These Days It Makes More Sense for Batman to Be a Villain

[ray245]

Just rewatched The Dark Knight recently, and had some thoughts on this thread. I think Nolan somewhat answered this quite well in TDK when he had Batman says he is whatever Gotham needs him to be.

Gotham is a fucked up, corrupt dystopia ( even in Nolan's "realistic" version). It's a place where corruption is so ridiculous that the legal system has been destroyed and might makes right. Batman exists to try and fix the problem within the context of such a fictional world. It's about going beyond the legal system because the legal system no longer exists in Gotham.

Batman gets away with all those shit because the legal system is not even there to stop him. Nolan's Batman doesn't see himself as a hero, because he never sees any of his actions as heroic or ideal. Using physical violence? It's portrayed as being somewhat necessary because nothing else works. It's why Nolan's Batman is perfectly fine with being vilified because Batman knows his actions are extremely questionable.

It's also why Batman in The Dark Knight is so desperate for Harvey's reputation to remain intact, and so desperate to retire as Batman. Batman is always meant to be a short-term measure against crime, to give a very small window of opportunity for the legal system to be reborn.

It's also why Batman disappeared for 8 years in TDKR. Gotham is on the path of recovering, it no longer needs an active Batman to constantly beat criminals up. In other words, Bruce ( and Nolan) knew the point of Batman and the problems of Batman.

The problem is many other writers simply cannot explore the purpose of Batman, and kept having him fight crime for an entire lifetime. Batman isn't a hero, or at least his actions aren't something to emulate. Poor writers like Synder could only understand Batman in terms of power-fantasy.

Personally, I love this scene because it is one of the rare scenes in Superhero genre to explore a little bit about what it meant to be a superhero like Batman.

[TheFeniX]

Gotham is a fucked up, corrupt dystopia ( even in Nolan's "realistic" version). It's a place where corruption is so ridiculous that the legal system has been destroyed and might makes right. Batman exists to try and fix the problem within the context of such a fictional world. It's about going beyond the legal system because the legal system no longer exists in Gotham.

It does exist, but your point stands. It's so unbelievably bad there, the entire house of cards is held up by Harvey Dent's reputation. And any nick (was going to say dent, but that would be on the nose) in that reputation, even after having half your face burned off after your GF/Fiance (can't remember which) was blown up by a madman, means they start back at square one, or possibly even further back.

This is "technically existing." Which, I can't say is the best kind of existing in this case.

Batman gets away with all those shit because the legal system is not even there to stop him. Nolan's Batman doesn't see himself as a hero, because he never sees any of his actions as heroic or ideal. Using physical violence? It's portrayed as being somewhat necessary because nothing else works. It's why Nolan's Batman is perfectly fine with being vilified because Batman knows his actions are extremely questionable.

It's funny to me because the "fictional fictional" depiction of Batman fits the OP and what I generally know of vigilantes: Batman finally "snaps" and, for whatever reason, kills a few cops and Dent. Maybe Dent didn't fit Batman's view of Justice. Maybe he's finally just gone full-rogue and it's no longer about justice, but revenge.

But the "realistic fictional" depiction of Batman that we know is what actually happened: the man is willing to burn all the goodwill he's built up as a masked vigilante because it's what "needed" (I debate that was the best course of action, but that's not important).

This is why the OP is dumb: people would (and did) view Batman as a villain. But he isn't one. That's kind of the damned point.

Personally, I love this scene because it is one of the rare scenes in Superhero genre to explore a little bit about what it meant to be a superhero like Batman.

That was really well written and Oldman does what Oldman does: bring awesome to whatever he's doing. But, when I first saw that, I leaned over to my wife and said "I bet that kid's thinking, 'Man, I can't wait till I'm old enough to feel ways about stuff.'" We both couldn't stop laughing.

[Tribble]

Ya, I always kinda wondered why they didn't just blame the Joker and his henchmen for all of the killings (including Dent himself), particularly since everyone knew Dent was one of the Joker's main targets. If you are going to use someone as a scapegoat, why not pick the person who was actually trying to tear the city apart? I doubt anyone would have questioned Gordon's story if he had said that the Joker had killed those people and Dent during his spree.

[Crazedwraith]

Aside from the fact the Joker was already in custody at that point. At least for Dents death.

[Tribble]

Aside from the fact the Joker was already in custody at that point. At least for Dents death.

Well ya but Gordon could have said he arrived on the scene and Dent was already dead. Or that he arrived on the scene and that one of the Joker's henchmen / some mob guy pushed Dent off that ledge and got away. Dent was already a target for practically every criminal in the city, there was no reason why they had to blame Batman in particular IMO.

[ray245]

It does exist, but your point stands. It's so unbelievably bad there, the entire house of cards is held up by Harvey Dent's reputation. And any nick (was going to say dent, but that would be on the nose) in that reputation, even after having half your face burned off after your GF/Fiance (can't remember which) was blown up by a madman, means they start back at square one, or possibly even further back.

This is "technically existing." Which, I can't say is the best kind of existing in this case.

Well, there is a reason why this forum places Batman stories in the fantasy genre as opposed to the sci-fi genre. Batman is a fantasy hero living in a fantasy city. Without a fantasy city, there will be no reason for Batman to exist. Nolan's "realism" for his Batman films is about stripping away all other elements of fantasy but retaining the core fantastical premise. I think his argument is that you'll see the more fantastical premise if you can strip away the fantasy art-design found in previous Batman films. It's the argument that you shouldn't need a fantasy-esque art design for a fantastical world.

It's funny to me because the "fictional fictional" depiction of Batman fits the OP and what I generally know of vigilantes: Batman finally "snaps" and, for whatever reason, kills a few cops and Dent. Maybe Dent didn't fit Batman's view of Justice. Maybe he's finally just gone full-rogue and it's no longer about justice, but revenge.

But the "realistic fictional" depiction of Batman that we know is what actually happened: the man is willing to burn all the goodwill he's built up as a masked vigilante because it's what "needed" (I debate that was the best course of action, but that's not important).

How Batman is portrayed very much depends on who is writing him. The OP article is dumb because the writer assumed that Batman somehow stayed the same in the hands of different writers. It's unfair to treat Synder's Batman to Nolan's Batman just because they are from the same "era".

This is why the OP is dumb: people would (and did) view Batman as a villain. But he isn't one. That's kind of the damned point.

Agreed. Batman is whatever Gotham needs him to be in order to move on from the craziness of their situation. Gotham needed sanity after all the crazy event. Batman gave them that by allowing them to view him as a villain. Gotham doesn't need a heroic Batman, they need a heroic Harvey Dent working within the system.

That was really well written and Oldman does what Oldman does: bring awesome to whatever he's doing. But, when I first saw that, I leaned over to my wife and said "I bet that kid's thinking, 'Man, I can't wait till I'm old enough to feel ways about stuff.'" We both couldn't stop laughing.

I think the people that say TDK final lines felt like pseudo-philosophising bullshit often don't bother to examine what those final lines actually meant. Those lines are central to the overall message TDK was about. The entire movie is about vigilantism is NOT ideal. Hell, the entire movie is about the problems that arose from vigilantism. Joker's role in the story? It's about how vigilantism created a situation that allows the Joker to run wild. Batman's first scene in the movie? About him stopping a whole bunch of vigilante copy-cats. Batman placing his faith in Harvey Dent? Because Harvey is working within the confine of the legal system to get things back to normal.

TDK is really a deconstruction of vigilantism. Gotham "deserves" a vigilante like Batman because it's such a fucked up city. It needed Harvey because vigilantism isn't sustainable.

Ya, I always kinda wondered why they didn't just blame the Joker and his henchmen for all of the killings (including Dent himself), particularly since everyone knew Dent was one of the Joker's main targets. If you are going to use someone as a scapegoat, why not pick the person who was actually trying to tear the city apart? I doubt anyone would have questioned Gordon's story if he had said that the Joker had killed those people and Dent during his spree.

Because Batman NEEDS to be the villain. There are already copy-cats out in the streets dressed up like Batman carrying out vigilante justice. Batman and his approach to "justice" needed to end. Vilgiantism needs to end if Gotham has any hope of recovering.

[TheFeniX]

Well, there is a reason why this forum places Batman stories in the fantasy genre as opposed to the sci-fi genre.

Man, I could rant for days about my misgivings with fantasy/sci-fi labels. Like, is it really different outside an aesthetic choice to say:

"Our ships float because of magic "floatstones" and we shoot "mana" out the back for thrust."
vs
"Our ships float due to anti-grav generators and we shoot the burning remains of dead dinosaurs out the back for thrust."

I think the people that say TDK final lines felt like pseudo-philosophising bullshit often don't bother to examine what those final lines actually meant.

I have to admit, it was one of the best moments of the film, but it was fairly "preachy" and mostly unrealistic as Gordon would have likely been a wreck dealing with his 10-year-old son almost being murdered by what used to be, at the least, a trusted friend. That and the kid was way too calm considering what he's just been through and being that close to a dead body.

Hell, maybe he's just used to it. This is Gotham after-all.

Well ya but Gordon could have said he arrived on the scene and Dent was already dead. Or that he arrived on the scene and that one of the Joker's henchmen / some mob guy pushed Dent off that ledge and got away. Dent was already a target for practically every criminal in the city, there was no reason why they had to blame Batman in particular IMO.

Speaking of Gordon's kid, maybe Gordon handled the interview (they would interview him) and most likely protected him from reporters and other law enforcement, but it's a hard sell that he's able to lie convincingly as a 10-year-old. Or even keep the same story over the years. Or deal with the crippling guilt and PTSD that he basically sent Batman, I assume who his father said mostly good things about and in fact just called a hero, into exile.

He obviously has no responsibility here, but good luck convincing Gordon Jr. of that.

[Tribble]

Because Batman NEEDS to be the villain. There are already copy-cats out in the streets dressed up like Batman carrying out vigilante justice. Batman and his approach to "justice" needed to end. Vilgiantism needs to end if Gotham has any hope of recovering.

IIRC Batman was just originally planning on letting Harvey run things and retiring, and at no point in the film prior to this did he ever mention deliberately wanting to frame himself for murder in order to help end his form of vigilantism. Even in this scene he mentioned that he was doing it to cover up Harvey's crimes, not because he was worried about copy-cats. He was willing to take the fall for Dent because he felt it was necessary, but it really wasn't. Due to the way things were structured this scene was probably the weakest moment in the film IMO, even though the speech itself was good.

Speaking of Gordon's kid, maybe Gordon handled the interview (they would interview him) and most likely protected him from reporters and other law enforcement, but it's a hard sell that he's able to lie convincingly as a 10-year-old. Or even keep the same story over the years. Or deal with the crippling guilt and PTSD that he basically sent Batman, I assume who his father said mostly good things about and in fact just called a hero, into exile.

He obviously has no responsibility here, but good luck convincing Gordon Jr. of that.

IIRC Gordon's family left him at some point after the Dark Knight, and that goes a long way towards explaining it. Could be a combo of trauma and Gordon wanting to keep them out of the way,

[ray245]

Man, I could rant for days about my misgivings with fantasy/sci-fi labels. Like, is it really different outside an aesthetic choice to say:

"Our ships float because of magic "floatstones" and we shoot "mana" out the back for thrust."
vs
"Our ships float due to anti-grav generators and we shoot the burning remains of dead dinosaurs out the back for thrust."

Nowadays I tend to look at how societal itself is fantastical as a basis to separate sci-fi from fantasy.

I have to admit, it was one of the best moments of the film, but it was fairly "preachy" and mostly unrealistic as Gordon would have likely been a wreck dealing with his 10-year-old son almost being murdered by what used to be, at the least, a trusted friend. That and the kid was way too calm considering what he's just been through and being that close to a dead body.

Hell, maybe he's just used to it. This is Gotham after-all.

Well, it's more about it being a thematically fitting ending as opposed to a realistic one.

IIRC Batman was just originally planning on letting Harvey run things and retiring, and at no point in the film prior to this did he ever mention deliberately wanting to frame himself for murder in order to help end his form of vigilantism.

Batman wanted to retire, but upon understanding that he probably can't retire peacefully due to Harvey Dent's death, he chose to vilify himself. Batman didn't know Harvey became so crazy until it was too late.

Even in this scene he mentioned that he was doing it to cover up Harvey's crimes, not because he was worried about copy-cats. He was willing to take the fall for Dent because he felt it was necessary, but it really wasn't. Due to the way things were structured this scene was probably the weakest moment in the film IMO, even though the speech itself was good.

That's if you view the final scenes in isolation. The whole movie was about Batman/Bruce struggling with what "Batman" is really all about. Bruce was questioning himself over whether he had what it takes to be "Batman". His final decision is not exactly about the copy-cats, but about the whole notion of what is right for Gotham. If Batman somehow stayed as a hero after all the madness, Gotham can't move on because Batman will always be seen as a legitimate "successor" to Harvey Dent.

If Harvey was alive to carry on fighting against crime via the legal means, Batman can be retired peacefully. A living, good Harvey Dent would have continued to stand for what is right and be the hero of Gotham. A dead Harvey risk a possibility that people are once again turning to Batman as a legitimate avenue to combat crime. It's about establishing the good Harvey as the hero Gotham needs, while Batman needed to be a villain in order to prop out that idea.

It's sending out a message that a legitimate DA working within the law is incorruptible to his very end, while a vigilante can buckle under pressure. You either die a hero or live long enough to be the villain. Harvey died so he can be a hero to be worshipped, while Batman needs to be the villian simply because he's still alive.

[TheFeniX]

Nowadays I tend to look at how societal itself is fantastical as a basis to separate sci-fi from fantasy.

I'm fairly certain I'm in the same boat or at least we're on the same course. I bought up Demolition Man because I found a lot of the same themes apply to Nolan Batman. Which might be ANOTHER reason I am annoyed at TDK and TDKR. Demolition Man doesn't sermonize though, at least not directly to the audience in a "FEEL THIS WAY" vibe. The movie (for all the shit critics give it) did a much much better job of "show, don't tell."

And honestly, for a "What do we do now?" ending, it worked a lot better because the weakest part of it was them hiring Dennis Leary to do his stand-up act and nothing more.

But it's very apparent why Spartan is walking off into the sunset to make babies with Sandra Bullock (because who the fuck wouldn't): all the characters and the audience already know that without Phoenix around or another Cocteau to enable one, Spartan IS now irrelevant. He actually IS a relic of another era. They don't need him and he seems ok with that since I doubt he got into police work to earn the title of Demolition Man.

That's what they were trying to do with the end of Dark Knight. But I guess they think audiences are fucking morons these days they need it all spelled out for them.

Well, it's more about it being a thematically fitting ending as opposed to a realistic one.

Yea, and that's what kind of chapped my ass. Gordon had no one else to sermonize to and I guess an internal monologue would have been out there. So, he sermonizes to his 10-year-old son. I was more moved by Ian McShane's rant during his fight with Shifu and (once again) Gary Oldman's in his fight with Poe in Kung-Fu Panda 1 and 2 (respectively) because at least the scenes made sense in context.

Nolan wanted Oldman to spout some fairly well-written dialog, so he did. Maybe if, you know just spitballing, Oldman spouted something that sounded like it wasn't written to win Oscars while holding his son and stammering it out between sobs, I might have actually cared MORE. But that line is like.... fuck it, people do it all the time: it's there for you and them to quote any time someone wants to sound smart. A good spiel, but doesn't fit in the context of when and where it was spoken.

Thought it HAS lead to some funny quips over the years.

Blizzard Games: you either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

[ray245]

I'm fairly certain I'm in the same boat or at least we're on the same course. I bought up Demolition Man because I found a lot of the same themes apply to Nolan Batman. Which might be ANOTHER reason I am annoyed at TDK and TDKR. Demolition Man doesn't sermonize though, at least not directly to the audience in a "FEEL THIS WAY" vibe. The movie (for all the shit critics give it) did a much much better job of "show, don't tell."

And honestly, for a "What do we do now?" ending, it worked a lot better because the weakest part of it was them hiring Dennis Leary to do his stand-up act and nothing more.

But it's very apparent why Spartan is walking off into the sunset to make babies with Sandra Bullock (because who the fuck wouldn't): all the characters and the audience already know that without Phoenix around or another Cocteau to enable one, Spartan IS now irrelevant. He actually IS a relic of another era. They don't need him and he seems ok with that since I doubt he got into police work to earn the title of Demolition Man.

That's what they were trying to do with the end of Dark Knight. But I guess they think audiences are fucking morons these days they need it all spelled out for them.

Many audiences don't like paying close attention to movies. Especially for blockbusters.

Yea, and that's what kind of chapped my ass. Gordon had no one else to sermonize to and I guess an internal monologue would have been out there. So, he sermonizes to his 10-year-old son. I was more moved by Ian McShane's rant during his fight with Shifu and (once again) Gary Oldman's in his fight with Poe in Kung-Fu Panda 1 and 2 (respectively) because at least the scenes made sense in context.

Nolan wanted Oldman to spout some fairly well-written dialog, so he did. Maybe if, you know just spitballing, Oldman spouted something that sounded like it wasn't written to win Oscars while holding his son and stammering it out between sobs, I might have actually cared MORE. But that line is like.... fuck it, people do it all the time: it's there for you and them to quote any time someone wants to sound smart. A good spiel, but doesn't fit in the context of when and where it was spoken.

Thought it HAS lead to some funny quips over the years.

Blizzard Games: you either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

Nolan's few weakness, in my opinion, are sound mixing and editing. It might be strange for a director that directed Inception and Memento, but his editing weakness doesn't lie in how he structured his films. Those are fine. His weakness is in the smaller cuts and how edits work within the context of a singular scene.

The final lines are meant to be an internal monologue imo, but it couldn't transit nicely between Gordon's kid and Gordon himself.

[TheFeniX]

Many audiences don't like paying close attention to movies. Especially for blockbusters.

True, and I always figured Nolan Batman for people who like to think they're watching a more "cerebral" action movie while still able to watch bad guys get dick punched. But 2/3 Nolan Batman movies feel like you could just have Keenen Wayans come into multiple scenes and yell "MESSAGE!" to get the point across just as well.

Nolan's few weakness, in my opinion, are sound mixing and editing. It might be strange for a director that directed Inception and Memento, but his editing weakness doesn't lie in how he structured his films. Those are fine. His weakness is in the smaller cuts and how edits work within the context of a singular scene.

I think he and/or his writers is much worse about putting the cart before the horse. TDK and TDKR feels like they had these ideas for all these great scenes and said "fit them in somehow." I find a current-ish trend of this in Hollywood: think up some cool ideas and write a plot around them. This is a pretty terrible way to write a movie. That your dialog and choreography might be Oscar worthy and people ignore the fact your narrative is fucked doesn't make that ok. At least not for me.*

And I don't mind this too much. There's multiple movies and other media I enjoy that are like "just turn your brain off and enjoy the colors." But when you want me to feel and you want me to think, your shit needs to be on point. I didn't give (for one example) Saving Private Ryan a pass, but that movie was deserving of every bit of praise it gets.

To see the worst of the worst, look at those "Meet the" movies and other parodies in that vein. Talk as much smack about Scary Movie 1 (and possibly 2) as you want. But these were about as smart with the writing as they could be. They were actual movies with a plot whereas the later crop were pop-culture riffing scenes cut together with 2 seconds of thought. They'd be better off cut up as a clip show.

Obviously, Dark Knight is nowhere near this shitheap level, but there are times it fucking feels like it and the concept is the same. Where shit just kind of jumps around like it's Memento 2.0 (loved that movie, just saying). Like,

"We need a scene where the Joker crashes Bruce Waynes party. Ledger is amazing, we need Joker sticky it to stuffy rich people.**"
"But wouldn't a guy like Wayne, hosting a huge party for wealthy socialites, have multiple levels of security considering all the crazy shit going on in the city?"
"Who let this guy in here? Oh yea, and have Batman show up and rescue his BFF/GF in a cool scene where they fall out the window together."
"Ok, so how do we handle the Joker getting out of there and the aftermath? What happens to all the people left in there with said Joker and his henchmen?"
"Do what? We just move on to the next scene."

TDK is pretty heavily carried by it's roster (Gyllenhaal and Bale being two of the weakest, which is saying something) and a director who knows how to make a scene play right with his actors: explosions or no explosions. I just get annoyed when the movie tries to remind me there's a jumbled mess of a plot crudely wrapped around the whole thing.

*As if my opinion is worth a shit. Since X-Men 3, I've seen two movies in theaters: Transformers 1 and Deadpool. I cashed out a while ago.
**I noticed the look of shock on My Cocanie's face during that awesome scene. Urban legend is that Caine had a line of dialog, but this was his first time seeing Ledger in his Joker make-up and he was floored by it and Ledgers entrance into the scene: he just stood there in shocked silence.

[Civil War Man]

I think he and/or his writers is much worse about putting the cart before the horse. TDK and TDKR feels like they had these ideas for all these great scenes and said "fit them in somehow." I find a current-ish trend of this in Hollywood: think up some cool ideas and write a plot around them. This is a pretty terrible way to write a movie. That your dialog and choreography might be Oscar worthy and people ignore the fact your narrative is fucked doesn't make that ok. At least not for me.*

As a side note, writing a story by creating a bunch of cool set pieces and loosely stringing them together means you give up a lot of control over the story's overall theme, and you can end up sending a message you don't intend, or in some cases is the opposite of what you intend.

As far as I'm aware, Nolan claims that he did not intend to have a political message in the Dark Knight movies, so assuming that he is telling the truth, I can think of a few examples from TDK and TDKR in particular where this can apply.

1. Batman going after Lau in Hong Kong. In real life, he would have caused a total diplomatic shit show. The Chinese government would be justifiably pissed off that one of their citizens was kidnapped, taken out of the country, and delivered to an American prison, and the fact that Lau was laundering money for the mob would be irrelevant, because allowing it to stand basically cedes sovereignty to any country that doesn't feel like going through normal diplomatic channels. And if the US government refused to return him, then it would be tacitly endorsing Batman's actions, which could cause the whole thing to spiral out of control. At best, we'd probably end up with a situation like the whole thing with Russia and the US, where we have economic and/or political sanctions and possibly expelling diplomats. But since TDK shows absolutely no consequences for what Batman did (because the set piece was over), some see a pro-extraordinary rendition subtext to the whole thing.

2. The whole Bat Sonar thing. Since it's established that the people whose phones are being used are not aware of it, it's inevitably drawn comparisons to Big Brother and the NSA's domestic spying program. And despite Lucius's misgiving, it's portrayed as necessary to catch the Joker. Coupled with the Hong Kong scene, and the fact that the movie came out at the tail end of the Bush administration, it makes the movie as a whole seem pro-Bush, pro-War on Terror, pro-Patriot Act, etc, for people who read into it that way.

3. In another thread, I linked to an autopsy of TDKR done by Wisecrack that was rather interesting, because it points out a lot of references the movie makes to A Tale of Two Cities. One problem is has, though, is that it shows a class divide like in A Tale of Two Cities, but it largely doesn't portray the upper classes as capricious and cruel, fails to portray the police as corrupt agents of the upper class, and portrays the prisoners at Blackgate as dangerous criminals instead of poor people who are being oppressed by the system. Because if they added that level of nuance to the situation, then people wouldn't know who to root for during the epic street brawl between the police and Bane's revolution. So when tensions between the upper and lower classes do boil over in the movie, it seems like it's just the poor people hating the rich because they are jealous of their success, which is why there were people who considered it to be anti-Occupy Wall Street propaganda when it came out.

4. The same video I mention in 3 also brings up how TDK and TDKR handle the concept of the Noble Lie. TDK constructs the lie about Harvey Dent because of the fear of what would happen if people found out about Dent's fall. TDKR shows that they used this lie to successfully break the back of organized crime. Then, when Bane reveals what really happened, social order breaks down, and is only restored when Batman pretends to sacrifice himself. As far as I can tell, they make it a fake sacrifice because they wanted the cool set piece of Batman sacrificing himself for the greater good, also wanted the set piece of Alfred and Bruce Wayne seeing each other in the cafe, and did not want a downer ending. But since it tried to have all of those things, you get a movie that seems to argue that not only is a Noble Lie effective at establishing peace, but is necessary, and that knowledge of the truth is actively destructive towards peace and order.

[Tribble]

That's if you view the final scenes in isolation. The whole movie was about Batman/Bruce struggling with what "Batman" is really all about. Bruce was questioning himself over whether he had what it takes to be "Batman". His final decision is not exactly about the copy-cats, but about the whole notion of what is right for Gotham. If Batman somehow stayed as a hero after all the madness, Gotham can't move on because Batman will always be seen as a legitimate "successor" to Harvey Dent.

If Harvey was alive to carry on fighting against crime via the legal means, Batman can be retired peacefully. A living, good Harvey Dent would have continued to stand for what is right and be the hero of Gotham. A dead Harvey risk a possibility that people are once again turning to Batman as a legitimate avenue to combat crime. It's about establishing the good Harvey as the hero Gotham needs, while Batman needed to be a villain in order to prop out that idea.

It's sending out a message that a legitimate DA working within the law is incorruptible to his very end, while a vigilante can buckle under pressure. You either die a hero or live long enough to be the villain. Harvey died so he can be a hero to be worshipped, while Batman needs to be the villian simply because he's still alive.

Uh-huh. So if Harvey had died without killing people, Batman would have just framed himself at the end of the movie over something else anyways?

That's still stupid.

Many audiences don't like paying close attention to movies. Especially for blockbusters.

I take it that one was directed at me, eh?

[ray245]

True, and I always figured Nolan Batman for people who like to think they're watching a more "cerebral" action movie while still able to watch bad guys get dick punched. But 2/3 Nolan Batman movies feel like you could just have Keenen Wayans come into multiple scenes and yell "MESSAGE!" to get the point across just as well.

On the other hand, without those "in your face" messages, most audience won't even attempt to figure out what the movie is about beyond the character arcs.

Character arcs is the easiet thing for audience to understand, and some filmmakers tend to prioritise that. I'm getting a feeling Nolan is not a fan of those approach.

I think he and/or his writers is much worse about putting the cart before the horse. TDK and TDKR feels like they had these ideas for all these great scenes and said "fit them in somehow." I find a current-ish trend of this in Hollywood: think up some cool ideas and write a plot around them. This is a pretty terrible way to write a movie. That your dialog and choreography might be Oscar worthy and people ignore the fact your narrative is fucked doesn't make that ok. At least not for me.*

And I don't mind this too much. There's multiple movies and other media I enjoy that are like "just turn your brain off and enjoy the colors." But when you want me to feel and you want me to think, your shit needs to be on point. I didn't give (for one example) Saving Private Ryan a pass, but that movie was deserving of every bit of praise it gets.

How Nolan cut his movies is quite different from most directors. Scenes are cut together thematically ( watch Batman Begins where such apporach is more obvious), rather than via plot development. This is much easier to understand once you've seen Dunkirk.

To see the worst of the worst, look at those "Meet the" movies and other parodies in that vein. Talk as much smack about Scary Movie 1 (and possibly 2) as you want. But these were about as smart with the writing as they could be. They were actual movies with a plot whereas the later crop were pop-culture riffing scenes cut together with 2 seconds of thought. They'd be better off cut up as a clip show.

Obviously, Dark Knight is nowhere near this shitheap level, but there are times it fucking feels like it and the concept is the same. Where shit just kind of jumps around like it's Memento 2.0 (loved that movie, just saying). Like,

"We need a scene where the Joker crashes Bruce Waynes party. Ledger is amazing, we need Joker sticky it to stuffy rich people.**"
"But wouldn't a guy like Wayne, hosting a huge party for wealthy socialites, have multiple levels of security considering all the crazy shit going on in the city?"
"Who let this guy in here? Oh yea, and have Batman show up and rescue his BFF/GF in a cool scene where they fall out the window together."
"Ok, so how do we handle the Joker getting out of there and the aftermath? What happens to all the people left in there with said Joker and his henchmen?"
"Do what? We just move on to the next scene."

TDK is pretty heavily carried by it's roster (Gyllenhaal and Bale being two of the weakest, which is saying something) and a director who knows how to make a scene play right with his actors: explosions or no explosions. I just get annoyed when the movie tries to remind me there's a jumbled mess of a plot crudely wrapped around the whole thing.

*As if my opinion is worth a shit. Since X-Men 3, I've seen two movies in theaters: Transformers 1 and Deadpool. I cashed out a while ago.
**I noticed the look of shock on My Cocanie's face during that awesome scene. Urban legend is that Caine had a line of dialog, but this was his first time seeing Ledger in his Joker make-up and he was floored by it and Ledgers entrance into the scene: he just stood there in shocked silence.

After seeing Dunkirk together, I think I had a much better idea of how Nolan thinks about the movie. He was going a little bit experimental with TDK with his edits. He cut a Superhero movie thematically instead of cutting it traditionally.

Uh-huh. So if Harvey had died without killing people, Batman would have just framed himself at the end of the movie over something else anyways?

That's still stupid.

No, if Harvey died without killing anyone, Batman can retire in peace because no one was killed. The people that were killed by Harvey were people involved in Rachel's death. Those people's death meant that either Harvey or Batman was responsible for the killings. If neither of them succumbs to vengeance, the good guys win because they resisted the urge to kill people. It's why the cover-up was so important. Someone had to be blamed for going mad and killing those that were responsible for Rachel's death.

The two person that cared about Rachel the most were Harvey and Batman. Harvey kill any random stranger on the street. He targetted very specific people.

I take it that one was directed at me, eh?

Depends on whether you are able to look at things thematically instead of merely from the POV of plot and character progression.

[Tribble]

No, if Harvey died without killing anyone, Batman can retire in peace because no one was killed. The people that were killed by Harvey were people involved in Rachel's death. Those people's death meant that either Harvey or Batman was responsible for the killings. If neither of them succumbs to vengeance, the good guys win because they resisted the urge to kill people. It's why the cover-up was so important. Someone had to be blamed for going mad and killing those that were responsible for Rachel's death.

The two person that cared about Rachel the most were Harvey and Batman. Harvey kill any random stranger on the street. He targetted very specific people.

Given that the Mob and Joker were well known for knocking off people when necessary / no longer needed, it's actually easier to have explained the deaths as the Joker and the Mob tying up loose ends. And again Dent was well known for having a target on his back the whole time, so his supposed death at the hands of the Joker / Mob would not have shocked anyone.

The way things were structured Batman could have simply disappeared after that point and everything would have more or less gone the same way as they did in DKR.

Depends on whether you are able to look at things thematically instead of merely from the POV of plot and character progression.

Oh I get that thematically Batman had to fall, it's the way it was handled that was a weak point in the film IMO.

On a related note I would have preferred it if Dent didn't appear after the hospital scene, IMO Two-Face is a good enough villain to have warranted being a major player in a whole film instead of the 15 minutes or so we got in DK.

[ray245]

Given that the Mob and Joker were well known for knocking off people when necessary / no longer needed, it's actually easier to have explained the deaths as the Joker and the Mob tying up loose ends. And again Dent was well known for having a target on his back the whole time, so his supposed death at the hands of the Joker / Mob would not have shocked anyone.

The way things were structured Batman could have simply disappeared after that point and everything would have more or less gone the same way as they did in DKR.

Not really. The movie would not have been resolved thematically. It would have failed to demonstrate to the audience and Gotham what is the "right" path of justice. Blaming it on the Joker is wrong because the legal system cannot be used to pin it on someone that didn't commit a specific crime. It's why Batman took the blame because he did it willingly as a sacrifice.

Even then, TDKR was about how a fragile a legal system built upon a lie really is. It's why Gotham practically fall apart upon the revelation of Dent's murder. Batman offered Gotham a fresh start to rebuild the legal system. It would have undermined most of the principles everyone in TDK was fighting for if they use it to pin on the Joker just because he's insane. It's wrong to do that.

Oh I get that thematically Batman had to fall, it's the way it was handled that was a weak point in the film IMO.

I don't deny that it was weak. But there is a reason why they cannot use the Joker as a scapegoat. It would have been bad if the first chance of restarting Gotham was build upon abusing the law and charging someone for a crime he did not commit. It would have been even worse than Batman taking the blame upon himself.

On a related note I would have preferred it if Dent didn't appear after the hospital scene, IMO Two-Face is a good enough villain to have warranted being a major player in a whole film instead of the 15 minutes or so we got in DK.

Thematically, Harvey Dent is the main character for TDK. It's his journey that matter the most. He's the real villain of the whole movie. The problem is Heath Ledger outshone everyone in the film by such a ridiculous margin that it becomes hard to think of Harvey Dent as the main focus of the plot. The Joker is a plot-device as opposed to a character. He's the force of nature that push Batman and Harvey Dent into the final conflict.

Joker is ridiculous and unstoppable because he's the CGI tornado wrecking Gotham. Harvey had a character arc. Joker didn't.

[Tribble]

Not really. The movie would not have been resolved thematically. It would have failed to demonstrate to the audience and Gotham what is the "right" path of justice. Blaming it on the Joker is wrong because the legal system cannot be used to pin it on someone that didn't commit a specific crime. It's why Batman took the blame because he did it willingly as a sacrifice.

Even though Batman didn't commit the crimes? Either way its not right, its just the Joker is the more logical choice. Well I guess you could argue that Batman did literally kill Dent (vs the Joker "just" maiming and psychologically torturing him), although unlike the Joker I don't think he was intending to.

Even then, TDKR was about how a fragile a legal system built upon a lie really is. It's why Gotham practically fall apart upon the revelation of Dent's murder. Batman offered Gotham a fresh start to rebuild the legal system. It would have undermined most of the principles everyone in TDK was fighting for if they use it to pin on the Joker just because he's insane. It's wrong to do that.

The system fell apart precisely because Gordon felt so guilty about blaming Batman that he was eventually going to tell everyone and wrote that speech. Weird that everyone believed Bane right away and no way Bane could have planned for that but w/e. IMO Gordon shouldn't feel remotely near the same way about the Joker. It would have made more sense for Gordon to rationalise Dent's actions as ultimately being the Joker's fault compared to blaming Batman whom he knew had little if anything to do with it. In a way, the Joker was far more responsible for the killings and Dent's death than Batman. Dent clearly wasn't in his right state of mind due to his injuries and sufferings. etc etc. Kinda like an Obi-Wan "certain point of view" thing. And again, I highly doubt anyone (including Bane) would have challenged him on that.

Thematically, Harvey Dent is the main character for TDK. It's his journey that matter the most. He's the real villain of the whole movie. The problem is Heath Ledger outshone everyone in the film by such a ridiculous margin that it becomes hard to think of Harvey Dent as the main focus of the plot. The Joker is a plot-device as opposed to a character. He's the force of nature that push Batman and Harvey Dent into the final conflict.

Joker is ridiculous and unstoppable because he's the CGI tornado wrecking Gotham. Harvey had a character arc. Joker didn't.

YMMV. While Dent was a main focus of the plot the "Two-Face" part always felt really rushed to me. I think there's more than enough Two-Face material to carry him for a full film (same goes for the Joker who was obviously intended to survive, but for equally obvious reasons couldn't be in DKR). Perhaps if we were going to see Gotham's near fall in DKR,it could have been via Two-Face coming out in the open. That would have made more sense than Bane's random nuclear bomb plot. And speaking of Bane, if he had to be included Dent coming out in the open would be just the kind of thing the League of Shadows would use as a reason to go after Gotham again (as opposed to waiting over 8 years just for the evilz).

I guess we're going to be at odds here but I'm just not a fan of the ending... though its better than DKR.