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

[The Laughing Fish]

There's also the weirdness that, against what he said should be done, he killed (or didn't save) Two-Face in the end. But I think I and most viewers did see not saving him as pretty different.

I don't think the argument that Batman didn't save Two-Face holds any water because he was directly responsible for causing Two-Face to fall to his watery grave. So yes, I'd say he definitely killed him.

Nonetheless, I believe it served a purpose plotwise. Bruce had warned Dick that getting revenge over his parents' killer would only grow the desire for vengeance instead of ending it, which he knows from experience after killing the Joker. Him causing Two-Face's demise prevents Dick from making the same mistake and move on with the rest of his life.

Of course, Dick seemingly enjoying Two-Face's death may leave somebody to wonder whether or not he really understood how toxic vengeance is, but that's an argument for another day.

[Wayne49]

There's also the weirdness that, against what he said should be done, he killed (or didn't save) Two-Face in the end. But I think I and most viewers did see not saving him as pretty different.

I don't think the argument that Batman didn't save Two-Face holds any water because he was directly responsible for causing Two-Face to fall to his watery grave. So yes, I'd say he definitely killed him.

Nonetheless, I believe it served a purpose plotwise. Bruce had warned Dick that getting revenge over his parents' killer would only grow the desire for vengeance instead of ending it, which he knows from experience after killing the Joker. Him causing Two-Face's demise prevents Dick from making the same mistake and move on with the rest of his life.

Of course, Dick seemingly enjoying Two-Face's death may leave somebody to wonder whether or not he really understood how toxic vengeance is, but that's an argument for another day.

I'm a bit wary about calling Harvey Dent's death a deliberate kill by Batman. Dent was flipping a coin to decide if Gordon's boy lived or died. Batman was not going to leave that to chance. So when he jumped on Dent, the boy fell with them. Batman had to save himself to save the boy. We can say that technically it was Batman's actions that led to Dent's death, but it was circumstantial. Batman's intent was to save the boy and that's what he did. And actually Batman allowed himself to fall after the boy was handed off to Gordon, so in the end he allowed chance to determine his fate like Harvey's. Batman survived the fall, Dent did not. I don't believe Batman had any intention of killing him. Fate determined that.

[The Laughing Fish]

I'm a bit wary about calling Harvey Dent's death a deliberate kill by Batman. Dent was flipping a coin to decide if Gordon's boy lived or died. Batman was not going to leave that to chance. So when he jumped on Dent, the boy fell with them. Batman had to save himself to save the boy. We can say that technically it was Batman's actions that led to Dent's death, but it was circumstantial. Batman's intent was to save the boy and that's what he did. And actually Batman allowed himself to fall after the boy was handed off to Gordon, so in the end he allowed chance to determine his fate like Harvey's. Batman survived the fall, Dent did not. I don't believe Batman had any intention of killing him. Fate determined that.

Are we talking about Batman Forever or The Dark Knight? I was referring to Batman Forever because Andrew was replying to thecolorsblend's comments about BF's ending.

In any case, whether Batman meant to or not in either film, he still had to have been aware that his actions were going to put Two-Face at risk. It may not necessarily have been murder, but it doesn't negate the fact that he still killed him. In Forever, he had to distract Two-Face from threatening him, Chase and Robin, and in doing so, Two-Face dies much to Robin's satisfaction. In DK, he had to do something to save Gordon's son. And I wouldn't have a problem with the latter movie...if it didn't spend the last half hour having Batman refuse to kill the mass-murdering Joker at the expense of an entire town's safety. That's just pathetic, as was the silent reaction by the audience. Especially when you consider the laughable over-exaggeration when people derided Superman for reluctantly killing a genocidal Zod or Batman blows Knyazev's flamethrower tank to save Martha Kent.

[Wayne49]

I'm a bit wary about calling Harvey Dent's death a deliberate kill by Batman. Dent was flipping a coin to decide if Gordon's boy lived or died. Batman was not going to leave that to chance. So when he jumped on Dent, the boy fell with them. Batman had to save himself to save the boy. We can say that technically it was Batman's actions that led to Dent's death, but it was circumstantial. Batman's intent was to save the boy and that's what he did. And actually Batman allowed himself to fall after the boy was handed off to Gordon, so in the end he allowed chance to determine his fate like Harvey's. Batman survived the fall, Dent did not. I don't believe Batman had any intention of killing him. Fate determined that.

Are we talking about Batman Forever or The Dark Knight? I was referring to Batman Forever because Andrew was replying to thecolorsblend's comments about BF's ending.

In any case, whether Batman meant to or not in either film, he still had to have been aware that his actions were going to put Two-Face at risk. It may not necessarily have been murder, but it doesn't negate the fact that he still killed him. In Forever, he had to distract Two-Face from threatening him, Chase and Robin, and in doing so, Two-Face dies much to Robin's satisfaction. In DK, he had to do something to save Gordon's son. And I wouldn't have a problem with the latter movie...if it didn't spend the last half hour having Batman refuse to kill the mass-murdering Joker at the expense of an entire town's safety. That's just pathetic, as was the silent reaction by the audience. Especially when you consider the laughable over-exaggeration when people derided Superman for reluctantly killing a genocidal Zod or Batman blows Knyazev's flamethrower tank to save Martha Kent.

My apologies. I was referencing the Dark Knight segment. With context applied to Forever, I absolutely agree with you across the board. That was a deliberate kill and I think the thought process there (for Batman) was to make that moral sacrifice to spare Robin the dilemma he struggled over to seek revenge. You could see that opportunity lost on Robin's face as he see's him fall.

With Dark Knight I also agree with you on the uneven application of the morality play in Nolan's script. Actually I have a bigger problem with how that whole scenario played out between the ships and the detonation switches. I think in the "real world" the Joker wins that argument completely. Nolan leaned painfully on bad stereotypes and a unrealistic high moral society that I refuse to believe exists under those conditions. Batman's argument (and speech) to the Joker is so painfully contrived, it's hard to watch. That speech also underscores what Keaton always said about Batman which is he should be seen more than heard.

I like the Nolan movies and they are entertaining. But they are heavily flawed in their self-anointed morality play that Nolan tries too hard to weave into the fabric of the plot. Just as with Snyder, when you try to marry highbrow social themes too closely with the concept, the story tends to collapse on itself.  Vigilantism within it's own construct is not truly an ideal that warrants scores of virtue since the basis of it's existence is to apply justice and punishment according to the beholders personal value system which he/she believes everyone should follow because of the emotion they feel for themselves. By all accounts, it's actually very self-serving.

We can romanticize that notion in the world of Batman as an unspoken trait that understands he is mostly right (and well intending) when he executes his will. But if we try to press the point and apply real world ideas against it, then the concept ceases to work because Batman is not real, nor are the ideas that govern his ability to exist in his world. That's why movies like Dark Knight, Rises, and BVS have enormous credibility holes in their stories. The writers get too married to these characters which makes them try and validate them with a real world psychology. For me, it just doesn't translate well.

That's why I LOVE Burton's movies and to a lesser extent Schumacher's because both keep Batman in his world and don't try to sell him as anything more than he should be in our world. Batman is great escapist fun. Let me come to his world, but keep him out of mine. I spend enough time here.

[Andrew]

There's also the weirdness that, against what he said should be done, he killed (or didn't save) Two-Face in the end. But I think I and most viewers did see not saving him as pretty different.

I don't think the argument that Batman didn't save Two-Face holds any water because he was directly responsible for causing Two-Face to fall to his watery grave. So yes, I'd say he definitely killed him.

Nonetheless, I believe it served a purpose plotwise. Bruce had warned Dick that getting revenge over his parents' killer would only grow the desire for vengeance instead of ending it, which he knows from experience after killing the Joker. Him causing Two-Face's demise prevents Dick from making the same mistake and move on with the rest of his life.

That's possible but if so it's very weird storytelling since we saw Robin earlier choose to spare Two-Face's life, settle for jail, although that nobility then backfired and got him captured. But I guess Batman didn't see that and even if he inferred that it happened he might worry Robin might not be noble again.
It's also possible that he was feeling vengeful, especially after nearly losing Chase and/or Robin and especially worried with Two-Face knowing his secret identity. And/or he just couldn't come up with a better way to defeat Two-Face other than tossing the many coins.

I think Batman's choice in BF was more deliberate but not very different in context or implication from that in TDK ending.

[The Laughing Fish]

With Dark Knight I also agree with you on the uneven application of the morality play in Nolan's script. Actually I have a bigger problem with how that whole scenario played out between the ships and the detonation switches. I think in the "real world" the Joker wins that argument completely. Nolan leaned painfully on bad stereotypes and a unrealistic high moral society that I refuse to believe exists under those conditions. Batman's argument (and speech) to the Joker is so painfully contrived, it's hard to watch.

Batman's argument wouldn't be so contrived if he backed up everything he said about people ready to believe in good by telling the truth about Harvey Dent. That's the thing I despise the most from these movies. They introduce an unrealistic ideal, and then make a conclusion that doesn't even support the message they promote. And that's something that's carried over in the third film when the lie is exposed and the fearful and angry populace descends to chaos. The truth wouldn't have prevented Bane and Talia from trying to finish what Ra's al Ghul had started, but it definitely would've prepared the people of Gotham to stand up to their horror, as they did against the Joker.

This is why I love Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2. Peter Parker comes back after gone MIA for months and uses his strength and willpower to stop the train, and that act of bravery inspires all the grateful passengers by keeping his identity a secret, and even trying to defend him from Doctor Octopus. In the real world, the cynic in me would cry how unrealistic it is, but the world portrayed in Spider-Man 2 backs up this idealism where the hero inspires good and doesn't compromise his ideals to supposedly 'protect' the wide community. That's heroic.

[The Dark Knight]

Batman's argument wouldn't be so contrived if he backed up everything he said about people ready to believe in good by telling the truth about Harvey Dent.

That's a really good point.

[Wayne49]

Batman's argument wouldn't be so contrived if he backed up everything he said about people ready to believe in good by telling the truth about Harvey Dent. That's the thing I despise the most from these movies. They introduce an unrealistic ideal, and then make a conclusion that doesn't even support the message they promote. And that's something that's carried over in the third film when the lie is exposed and the fearful and angry populace descends to chaos. The truth wouldn't have prevented Bane and Talia from trying to finish what Ra's al Ghul had started, but it definitely would've prepared the people of Gotham to stand up to their horror, as they did against the Joker.

This is why I love Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2. Peter Parker comes back after gone MIA for months and uses his strength and willpower to stop the train, and that act of bravery inspires all the grateful passengers by keeping his identity a secret, and even trying to defend him from Doctor Octopus. In the real world, the cynic in me would cry how unrealistic it is, but the world portrayed in Spider-Man 2 backs up this idealism where the hero inspires good and doesn't compromise his ideals to supposedly 'protect' the wide community. That's heroic.

Well said!

[Dagenspear]

Well said!

That's a really good point.

Batman's argument wouldn't be so contrived if he backed up everything he said about people ready to believe in good by telling the truth about Harvey Dent.

That would contradict Bruce's whole characterization in the movie, where he endlessly states that Harvey is the true hero of Gotham, while thinking of Batman, himself, as an inspiration for madness.

That's the thing I despise the most from these movies. They introduce an unrealistic ideal, and then make a conclusion that doesn't even support the message they promote.

The movie makes no such conclusion. Bruce is wrong and proven to be so in TDKRises.

And that's something that's carried over in the third film when the lie is exposed and the fearful and angry populace descends to chaos.

That literally never happens. Criminals are the only ones shown to do any damage. No one else. So the ideal is still intact.

The truth wouldn't have prevented Bane and Talia from trying to finish what Ra's al Ghul had started, but it definitely would've prepared the people of Gotham to stand up to their horror, as they did against the Joker.

The only thing the lie did was make Batman the enemy of the GCPD because Bruce was too cynical to trust the truth. Bruce is the one who doesn't believe in that ideal. He believes that without the inspiration of a pure white knight hero like Dent, the city will lose hope, because he loathes himself and the damage that he thinks he causes by being Batman.

This is why I love Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2. Peter Parker comes back after gone MIA for months and uses his strength and willpower to stop the train, and that act of bravery inspires all the grateful passengers by keeping his identity a secret, and even trying to defend him from Doctor Octopus. In the real world, the cynic in me would cry how unrealistic it is, but the world portrayed in Spider-Man 2 backs up this idealism where the hero inspires good and doesn't compromise his ideals to supposedly 'protect' the wide community. That's heroic.

And if you paid attention to TDK, you'd see that same aspect in the public not destroying eachother on the boats. Batman's whole structure is about breaking the law for the greater good. That's not a compromise of his ideals. Batman lies by the very nature of having a secret identity. And him lying to protect the public very much lines up with Batman's comic canon attitude and ideals, who is willing to lie to Dick about his parents killer to protect him. Even in TDK, when Batman catches Harvey threatening that Joker goon, he doesn't say a word to anyone about it. When Harvey turns himself in as Batman, no word. Batman thinks it's right. It's not a compromise of his ideals. The thing is: Are those ideals right? For a lie like with Harvey or the one that Alfred gives Bruce, and I'd also say in regards to Harvey threatening the Joker goon: No, as shown by TDKRises. I guess the movie's just too deep for ya. I jest. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[Wayne49]

And if you paid attention to TDK, you'd see that same aspect in the public not destroying eachother on the boats. Batman's whole structure is about breaking the law for the greater good. That's not a compromise of his ideals. Batman lies by the very nature of having a secret identity. And him lying to protect the public very much lines up with Batman's comic canon attitude and ideals, who is willing to lie to Dick about his parents killer to protect him. Even in TDK, when Batman catches Harvey threatening that Joker goon, he doesn't say a word to anyone about it. When Harvey turns himself in as Batman, no word. Batman thinks it's right. It's not a compromise of his ideals. The thing is: Are those ideals right? For a lie like with Harvey or the one that Alfred gives Bruce, and I'd also say in regards to Harvey threatening the Joker goon: No, as shown by TDKRises. I guess the movie's just too deep for ya. I jest. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

I think DK has a couple of plot weaknesses that are pretty glaring. Bruce created Batman as a symbol to fight the establishment without having to answer to the boundaries that would face a public figure exposed to the limitations of his property, friends, family, and reputation as open targets. The problem Nolan creates is this idea that Batman IS a public figure. In the first film, Batman is portrayed as something that is more myth than fact. Only the criminals and detectives working certain cases understand there is another entity involved. That's the concept working as it should. But in Dark Knight you suddenly have people imitating him like crime fighter cos-players.

How is Batman suddenly that well known when his existence is still compared with Bigfoot and Gordon won't even confirm the existence of the Batsignal, choosing instead to describe it as a malfunctioning light to the prosecuting attorney? Even the public imitators have somehow duplicated  Batman's cowl with uncanny accuracy like he is a licensed product. I can accept some of this to simply advance the plot line since we're watching a superhero movie. But Nolan insists on leaning on this logic to drive the story which takes me out of the film because he's asking me to weigh it at face value which doesn't work.

If Batman is suddenly a brand name from which the public can distinguish his motivation and purpose, how effective can he truly be anymore? He now has a reputation to foil. So why does the Joker need to kill people to make him turn himself in? Why not just muddy the image? Why not commit crimes in his image so that even the authorities have no idea what side Batman is on? Why this morality play on Batman's "no-kill" clause?  That is the problem with this entire story. Everyone is gifted with the ability to know the motivations and values of one another even though Batman is supposed to be more enigma than personality.

And why would Bruce Wayne feel any inclination to fall for the Joker's obvious bait to turn himself in since he already understands the Joker is not working from principle and Batman is not supposed to be a public figure? And how does anyone know Batman has a no-kill clause? When did he give an interview? When did he come out of the shadows to even offer his mission statement? That is such an impossible leap in assumption, it never works. And to see Bruce just give in doesn't line up with his reason for being Batman nor his knowledge that the Joker is going to keep killing anyway. You can apply all the subtext and analysis you like to what you believe was intended here. The bottom line is the framework of the character does not fit the forced conclusion to cave to the Joker's demand.

The second glaring plot weakness is the boat sequence between the two stereotyped groups. First, it's way too self aware as a plot device because it's Nolan once again preaching while he tries to  force feed some pretentious notion that Batman has a pulse on the good in society and that only he understands the will of what the average person would do. It's completely preposterous because once again it leaps off the charts of reason and makes this universal claim of understanding the greater good of society.  It gets even funnier when you realize Batman was supposed to be created from the corruptible element of mankind. It leaves the solar system of logic when you realize the basis for his training and conditioning comes from a radical group with militia intentions. So everything in that story plot is completely unbelievable. Nothing established in that world (and certainly nothing in the real world) would EVER get you to that moment of rationale. Painfully contrived and not remotely believable.

Batman as a concept makes for great theater. When visionary directors like Burton get a hold of this character, they create magical worlds that are incredible to visit, which makes for tremendous escapist fun. And like any good film, they can provide social commentary where applicable while still embracing the more fantastical aspects of this character. Batman provides a broad range of perspectives to explore. But at the end of the day he is fantasy.

I think Nolan is an exceptionally gifted director. I think his imprint on Batman is well earned and quite frankly speaks for itself. I would never suggest or attempt to take away the credits he has garnered for making a truly successful trilogy that has yet to be commercially challenged by any other interpretation. In many ways it's original in it's execution and I praise Nolan for working outside the box to offer a different perspective on this character. That is the strength of Batman.

But like any installment in this franchise, I have to be in the right mood for each treatment. Burton pleases me the most with his tremendous visual gifts and artful direction. For me, his vision is the closest to the Batman I embrace the most. Schumacher is a great release when the world gets too dark and depressing. It's great eye candy that is good for the spirits and those young at heart. And Nolan is a perfect fix when I want an all encapsulating profile on the psychology of Bruce Wayne as Batman. Nolan creates real drama in his stories and for me took the most daring of moves by giving Bruce Wayne a happy ending. I respect that because it's nice to see all that turmoil and angst find resolve and peace.