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

[Travesty]

I would probably have more sympathy for Dent, if he was an integral part of BB, but he just appeared out of nowhere in TDK, and then died. Which is why I don't buy the notion that he was this beacon of hope that was more powerful than Batman himself. If he was a more powerful symbol than Batman, why wasn't Gotham in better shape before Batman came about? One of the main points in BB, was that Bruce needed a symbol that wasn't "flesh and blood", but was a symbol, a symbol to shake people out of apathy. Of course, he chose a bat, and became Batman. Why did he have to do that? Why not prop up Gordon, get cops that weren't corrupt, then fund Dent and the GCPD. The entire notion of becoming Batman seems irrelevant with the way TDK played into Dent and Batman's character.

lol, sorry, I kinda went down a rabbit hole there. It's just one thing that bugs me about this trilogy, it's just so inconsistent for me. In BB, Gotham needs a symbol/masked vigilante to help fight against corruption. Then, in TDK, Bruce says Gotham needs a "hero with a face". Then, in TDKR, he flips again, and says, "nah, nah, nah, Gotham needs a protector who wears a mask. Make sure you wear a mask if you fight crime in Gotham, Robin John Blake".

[thecolorsblend]

I think that speaks to an ongoing realization Bruce experiences through the movies. In BB, Bruce realized the immediate problems facing the city require a symbol to counter them and shake the people out of their apathy. The people of Gotham City needed to see that AN IDEA could dismantle the corrupt elements of the city, that the crooked cops, judges, bankers, etc, weren't invincible.

In TDK, Bruce realized that there are limitations to what Batman can do. If the city is to be redeemed, this movement Batman has unintentionally started needs a public face. Harvey was qualified to be the front man to fill that role. The Joker destroyed Harvey in TDK and then he also destroyed Batman.

In TDKRises, Bruce realized that, yeah, the Dent Act got passed through after TDK, which allowed honest and pure public servants to move in and take over. But his and Gordon's silent little coup d'etat was premised upon a lie. And when the League struck back, Gordon and Batman were unable to maintain moral authority in the face of the League's ferocity as well as their disclosures of certain ugly truths.

The takeaway lesson from TDKRises is that Gotham City might always need Batman and (generically) the commissioner. But Batman and the commissioner don't always have to literally be Bruce and Gordon respectively. Others can fill those roles. Their successors can and will improve the world around them, while also fighting to keep the darkness at bay.

People can enjoy those character arcs or not. But I don't seem them as contradicting one another so much as completing one another.

[The Laughing Fish]

I would probably have more sympathy for Dent, if he was an integral part of BB, but he just appeared out of nowhere in TDK, and then died. Which is why I don't buy the notion that he was this beacon of hope that was more powerful than Batman himself. If he was a more powerful symbol than Batman, why wasn't Gotham in better shape before Batman came about? One of the main points in BB, was that Bruce needed a symbol that wasn't "flesh and blood", but was a symbol, a symbol to shake people out of apathy. Of course, he chose a bat, and became Batman. Why did he have to do that? Why not prop up Gordon, get cops that weren't corrupt, then fund Dent and the GCPD. The entire notion of becoming Batman seems irrelevant with the way TDK played into Dent and Batman's character.

Sometimes I think these films would've been better if Batman was removed altogether, and have Gordon become the main character fighting corruption. I say this because I see some people say that these films were expressing how vigilantism is harmful to society, and Batman's retirement would signal social reform.

Well, in that case, that should tell you that Blake inheriting the cowl from Bruce is bad news because the city still hasn't made any progress.

I think that speaks to an ongoing realization Bruce experiences through the movies. In BB, Bruce realized the immediate problems facing the city require a symbol to counter them and shake the people out of their apathy. The people of Gotham City needed to see that AN IDEA could dismantle the corrupt elements of the city, that the crooked cops, judges, bankers, etc, weren't invincible.

In TDK, Bruce realized that there are limitations to what Batman can do. If the city is to be redeemed, this movement Batman has unintentionally started needs a public face. Harvey was qualified to be the front man to fill that role. The Joker destroyed Harvey in TDK and then he also destroyed Batman.

In TDKRises, Bruce realized that, yeah, the Dent Act got passed through after TDK, which allowed honest and pure public servants to move in and take over. But his and Gordon's silent little coup d'etat was premised upon a lie. And when the League struck back, Gordon and Batman were unable to maintain moral authority in the face of the League's ferocity as well as their disclosures of certain ugly truths.

The takeaway lesson from TDKRises is that Gotham City might always need Batman and (generically) the commissioner. But Batman and the commissioner don't always have to literally be Bruce and Gordon respectively. Others can fill those roles. Their successors can and will improve the world around them, while also fighting to keep the darkness at bay.

People can enjoy those character arcs or not. But I don't seem them as contradicting one another so much as completing one another.

The biggest problem with this rationale is it's full of holes. Batman wants to inspire people, but deep down, he knows his crusade actually does more harm than good in the long run if he inspires copycats and psychos like the Joker, which is why he counts on Harvey Dent as a legal face for people to be inspired by. And yet, the end of the entire trilogy shows that vigilantism, NOT law and order, is the solution to the city's woes. It was bad enough that his decision to frame himself to cover for Harvey in TDK was a terrible idea to begin with, the rationale behind that Batman had to do it because the truth would've inspired more copycats and freaks like the Joker is further undone if a new Batman takes over at the end of the series.

Sorry, but the whole thing remains a muddled load of nonsense to me. All this talk about "ideas", and it goes absolutely nowhere.

[Dagenspear]

I would probably have more sympathy for Dent, if he was an integral part of BB, but he just appeared out of nowhere in TDK, and then died. Which is why I don't buy the notion that he was this beacon of hope that was more powerful than Batman himself. If he was a more powerful symbol than Batman, why wasn't Gotham in better shape before Batman came about? One of the main points in BB, was that Bruce needed a symbol that wasn't "flesh and blood", but was a symbol, a symbol to shake people out of apathy. Of course, he chose a bat, and became Batman. Why did he have to do that? Why not prop up Gordon, get cops that weren't corrupt, then fund Dent and the GCPD. The entire notion of becoming Batman seems irrelevant with the way TDK played into Dent and Batman's character.

lol, sorry, I kinda went down a rabbit hole there. It's just one thing that bugs me about this trilogy, it's just so inconsistent for me. In BB, Gotham needs a symbol/masked vigilante to help fight against corruption. Then, in TDK, Bruce says Gotham needs a "hero with a face". Then, in TDKR, he flips again, and says, "nah, nah, nah, Gotham needs a protector who wears a mask. Make sure you wear a mask if you fight crime in Gotham, Robin John Blake".

A symbol doesn't need to be without a face. Bruce in BB states that people need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy and uses Batman to do that. Out of that comes Harvey Dent and Bruce thinks that that's all that's needed. The whole arc Bruce goes through in TDK is about him thinking Batman is a negative influence. And he thinks Dent is a better influence than him, a hero with a face. The whole point is that that's not true. The hero with a face gets half of it blown off. There's no contradiction. It's Bruce doubting his impact on the city, doubting whether or not he's even a positive influence.

[thecolorsblend]

The biggest problem with this rationale is it's full of holes. Batman wants to inspire people, but deep down, he knows his crusade actually does more harm than good in the long run if he inspires copycats and psychos like the Joker, which is why he counts on Harvey Dent as a legal face for people to be inspired by. And yet, the end of the entire trilogy shows that vigilantism, NOT law and order, is the solution to the city's woes. It was bad enough that his decision to frame himself to cover for Harvey in TDK was a terrible idea to begin with, the rationale behind that Batman had to do it because the truth would've inspired more copycats and freaks like the Joker is further undone if a new Batman takes over at the end of the series.

Rectifying your objection would've required Batman to be psychic. He had no way of knowing that the Batmen would follow his example a bit too closely.

Nevertheless, he was on the right track. The rise of Batman inspired (or at least enabled) the rise of Harvey Dent. Batman's plan was working.

There are problems with Nolan's trilogy. Goofy dialogue, inconsistent moral worldviews, poorly developed subplots and so forth. But in the big picture, the trilogy is pretty strong. Not definitive for me but not bad.

[Travesty]

I think that speaks to an ongoing realization Bruce experiences through the movies.

And that's part of the problem: we don't see or experience that. In fact, we are told the complete opposite at the endings of both BB and TDK, and every time the sequels to those movies comes out, the character is already running counter to what we we're just told at the end of those movies. So, I'll give you two examples from BB and TDK.

-BB: at the end of that movie, we are told that Bruce's face is the mask, and that Batman is now his true self. Batman is the one who needs to keep Gotham safe. Bruce Wayne never truly came back(again, he's the mask now), so Rachel decides it's best to be friends. But she gives him hope. She says one day, maybe when Gotham doesn't need Batman....maybe they can be together again. She basically dumped him, but she did it in a nice way, and the movie told us that Batman is still needed. So much so, that he's also adding a Batcave to the Southeast Corner of the manor. Then, we have a rooftop meeting with Gordon, talking about escalation. Again, alluding to Batman needing to be around. Now, fast forward to TDK, and not even half way through the movie, he tells Rachel that he wants to be with her, that Batman can now retire, because Harvey is the real hero. And this is before The Joker is even apprehended. The friggin Joker is still running around, and Bruce is talking about retirement. Where was the realization? I get your explanations, but the movies are telling the audience a completely different story. And there isn't any natural progression from movie to movie. At the end of BB, we're told Bruce is the mask, and that Batman is needed. In TDK, we're told that Bruce wants to retire immediately, and this new character that we don't even know(Harvey Dent), is the true hero that Gotham deserves....all while The Joker is still on the loose.

-TDK: at the end of TDK, Batman kills Two-Face, but needs to cover up his murders. Apparently, Harvey Dent is the true symbol Gotham needs. Ok, whatever, I'll go with it. Batman takes the wrap for Harvey's crimes and murders. So then, we get this monologue from Gordon, telling us that the police will hunt and chase him, but it's ok, cause he can take it, because he's Gotham's watchful protector, he's....The Dark Knight. Again, the ending of this movie told us one thing, and then you proceed to TDKR, and nope, Batman retired for 8 years, even if Selina Kyle was running loose, with a MASSIVE police record. So he wasn't hunted, he didn't endure any chasing from the cops, and he didn't watch over Gotham. Then, Robin John Blake tells him he needs to come back because of Bane, and he just does.

And I get your explanations, but it doesn't cover up the constant flip-flopping going on. It's just forced on the audience, when the endings of these movies tell us something completely different. But by the time the sequels start up, we just have to roll with it. It's overly contrived for no good reason.

[thecolorsblend]

You see those as contradictions. But the narrative shows that Bruce's original idea was, at a minimum, incomplete. Then, as you say, other characters remark on that. That is not a contradiction; it is progression.

There are contradictions in the films. Fish mentions them every couple of minutes so I'd never say otherwise. But the items I mentioned above are supported in the narratives of the films and remarked upon by the characters.

[Travesty]

Just because they're remarked upon by the charterers, doesn't mean they're not contradictory within their actions. That, to me, is a copout that you're making. We've talked about this at length with Batman's killing in this trilogy. One second he says he's no executioner, and 2 seconds later, he kills everyone in the monastery. That's a perfect example of that: a character telling us one thing, but his actions are contradictory to his words. Sure, the "narrative" is that Batman doesn't kill, but his actions within the movie tell us differently. Same thing applies with my point.

[thecolorsblend]

Just because they're remarked upon by the charterers, doesn't mean they're not contradictory within their actions.

Um, yeah, it kinda does.

That, to me, is a copout that you're making.

It's character growth. Characters, particularly Bruce, grow and their awareness and understanding expand.

Fiction is fiction and obviously fiction isn't life. But this is true to life (and of fiction) that people "grow in office". I hold views now that my 21 year old self would lose his s**t over. I've grown. My awareness and understanding have expanded. Therefore I have viewpoints now that I once would've held anathema. This is contradictory, to be sure, but it isn't paradoxical.

We've talked about this at length with Batman's killing in this trilogy.

Which has nothing to do with this discussion. I'm not arguing and haven't argued that aren't paradoxes at work in the Nolan trilogy. As I've said, Fish would be the first to point out that there are and I don't disagree with him.

I'm merely saying that the specific examples you cite are not paradoxical; they are, instead, arcs. Which isn't the same thing.

[Travesty]

Which has nothing to do with this discussion.

I was just further illustrates the "narrative vs actions" examples I'm making, which goes back to the arc of the character. It was just another example to back up my claims. Nothing more, nothing less.

You keep talking about character growth. I fail to see why Bruce says retirement is the optimal path to take, when The Joker is still on the loose and wrecking havoc, and it's somehow the natural progression for himself. I would imagine most Batman fans wouldn't expect Batman to be contemplating retirement, while one of his biggest adversaries is on the run. You say it's a "proper realization within the character arc", and I disagree entirely. I do see it as contradictory within a contrived story arc, and you just write it off, and say that's natural progression of the character. I don't see it, at least, not the way it's presented to us in this particular film.

Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree.