Wouldn’t keeping the Joker alive jeopardize the Dent cover-up?

[The Laughing Fish]

Apart from Batman upholding a meaningless moral code which he broke before and after the fact and getting people killed for no reason in the process, here's another excuse why keeping the Joker alive is illogical: couldn't it endanger the entire cover-up surrounding Harvey Dent?

Think about it for a second. The Joker was really determined to devastate the public by miraculously brainwashing Harvey into becoming a cold-blooded murderer. So...it wouldn't make much sense if the Joker suddenly kept quiet while Batman framed himself to protect Harvey, would it? And I don't buy the excuse that nobody would believe the Joker if he started talking. After all, if the Joker can manipulate Gordon's partner while in jail and manipulate Harvey into misdirecting his anger out on everybody else, then he's more than capable of exposing the truth about what really happened to Harvey.

Let's face it, if we assume that the Joker is still alive and well by the end of the movie and in the next eight years as suggested by the third movie's novelization and fan fiction, there's no way he'd happily accept defeat and allow Gotham to clean itself up because everybody thought Dent was murdered by Batman.

Which brings up my other point: TDK is a movie where nobody wins. Some people try to argue that Batman taking the fall goes to show that the Joker defeated him from a philosophical point of view. But that's just bullcrap because crime in Gotham has been eliminated thanks to the Dent Act. The truth only came out thanks to Bane conveniently finding Gordon's letter. Otherwise, nobody would've discovered the truth. And yet, we're supposed to believe that the Joker stood by silently somewhere in jail and allowed peace to restore itself in Gotham? Seriously? I thought the Joker wanted anarchy, not order.

If the third film had simply explained that the Joker was killed by the SWAT team before Batman confronted Two-Face, I would've given the TDK's ending a tiny bit of slack. As it stands, it's an annoying, illogical plot hole that nobody dares to address.

I'd like to hear other people's thoughts about this.

[DocLathropBrown]

Who would believe him?

But for that matter, why would they have believed Bane for exposing it?

[The Dark Knight]

But for that matter, why would they have believed Bane for exposing it?

Indeed. Believe Bane because he said so!

[The Laughing Fish]

Who would believe him?

Like I said, if the Joker could manipulate Gordon's partner and Harvey Dent, then he's capable of exposing the truth about the whole cover-up. All it takes is for him to say to somebody "You're not really that stupid enough to believe Batman killed those people, do you? If he did, he'd kill me too.", and he'd be able to cast doubt and get people to talk of a conspiracy. It's something that he would definitely try. After all, Batman goes from being a crime-fighter in one moment, but in the next minute he's a cold-blooded murderer? I'd say the opportunity for to exploit that unlikelihood is there for the taking.

But for that matter, why would they have believed Bane for exposing it?

Exactly. Don't you think it goes to show how utterly moronic TDK's ending is? Batman and Gordon could've easily protected Dent's reputation by putting the blame on Joker and/or his henchmen. Or even claim it an unsolved murder. Instead, they decided to tell a lie that's easily exposed. Rubbish writing.

[riddler]

I do slag on the ending of the dark knight but for different reasons;


I don't believe Batman needs to take the fall for Dent. It could easily be proven that he went crazy after the scarring/Rachels death and thus such shouldn't affect prior convictions.

Now as evil as he was, framing the Joker is too dangerous as that certainly could affect past convictions if it gets proven that Gordon and Batman frame people. Though in TDKR that eventually DOES happen when revealed Gordon frames Batman.

They also open the door for a dirty cop in Ramirez as well as any one else who saw Dent as two face turning them in. Are we to believe that these people all kept quiet while Dent was pronounced dead as a hero? Why on earth couldn't they destroy the body or dispose of it leaving Dent's death a mystery? What kind of message are they giving Gordon's children who clearly know Batman wasn't the one holding them at gun point?

The danger with locking up the Joker is that while he isn't credible, he does know things which are true and could potentially be proven.

[thecolorsblend]

I thought the entire point of TDK was that the Joker won the moral victory. Sure, Gordon and Batman can issue whatever propaganda they want but (A) that by itself acknowledges his victory (B) it destroys Batman, which in a weird kind of way is a fulfillment of the promise the Joker made earlier (C) in a weird nonsensical way it makes Batman break his one rule... but not really (D) the entire thing is predicated on lies, which is the Joker's way of destroying Batman and Gordon and (E) it still doesn't change anything. The Joker still destroyed Harvey. Batman and Gordon still have to live with that. Whatever lies they tell themselves and others doesn't make a difference. The Joker won.

This, in fact, is one of the problems I have with TDK.

[The Laughing Fish]

Now as evil as he was, framing the Joker is too dangerous as that certainly could affect past convictions if it gets proven that Gordon and Batman frame people. Though in TDKR that eventually DOES happen when revealed Gordon frames Batman.

Hence, it goes to show that the lie that Gordon and Batman chose to tell was such a horrendous idea if all it took was a little letter that exposed the truth. I really doubt Gordon, Batman or even Ramirez would feel guilty that the Joker and/or his henchmen were framed for Harvey's death.

They also open the door for a dirty cop in Ramirez as well as any one else who saw Dent as two face turning them in. Are we to believe that these people all kept quiet while Dent was pronounced dead as a hero? Why on earth couldn't they destroy the body or dispose of it leaving Dent's death a mystery? What kind of message are they giving Gordon's children who clearly know Batman wasn't the one holding them at gun point?

The danger with locking up the Joker is that while he isn't credible, he does know things which are true and could potentially be proven.

The most annoying thing about Ramirez is that while she wasn't a main character in the movie, she still played a prominent part in it. We never see or hear from her again, it's like she was a plot device and then gets discarded. So yes, according to the series, we are supposed to assume she did keep quiet. That's another thing I really dislike about Nolan. He uses characters as plot devices and then throws them away. Scarecrow is another example of this.

I thought the entire point of TDK was that the Joker won the moral victory.

I beg to differ. He described his corruption of Harvey Dent as "his ace in the hole" and boasts to Batman that he wouldn't risk fighting for Gotham's soul in a fist fight...but then he mysteriously keeps quiet when his plan to devastate the city over the truth didn't work out at all. The Joker might say a lot of nonsense and lies a lot, but he's not a self-defeating moron. He had a plan. I don't know what the original ideas for the Joker were if he was supposed to appear in TDKR, but in my opinion, there's no believable way he'd go through all that trouble only to give up and let Gotham restore peace through the Dent Act for eight years. Now you might argue that Joker was proven right when the truth was exposed in TDKR, but I'd say that the lie came back to bite Batman and Gordon on the ass. In other words, those two morons got themselves into this mess.

Like I said before, I might have cut the TDK's ending some slack if there was a logical explanation about the Joker's fate in the third film. I understand and even respect why Nolan didn't want to recast the role when Heath Ledger died, but I completely disagree with his decision to not even acknowledge the character in the last film. Like he never existed.

in a weird nonsensical way it makes Batman break his one rule... but not really

Batman didn't kill Two-Face out of malicious intent, that's true, but it still doesn't change the fact he did it to save a young boy's life. Which like I said many times before, it makes his refusal to kill Joker meaningless if it only put the entire town in harm's way. So yes, I'd say Batman did break his rule. I see a lot of people try to justify that Dent's death was an accident, but I disagree. The way the scene was written and depicted on screen can be compared to the way Superman killed Zod in Man of Steel situation. But of course, you see people attack that film because they hated the way the scene was written where Superman was forced to take that action, and wondered why he didn't use his heat vision to lobotomise Zod. My response is: you might as well condemn Nolan for making Batman break his code, and demand Batman to use a Batarang to disarm Two-Face instead and avoid killing him. But as you know, hypocrisy rules. 

This, in fact, is one of the problems I have with TDK.

And its muddled nonsense is the biggest reason why I really dislike it so much.

[BatmAngelus]

Honestly, I think Laughing Fish had the best alternate ending idea in having Batman and Gordon defeat Joker by revealing the truth about Harvey themselves and proving that the city is still ready to believe in good. Dent/Two-Face is a known criminal, but Batman is still the one who saved the city and is the one they can believe in. So Gotham rallies behind Batman as their hero instead.

You know...like in the comics...

[Dagenspear]

Hence, it goes to show that the lie that Gordon and Batman chose to tell was such a horrendous idea if all it took was a little letter that exposed the truth. I really doubt Gordon, Batman or even Ramirez would feel guilty that the Joker and/or his henchmen were framed for Harvey's death.

The most annoying thing about Ramirez is that while she wasn't a main character in the movie, she still played a prominent part in it. We never see or hear from her again, it's like she was a plot device and then gets discarded. So yes, according to the series, we are supposed to assume she did keep quiet. That's another thing I really dislike about Nolan. He uses characters as plot devices and then throws them away. Scarecrow is another example of this.

I beg to differ. He described his corruption of Harvey Dent as "his ace in the hole" and boasts to Batman that he wouldn't risk fighting for Gotham's soul in a fist fight...but then he mysteriously keeps quiet when his plan to devastate the city over the truth didn't work out at all. The Joker might say a lot of nonsense and lies a lot, but he's not a self-defeating moron. He had a plan. I don't know what the original ideas for the Joker were if he was supposed to appear in TDKR, but in my opinion, there's no believable way he'd go through all that trouble only to give up and let Gotham restore peace through the Dent Act for eight years. Now you might argue that Joker was proven right when the truth was exposed in TDKR, but I'd say that the lie came back to bite Batman and Gordon on the ass. In other words, those two morons got themselves into this mess.

Like I said before, I might have cut the TDK's ending some slack if there was a logical explanation about the Joker's fate in the third film. I understand and even respect why Nolan didn't want to recast the role when Heath Ledger died, but I completely disagree with his decision to not even acknowledge the character in the last film. Like he never existed.

Batman didn't kill Two-Face out of malicious intent, that's true, but it still doesn't change the fact he did it to save a young boy's life. Which like I said many times before, it makes his refusal to kill Joker meaningless if it only put the entire town in harm's way. So yes, I'd say Batman did break his rule. I see a lot of people try to justify that Dent's death was an accident, but I disagree. The way the scene was written and depicted on screen can be compared to the way Superman killed Zod in Man of Steel situation. But of course, you see people attack that film because they hated the way the scene was written where Superman was forced to take that action, and wondered why he didn't use his heat vision to lobotomise Zod. My response is: you might as well condemn Nolan for making Batman break his code, and demand Batman to use a Batarang to disarm Two-Face instead and avoid killing him. But as you know, hypocrisy rules. 

And its muddled nonsense is the biggest reason why I really dislike it so much.

The Joker had already been captured. I still think it was Batman taking responsibility he felt he deserved because he blamed himself for Harvey's situation and Rachel's death. Which is backed up by the film. I'm referring to him feeling like it's his fault.

That's the way most films work. She wasn't needed. Scarecrow reappeared in both films afterward.

No matter what the Joker said, there's no reason for a sane person to believe him.

They could've mentioned him, but they didn't. It's hardly a big problem.

Of course Batman broke his rule. But it's pretty clear that he didn't have the intention to kill Harvey. MOS's doesn't work because we see Clark happy afterwards, the film is poorly written and Clark makes out with Lois in the middle of war zone after many people were killed without a care. It's not about him killing Zod. Not to mention the reason the writers did it made no sense. The point being they didn't deal with it. The action scene was also poorly done where after Zod threatens humans he never actually tried anything, which made it uninteresting. Two-Face had the gun to the boy's head. A batarang could've made it go off.

I don't see how it's nonsense.

[Andrew]

If the third film had simply explained that the Joker was killed by the SWAT team before Batman confronted Two-Face, I would've given the TDK's ending a tiny bit of slack. As it stands, it's an annoying, illogical plot hole that nobody dares to address.

I think it makes the most sense, and can even be inferred, that the Joker was killed or otherwise died shortly after TDK. It is annoying for such a big element to just be completely ignored in the sequel, especially when the sequel does follow-up the Dent part of TDK, but I guess it's understandable that Nolan would think mentioning the Joker, especially as having died, would be disrespectful to Ledger.

Yeah, if he had lived the Joker would have escaped from prison and been effective in undermining order and public trust.