Gordon faking his death

[The Laughing Fish]

One of the most confusing and annoying parts of this movie is the Gordon fake death subplot. When I watched this for the first time, I thought that Batman and Dent knew that Gordon had faked his death and they were secretly cooperating together in a dangerous plan to capture the Joker. But after watching this dumb movie a couple more times in the last few years, that wouldn't make any sense. There is not one scene where we can infer that Batman or Dent were aware that Gordon was still alive, let alone being involved in a plan to arrest Joker.

Look at the press conference scene, for instance. Bruce looked shocked when Dent lied to everyone that he was Batman. And the reason why Dent did it was to prevent Bruce from turning himself in to the police; forcing him to continue as Batman and go after the Joker (by the way, that alone goes against everything what Batman stands for too - he worked hard to become this crime-fighter, but now he looks to surrender instead of working harder to stop the Joker  ).

This really bugs me. I've watched this scene four times, read the script, and even read the characters' Wikia pages, and I still can't understand this incoherent nonsense. And for what it's worth, not even the movie's biggest fans seem to understand what's going on either. The movie's original script had Dent smiling with Gordon after arresting the Joker, which implied that the two were secretly working together all along. But the movie shows Dent looking surprised when he learns that Gordon was still alive.

Gordon's reasoning for faking his death to protect his family makes no sense either. After he arrests the Joker, and gets promoted as the new commissioner for it, wouldn't that actually endanger him and his family more than ever before? Not only are they at risk of being attacked by the Joker who might want revenge for arrest, but it would also attract unwanted attention from lowlifes who might want to take a shot at the guy who brought Joker down? Hell, I'm not even convinced that Gordon even planned the entire lead-up to Joker's arrest. I find it hard to believe that Gordon would impulsively fake his death, trick everyone in the process and endanger an entire town, just so he can hope that Batman could come to the rescue and corner the Joker when lets his guard down. What if Joker killed Gordon and Dent with the bazooka?

Any thoughts? Am I missing something here or does this subplot really make no sense at all?

[Edd Grayson]

I also thought it made little sense for Gordon to fake his death. I liked this movie the first time I saw it, but it seems to get worse every time as I notice things like this.

[The Dark Knight]

Yeah, don't try and figure it out Laughing Fish. It's Nolan trying to be clever but it's nothing more than a tangled mess. I hate the idea random incidents nobody could predict become 'all part of the plan'.

[The Laughing Fish]

Yeah, don't try and figure it out Laughing Fish. It's Nolan trying to be clever but it's nothing more than a tangled mess. I hate the idea random incidents nobody could predict become 'all part of the plan'.

I especially hate that stupid quote. I really dislike a lot of Joker's lines in this movie, to be honest. Such pretentious nonsense.

I forgot to say that one of the reasons I thought Batman was in cahoots with Gordon to capture the Joker was because of the fake-looking Batpod crash. I didn't think Batman's bike struck the side of the truck that heavily; not to the point that it seemingly knocked him out. I initially thought Batman faked his unconsciousness to distract the Joker and give Gordon the chance to nail him. But once again, there's not one moment in the film where it even hinted that Batman was aware of what was going on. If anything, it shows he was completely unaware. So that means if Gordon hadn't survived at that point or couldn't arrest Joker for whatever reason, Joker would've more than likely murdered Batman right there in the middle of the street.

Can someone please explain to me what's so good about this stupid movie? It's one thing to enjoy a brainless action movie as long as you know it is one, but why the hell do people still treat this as a sacred cow? Why the hell do people still think Christopher Nolan is a genius storyteller if can't write a coherent, logical story to save his life? Did the backlash surrounding Joel Schumacher's movies really lower people's expectations that badly?

[The Dark Knight]

Just because the tone is darker doesn't change the fact TDK is nothing more than turn off your brain entertainment. At least B66 was straight up honest with its absurdity. If you call out TDK's issues - "it's just a comic book movie". If you raise something complimentary - "see, that's why TDK transcends the genre." That's another annoying, stupid comment. Being ashamed of the genre and trying to elevate themselves above it.

[Travesty]

^ Yeah, it's one thing that always pissed me off about these movies when talking to fans. One second they're explaining why these characters are more grounded and realistic compared to its counterparts(hey, Joker wears facepaint, because its realistic guys. Nolan and stuff), and then when you find something absurd about the movie, they're the first ones to say, "but its a comic book movie. Don't take it so seriously". They have their cake and eat it too.

For me, it's just Nolan in general with his movies. I still have no idea why this guy gets a pass for soooooo many things that other directors get trashed for. Just look at Avatar for an example. People love to trash that movie, and say how the 3D was just a gimmick to sell higher priced tickets, and that the story is just Hollywood ripping off Furn Gully and Pocahontas. There's no originality to it, etc. But then they see Nolan's IMAX movies, and somehow it's not a gimmick anymore, it's real cinema for the art of cinema. There's no gimmick to make you pay more for the prices. And this Batman story, yeah, this is completely original ideas. Nobody has every heard of this Bat-Man before. Nolan isn't like these other Hollywood schmucks, he's completely original. 

[The Laughing Fish]

^ Yeah, it's one thing that always pissed me off about these movies when talking to fans. One second they're explaining why these characters are more grounded and realistic compared to its counterparts(hey, Joker wears facepaint, because its realistic guys. Nolan and stuff), and then when you find something absurd about the movie, they're the first ones to say, "but its a comic book movie. Don't take it so seriously". They have their cake and eat it too.

The most irritating thing is getting accused of being a Burton fanboy or having an agenda if you don't like these movies. Because god forbid that there are people out there who genuinely didn't enjoy the films and didn't think they were any good at all. 

For me, it's just Nolan in general with his movies. I still have no idea why this guy gets a pass for soooooo many things that other directors get trashed for.

I know exactly what you mean. Lack of character development, poor pacing, plot holes etc are often targeted at other movies...but Nolan still gets a pass. For instance, the same people who whined about Superman's recklessness and killing Zod in Man of Steel, are usually the same ones who praised Nolan's stuff despite his movies do the exact same thing too, and much worse. People act like Superman betrayed something for killing Zod but I don't agree at all. Like it or not, Clark Kent in that movie began with uncertainty with his place in the world, his fear of being persecuted by the entire human race and still had doubts that humanity could be trusted when the threat of Zod arrived. It wasn't until he was convinced to give humans a chance, and Zod confirming his fears of what he wanted to do with the human race that Clark decided to save the world from genocide, even if it came at the expense of his Kryptonian heritage.

Unlike Clark in MOS, the mentally-challenged Bruce Wayne in this trilogy set a standard upon himself by declaring to become an everlasting symbol. Which he undermined himself in every step of the way, especially what he did in The Dark Knight's pathetic ending. Apparently, framing yourself for crimes you didn't commit which would not only devastate everyone who would looked up to you, but also risk keeping a secret that could (and eventually does) destroy the entire city...is somehow better than taking a hard choice to stop a madman from committing global genocide.



No, I don't get it either. But TDK's got 95% on Rotten Tomatoes, so my argument is invalid apparently .  What a crock of sh*t.

You know, people may rebut the criticisms against Nolan's movies by saying "all movies have plot holes" but they're missing the point. When a movie has tons of plot holes AND characters you don't give a damn about, it's a problem. Batman Returns has many plot holes, but that movie makes me care about characters like Batman and Catwoman - hell even Penguin to an extent albeit regardless how twisted he is. It makes me have sympathy with what they go through and how they reflect each other. There's something I can latch onto with that movie. I couldn't give a fark about any of the characters Nolan's movies. If people do acknowledge that the films have flaws but still enjoy, fine. More power to them. But they shouldn't get all outraged when others disagree with them.

One more thing about this stupid Gordon sub-plot: it always came across as a twist for the sake of having one. Even though I never was that surprised in the first place because I remember the trailers giving too many Gordon scenes away that were yet to occur by the time he faked his death. Never mind the fact that an established character like Gordon could never get killed off prematurely without becoming the Commissioner. And here's a confusing plot hole: how did Gordon manage to hide if he's surrounded by dirty cops? Could they have been in on the set-up as well? But it wouldn't make much sense because we saw them standing on the rooftop drinking their sorrows away fifteen minutes earlier.   

Fark it, TDK (the user) is right. The whole thing is a mess.

[The Laughing Fish]

Apparently, framing yourself for crimes you didn't commit which would not only devastate everyone who would looked up to you, but also risk keeping a secret that could (and eventually does) destroy the entire city.

Sorry, I meant to say "but also risk keeping a secret that could (and eventually does) destroy the entire city if it gets exposed one day". But screw it, I'm sure all of you knew what I meant anyway.

[The Dark Knight]

Things have died down somewhat, but at the height of Nolan's reign the situation was frustrating to say the least.

We pretty much had Batman fans selling their soul to Nolan. Accepting watered down translations of characters and environments with open arms - claiming it was much better than what had gone before. Even to the point it was apparently hard to go back and watch anything other than Nolan's Batman.

Me? I think Nolan's Batman largely goes against the spirit of the character. Nolan's world isn't a patch on BTAS. When you compare anything from Nolan's world against BTAS you really see how short TDK Trilogy came up.

With Nolan's trilogy, people wanted Batman to be viewed as this serious, professional, elitist franchise. But by largely going against what made the character and his world so great in the first place.

At the height of Nolan's run people routinely criticised 'fantastical' elements which rampantly appear in the comics and video games. They didn't want that in the films. But they accepted it just fine in those other forms of media. That was always a head scratcher for me.

Sure, more grounded versions of Batman can be done. But bottom line, Batman as a concept isn't remotely plausible. To say he's a human being who trained really hard and drives a fast car is simplistic to the point of being stupid. That's why there are tonal problems with Nolan's trilogy. It can never really strike a balance on either side.

The 'fantastical' element is the norm with Batman, and it should be. Fantasy is the ingredient that finishes off the Batman universe and makes it what it is. Without it you're left with something less exciting and muted. It actually draws more attention to itself if anything.

I am sure Snyder will cream Nolan in terms of visuals and fight choreography. It won't even be a contest. You'll probably have the die hard Nolan crew saying it's all flashy with no soul. That Nolan had the better writing. Well, we all know that's  load of nonsense. The writing sucks. I don't have much of an issue with BB - other than the completely unnatural, droning dialogue. But the issues are apparent with TDK and TDKR if you're not drinking kool aid.

Affleck and Snyder have every hope of being the best since Keaton.

[Travesty]

Ha, I agree with all of your guys points, and find it funny that we think a lot alike. And I totally agree about ranking the trilogy, as I actually really love BB(even though it isn't a perfect movie), and then TDK and TDKR really dropped the ball for me.