That was after the Joker started his assassination campaign and linked its continuation to Batman continuing to be tolerated. But sure, it was initially more like that the public was overall very ambivalent about him and so mostly tolerated him, liking his services and results but not his methods, rather than just supporting him.
Exactly. Think back to the earlier conversation with Dent, Rachel, the ballerina lady, and Bruce. Dent is the only vocal supporter of Batman at the table. In fact when you look at the trilogy as a whole, the only time you see unanimous support from Gotham towards Batman was at the end of Rises after he gave his life to save them. Before that the only times you saw any support from him from Gothamites was from the Narrows kid, that socialite lady in the hotel scene with Bruce and Earle, from Dent, and from Blake.
Nolan never ever tried to sell the impression Gotham was a city proud of Batman.
I don't think the film, especially with its just-before counter-example of the ferries, was convincing that discovering Dent had been corrupted would mean the city would lose all hope and that, as Gordon interpreted, "The Joker won."
No offense, but whether you were convinced by it or not is your own personal issue. The movie made it clear long before this that Dent being caught in any shady or illegal behavior would crumble all the hope and good work he had done e.g. when Batman caught him terrorizing Thomas Schiff in the alley.
Through the film the Joker was portrayed as being several steps ahead of everyone else and great at manipulating them (part of his escape was just tricking a cop into trying to attack him and using him as a hostage, more than that was needed but might not have been), and also getting and using explosives, it would be very implausible for him to just run out of tricks and schemes and not be able to come up with something new later. It would take him some time to come up with and enact another plan but likely not a lot.
Right, because throughout the movie Joker planned everything before he carried it out. You pointing out him easily escaping from custody is not a valid example when he allowed and wanted to be caught as part of his plan, with a ready made escape tactic in place, too. Nothing like him being caught and imprisoned against his will with no plans for an escape all set up.
That's not me saying Joker couldn't ever escape again, especially if they are as comic faithful to him as they had been in TDK. But the point is Batman believing Joker being locked up forever is not some critical flaw of the movie or his character.
It's not the only way but it also probably wasn't really the only way he could have that time. Batman doesn't give a unique justification for why he's got to use it then. Implicitly the justification is Joker is particularly ruthless and admittedly is unique in (unrealistically) not having a motive other than being sadistic and wanting disorder for its own sake.
Yes, he does have a unique justification since the city was being evacuated, millions of lives on a midnight deadline, and with Joker broadcasting messages it was the quickest and easiest way to track him down and stop him before he blew up millions of people.
Could Batman have found another way to find him? Sure if he had the luxury of more time. But he was on a clock. Desperate time called for desperate measures. And if the worst thing he had to do was eavesdrop on some Gothamites during a city wide evacuation, then boo-hoo to their privacy. He saved their lives.
Most people wouldn't but Fox didn't want to (hopefully many people in law enforcement would refuse if it was against the law) and the film portrays that as a reasonable, admirable position. One worth ending all of his future cooperation with Batman. A position Batman himself somewhat but not fully sympathizes with.
Fox didn't want to, but he did it for the greater good. Just like Batman. And they destroyed the device afterward. Fox is not law enforcement. He is already breaking the law by supplying an outlaw vigilante with equipment for his mission. He's already crossed the legality line.
This was a morality issue. And even he didn't say no to saving lives.
I think it would have been more interesting, dramatic and realistic if Nolan had allowed the disagreement between heroes Batman and Fox to continue after the crisis, with Fox actually quitting due to the system, rather than backtrack with Batman actually being even more in sympathy with Fox's position than was initially presented.
Why would that be more interesting and dramatic? It would make Fox look like a hypocrite for a start. He quits because they had to spy on some people to save millions of lives in a once off event. But he's ok consistently supplying Batman with tech that blows up city property, also in the quest to save lives.
He is a vigilante but he's also the film's agent of order and in real life those are the executive and police.
No, in the movie he's the hero of the piece in a comic book story. The Police are still very much the Police, and representing the official law and order of the story.
Unless you're trying to tell me the movie is trying to paint official law and order as something that does outlandish stunts like flipping trucks, snagging international criminals by sky hook methods, dropping suspects off balconies to get them to talk etc.
Additionally, the film's commentary, both direct and implied, was that sometimes (though only in brief emergencies) society *needs* someone to act unencumbered by laws and regulations to save society, including its chance to have any law and order at all. Although it also does admit having that kind of power can be corrupting and though necessary such a powerful figure shouldn't be viewed as a role model.
Yeah, that's commentary on vigilantism. Like Batman being able to get Lau because he's not hindered by jurisdiction. What official government or law enforcement authority could do that?
Again you are misreading the movie's message. Batman is not reflective of official law enforcement or even society.
