movie? It's precisely to make this point.

It's like Nolan hand feeds you these messages like you're 7 years old and you still can't comprehend it.

OPEN your EARS and pay attention. You didn't know what was going on in the movie and you seemingly don't understand what people are saying in this thread.

 

[wootbaby]

Amen!!! No one has been able to adequately explain to me why The Batman needed to become the villain at the end of THE DARK KNIGHT when he was the one who saves the day. It was a ridiculously pretentious plot point in an already ridiculously pretentious film.

“You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” Really? Are those the only two options? What the hell does that exactly even mean?? And of course that nugget leads directly to this nonsense ending:

James Jr. Why's he running, Dad?
James Gordon: Because we have to chase him.
James Jr: He didn't do anything wrong.
James Gordon: Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.

The kid here seems to me to be the only character with LOGIC and SENSE when he points out that The Batman didn‘t do anything wrong. In fact, he saved Gordon’s entire family from being killed by Two-Face. And for that, Gotham needs to make him a villain????

Huh????????

Why couldn’t the people of Gotham City just have been told, “Listen, Harvey Dent was a good man. He tragically went nuts (partially because of what The Joker did to him). He became Two-Face, and became a homicidal, psychotic general pain-in-the-ass who tried to murder the family of the Police Commissioner. He’s gone now (good riddance), thanks to our hero The Batman. Yaaay!! Three cheers for Batman!!! Hip, hip… ”

Why couldn’t they be told this? After all, it was the truth!! So instead of that, Gordon and The Batman contrive a LIE to perpetrate upon the city of Gotham. And Why? So that Harvey Dent's reputation can stay un-blemished in the oh-so-fragile minds of the people of Gotham lest they lose all hope for their city??? Really???

What a load of crap.

The people of Gotham have a champion. It is The Batman! And when they look up and see that signal in the sky, it fills them with hope every time. It fills them with hope because they know that the appearance of that symbol means the criminals of Gotham have been put on notice!

I've never understood the need (by fans of this film) to embrace this convoluted mythically-based plot point of "perserving the symbol of a fallen heroic figure" like Harvey Dent (even to the point of perpetuating a LIE on an entire city to do it)... some thing that would NEVER happen in real life concerning a homicidal maniac. Meanwhile, these are the same people who disregard some of the fantasy elements of the comic book source material which the producers arbitrarily ignored as not a part of the "heightened reality" they were striving for.

Right.

This need to preserve Harvey Dent's reputation at the expense of The Batman's was NEVER an issue in the comics, I can tell you that. The city understood that, yes, Harvey was a good man, but he was un-hinged and became a psychotic villain after a tragic incident. They were never lied to. Despite this, Gotham still had it's Police Commissioner, The Batman, Robin, Batgirl, etc as their protectors and champions. Period. End of story. Simple. Easy.

Harvey Dent needing to appear as some sort of un-blemished white horse in the eyes of the city (even though he became a homicidal maniac) is a plot point that does absolutely nothing to further the "real world" logic that defenders of THE DARK KNIGHT claim the film stands for.

Speaking of "heightened reality": Even if I bought into the logic (which I most certainly do NOT) that any dirt on Harvey Dent would result in the release of the criminals he has put away, (as some fans of the film have suggested), that would have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on what happened to him and the crimes he perpetrated as Two-Face after the fact.

That is not based in any kind of "reality" that I know of, (and, FYI, I spent 10 years working in Federal Law Enforcement). Short of the arising of new evidence that indicates prosecutorial misconduct during trial, surpressed or planted evidence, improper investigations by law-enforcement, or false accusations to begin with, criminals CANNOT just arbitrarily be set free. It never works that way.

so this entire long thing is you ******** that Batman lied to Gotham City?

the funniest part is you indignant that such a "thing that would NEVER happen in real life"

genius this happens all the time. we polish up our symbols all the time. how many times do you hear ugly things such as:

- Gandhi referred to Africans as kaffirs (basically same as American N******) when he was a young lawyer in South Africa

- documented recordings revealing Martin Luther King Jr running sexual trains with prostitutes with fellow members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference

- a panel of experts at BU censored MLK for plagiarizing his doctoral dissertation

- Nelson Mandela organized terrorist attacks for the ANC prior to being sent to prison

- Mother Theresa stopped believing in the Christian God towards the end of her life

the failings of "heroes" are often covered up for because the community is served by the good that they symbolize. the stuff like MLK's plagiarizing and sexual indiscretion weren't disclosed for DECADES because it would ruin their legacy

this very week the news was eulogizing Rodney King as "symbol for racial harmony" yet how many of those stories disclosed that the REASON he ran from police is because he was on probation for assaulting a Korean storeowner during a robbery with a tire iron? he was high on crack and he didn't want to go back to jail so he drove that hyundai 90 miles an hour... and the entire city of LA had to burn for it, white guys had their skulls bashed in on Crenshaw and Asians were shot and had their businesses burned. Yet King is the "symbol of racial harmony." Instead of being indignant about a movie for pointing out the ugly truth about humans, how about if you get mad at the LAPD and CNBC because that stuff does happen IRL

and neither you nor Motown have even addressed the points that other posters have made:

1) namely that Dent could inspire the city in a way that Batman never could
2) neither Batman nor Gordon would ever frame and innocent man

we understand that you don't LIKE it. and that is fine. but you not liking it doesn't establish that it doesn't make sense within the context of Nolan's story.

all that other crap is just ******** crying because you didn't like the fact that Batman "lied." I suppose since to a 7 year old's logic that's the worst thing in the world

 

[Ekricket]

Amen!!! No one has been able to adequately explain to me why The Batman needed to become the villain at the end of THE DARK KNIGHT when he was the one who saves the day. It was a ridiculously pretentious plot point in an already ridiculously pretentious film.

“You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” Really? Are those the only two options? What the hell does that exactly even mean?? ..................

They just compressed the process some. This happens continuosly in history, yet it is often such a long time frame that it's graduality makes it hard to see. Take for example the exploration of the good old America Continents that you now live safely in. Without what we now consider the barbarity of the early explorers, your life here would not now be possible. In their day, the mountain men, gunslingers, six-gun wielding sheriffs and ranchers and farmers were considered heroes of their time. Indeed, even by the time things started to get "civilized" here they were starting to become regarded as more villanous than necessary, and the fact that they openly carried guns was deemed "uncivilized", even though that is what it took to get us "civilized". This is just one poor example, but maybe it helps illustrate how the hero can live long enough to become considered the villian. I'm glad they kept it under three hours though, I don't have time to sit through a 50 year film.

What do any of these cliches mean, except to maybe make you think a little about situations. You may as well argue "what is this crap about a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush" by saying that you don't like birds and don't want one in your hand, much less more in the bush. Is that all a bird in your hand is worth? Is two in the bush the only option? What if a guy offered me 10 dollars for that bird in my hand - should I refuse and only accept the two in the bush if he can catch them?

 

[Ekricket]

[/QUOTE]
......
this very week the news was eulogizing Rodney King as "symbol for racial harmony" yet how many of those stories disclosed that the REASON he ran from police is because he was on probation for assaulting a Korean storeowner during a robbery with a tire iron? he was high on crack and he didn't want to go back to jail so he drove that hyundai 90 miles an hour... and the entire city of LA had to burn for it, white guys had their skulls bashed in on Crenshaw and Asians were shot and had their businesses burned. .................[/QUOTE]

I guess in this case the villian lived long enough to become the hero.

 

[diggler19]

Couldn't he have just told Gothem that The Joker killed those people? I mean, it's not like anyone would question that, and if the Joker did deny it, no one would take him seriously. Hell, Gordon could have just blamed it on any random henchman of the Joker, why put the blame on Batman?

I don't think it was Gordon's idea to blame anyone for the crimes. Batman offered, and Gordon hesitantly accepted.

In the Killing Joke, Gordon tells Batman not to kill the Joker. That right there shows Gordon's true character.

Back to TDK - Gordon wants the Joker to anwser to the crimes he committed, not be charged with a bogus cover-up. Another cop would of put the murders on the Joker. So I like the consistency of Gordon's character.

Batman choose to be the scapegoat.

 

[darklord1967]

so this entire long thing is you ******** that Batman lied to Gotham City?

the funniest part is you indignant that such a "thing that would NEVER happen in real life"

genius this happens all the time. we polish up our symbols all the time. how many times do you hear ugly things such as:

- Gandhi referred to Africans as kaffirs (basically same as American N******) when he was a young lawyer in South Africa

- documented recordings revealing Martin Luther King Jr running sexual trains with prostitutes with fellow members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference

- a panel of experts at BU censored MLK for plagiarizing his doctoral dissertation

- Nelson Mandela organized terrorist attacks for the ANC prior to being sent to prison

- Mother Theresa stopped believing in the Christian God towards the end of her life

the failings of "heroes" are often covered up for because the community is served by the good that they symbolize. the stuff like MLK's plagiarizing and sexual indiscretion weren't disclosed for DECADES because it would ruin their legacy

this very week the news was eulogizing Rodney King as "symbol for racial harmony" yet how many of those stories disclosed that the REASON he ran from police is because he was on probation for assaulting a Korean storeowner during a robbery with a tire iron? he was high on crack and he didn't want to go back to jail so he drove that hyundai 90 miles an hour... and the entire city of LA had to burn for it, white guys had their skulls bashed in on Crenshaw and Asians were shot and had their businesses burned. Yet King is the "symbol of racial harmony." Instead of being indignant about a movie for pointing out the ugly truth about humans, how about if you get mad at the LAPD and CNBC because that stuff does happen IRL

and neither you nor Motown have even addressed the points that other posters have made:

1) namely that Dent could inspire the city in a way that Batman never could
2) neither Batman nor Gordon would ever frame and innocent man

we understand that you don't LIKE it. and that is fine. but you not liking it doesn't establish that it doesn't make sense within the context of Nolan's story.

all that other crap is just ******** crying because you didn't like the fact that Batman "lied." I suppose since to a 7 year old's logic that's the worst thing in the world

I must say... I don't agree with you at all... not one tiny bit, but your writing is sure entertaining. l haven't laughed that hard in months! "******** crying"???? Priceless!! Absolutely classic!!! I MUST steal that line from you!!

As to the two points you say we did not address:

1) Where is it written that Harvey Dent could inspire the city in a way The Batman never could? That's certainly not a plot point nor characterization from the comics. And it certainly is NOT in keeping with the notion of a masked man that has become such a mythical symbol of JUSTICE for the city of Gotham that a floodlight beacon occasionally shines in the night sky bearing his logo for ALL of Gotham to see and to remember that HE is out there... watching and protecting. I really do not see how an elected official, even a popular one, could possibly compare in the minds of the people with something as sensational as the concept of a Batman... a boogeyman guardian angel watching over the city.

2) I certainly never suggested that The Batman nor Gordon would ever frame an innocent man. Actually, those of YOU defending this plot point from TDK are the ones who are suggesting that they both would frame an innocent man. After all, they mutually agreed to let an innocent man (The Batman himself) take the fall for the crimes of a guilty man (Harvey Dent / Two-Face)... and you all have no problem with this.

No. What I in fact suggested is that The Batman and Gordon should have just placed the blame where it belonged: Squarely in the lap of the true perpetrator Harvey Dent.

Those of you that believe in this plot point from TDK are free to do so, of course.

I just think that it is a major contradiction to suggest that Gotham would somehow loose all hope in their own goodness and humanity if Dent's criminal actions were made public... AND YET... you all see nothing wrong with allowing Gotham to believe the LIE that it's HERO... the man.. the SYMBOL OF JUSTICE with his own searchlight in the sky... that guy has become a homicidal monster, and Gotham will be a-okay with this, NOT lose hope, and go one with their lives easy as pie!

 

[He Rises]

Hey guys, great thread topic (although some of the arguments and counter-arguments dont have to be quite so mocking in their tone, but HEY this is the internet lol)

I won't bother taking a side in this issue as it's clear that both factions are firmly entrenched in their beliefs, which I'm fine with. If that wasnt the case, this interesting debate wouldn't have happened and of course, if people are able to have such long-winded discussions about a single scene from a movie, you KNOW it must be good : )

I WILL say that I believe more light will be shed on this topic in TDKR, as we've already scene that photo of Bane holding up Harvey's photo to...who is he showing that picture to anyways, just a random crowd of people? Guess we'll find out soon enough.

So HOPEFULLY Nolan will tie in the Harvey cover-up and Batman's sacrifice at the end of TDK in such a way that it puts an end to these arguments (although I find them to be highly amusing)

However, there are a few things that still don't add up for me in that final scene.

"Five dead, two of them cops." This is Gordon reffering to the people Two-face killed, yes? Let's do a body count.

There was the fat, corrupt cop in the bar who took one to the face. That's one.

There was the Italian mob boss (forget his name, I'll just call him Mario) and his driver. I'm assuming Mario was killed in the crash since he wasnt wearing a seat belt after his driver got shot in the head. That makes three.

Two Face DID confront the second corrupt cop, Ramirez. But she got lucky and all he did was punch her. "You live to fight another day officer." Unless are they reffering to Two Face as one of the five? That still leaves one missing.

And while I'm on this subject, isnt Ramirez a loose-end for Gordon and Batman? She KNOWS about Dent's fall and experienced first-hand the monster he became. She could spill the beans about him anytime and the city would know the truth. Granted, there's no guarantee that everyone would believe her and she wouldnt have much to gain by telling everyone but still.

Sorry this has turned into a unorganized rant, that seems to be the common theme going on in this thread anyways though xD

 

[redhawk23]

i understand the ham-fisted rhetoric from the movie about how gotham is apparently so damn fragile that the survival of the whole city is entirely dependant on harvey dent's purity. its stupid.

joker says when pushed into a corner, gotham will break. batman says gotham is stronger than that and will persevere. if you believe the latter, you give them the truth trusting they will persevere. otherwise, you lie to them, give them false and hollow hope, and prove the joker right.

Well theres also the matter of ongoing trials for hundreds of mob afiliates that was very much dependent upon Dent and any kind of scandal could have disrupted and undone all of that, as batman tells Dent earlier on in the film.

 

[El Payaso]

Hey guys, great thread topic (although some of the arguments and counter-arguments dont have to be quite so mocking in their tone, but HEY this is the internet lol)

I won't bother taking a side in this issue as it's clear that both factions are firmly entrenched in their beliefs, which I'm fine with. If that wasnt the case, this interesting debate wouldn't have happened and of course, if people are able to have such long-winded discussions about a single scene from a movie, you KNOW it must be good : )

I WILL say that I believe more light will be shed on this topic in TDKR, as we've already scene that photo of Bane holding up Harvey's photo to...who is he showing that picture to anyways, just a random crowd of people? Guess we'll find out soon enough.

So HOPEFULLY Nolan will tie in the Harvey cover-up and Batman's sacrifice at the end of TDK in such a way that it puts an end to these arguments (although I find them to be highly amusing)

However, there are a few things that still don't add up for me in that final scene.

"Five dead, two of them cops." This is Gordon reffering to the people Two-face killed, yes? Let's do a body count.

There was the fat, corrupt cop in the bar who took one to the face. That's one.

There was the Italian mob boss (forget his name, I'll just call him Mario) and his driver. I'm assuming Mario was killed in the crash since he wasnt wearing a seat belt after his driver got shot in the head. That makes three.

Two Face DID confront the second corrupt cop, Ramirez. But she got lucky and all he did was punch her. "You live to fight another day officer." Unless are they reffering to Two Face as one of the five? That still leaves one missing.

And while I'm on this subject, isnt Ramirez a loose-end for Gordon and Batman? She KNOWS about Dent's fall and experienced first-hand the monster he became. She could spill the beans about him anytime and the city would know the truth. Granted, there's no guarantee that everyone would believe her and she wouldnt have much to gain by telling everyone but still.

Sorry this has turned into a unorganized rant, that seems to be the common theme going on in this thread anyways though xD

This improvised plan Batman had to lie to everybody, with Gordon as an accomplice, is ready to explode right on her faces. And Nolan MUST address this.

 

[redhawk23]

I must say... I don't agree with you at all... not one tiny bit, but your writing is sure entertaining. l haven't laughed that hard in months! "******** crying"???? Priceless!! Absolutely classic!!! I MUST steal that line from you!!

As to the two points you say we did not address:

1) Where is it written that Harvey Dent could inspire the city in a way The Batman never could? That's certainly not a plot point nor characterization from the comics. And it certainly is NOT in keeping with the notion of a masked man that has become such a mythical symbol of JUSTICE for the city of Gotham that a floodlight beacon occasionally shines in the night sky bearing his logo for ALL of Gotham to see and to remember that HE is out there... watching and protecting. I really do not see how an elected official, even a popular one, could possibly compare in the minds of the people with something as sensational as the concept of a Batman... a boogeyman guardian angel watching over the city.

2) I certainly never suggested that The Batman nor Gordon would ever frame an innocent man. Actually, those of YOU defending this plot point from TDK are the ones who are suggesting that they both would frame an innocent man. After all, they mutually agreed to let an innocent man (The Batman himself) take the fall for the crimes of a guilty man (Harvey Dent / Two-Face)... and you all have no problem with this.

No. What I in fact suggested is that The Batman and Gordon should have just placed the blame where it belonged: Squarely in the lap of the true perpetrator Harvey Dent.

Those of you that believe in this plot point from TDK are free to do so, of course.

I just think that it is a major contradiction to suggest that Gotham would somehow loose all hope in their own goodness and humanity if Dent's criminal actions were made public... AND YET... you all see nothing wrong with allowing Gotham to believe the LIE that it's HERO... the man.. the SYMBOL OF JUSTICE with his own searchlight in the sky... that guy has become a homicidal monster, and Gotham will be a-okay with this, NOT lose hope, and go one with their lives easy as pie!

As was shown, Batman as a symbol is problematic because in the end he is still a criminal, vigilante operating outside of the confines of the law. What he inspires is just more vigilantism, which is a problem.

The good Dent does inspires belief in the system, in the possibility that civil society and the law can work.

The whole deal with Dents image isn't just a symbolic matter, his corruption would undercut an possibly un-do the work he had already accomplished to defeat the mob, as is stated in the film.

Also can you really not see the difference between Batman willingly taking the blame himself and shoving it off on someone else?

 

[Jack O Lantern]

I think the bigger question is why was Dent so important?

Wasn't the DA in Begins willing to persecute the mob as well but was murdered?

Why wasn't he the hero?

 

[The Joker]

He didn't achieve anything. Dent locked away half of the city's criminals. Put his life on the line to catch the Joker. Dent already had a rep of fighting corruption in the system in Internal Affairs, too. Finch kept needing a kick up the ass from Rachel to do something.

 

[ALP]

I love this movie, but when you think about it, thematically, it is ham fisted. Harvey's fiancé was murdered and half his face blown to hell. Who wouldn't lose it over that? Society has delt with the downfall of good people before. In the end, Batman gives a speech about the people of Gotham losing hope but that is hardly the case in any society. People would move on, not lose their heads while cats and dogs rain during mass hysteria in the streets just because Dent killed a few corrupt cops.

And aside from that, when in the hell did people start paying attention to a DA anyway. I want everyone in this thread to take a nice long thought and tell me if you even recognize the face or name of the district attorney in your city. Lol

 

[The Joker]

I don't live in a city as corrupt, crime ridden, and hopeless as Gotham where my D.A. locked up half of the underworld. But if I did I guarantee you I'd know him a mile away.