Is The Dark Knight the most unheroic Batman movie ever made?

[The Laughing Fish]

Did he actively kill R'as or just leave him to die on the train?

Johnny, Batman actually justified to Talia in TDKR that he had to kill Ra's. And not only that the filmmakers even acknowledged in TDK Screenplays book that Batman did kill Ra's, even though at the same time they tried to cop out by a 'technicality'. 

And there's no difference whether or not Batman physically killed Ra's with his bare hands; it was Batman's plan to derail the train in the first place. If Gordon was taking the rails out, then why did Batman even need to confront Ra's at all? To make sure he didn't get out of there alive?

Batman didn't need to kill the Joker because he had his enemy hanging upside down on a rope dangling mid-air, and thus the Joker was no longer a threat who had to be killed-off to prevent any further innocents from dying.

The problem with that is the Joker was about to detonate the bombs on the boats till Batman threw him over the ledge. So yeah, it would've been okay if Batman had let the Joker fall to his death. After all, if Batman could leave Ra's to die on a doomed train, then why not Joker too? Besides, don't you think keeping the Joker alive could've been a huge threat to the entire Dent cover-up? I doubt he'd want to stay quiet and let Batman ruin his plans in destroying Dent's supposed reputation..

Plus, the Joker's plan had failed.  The citizens of Gotham had shown him that they were nothing like him. 

Don't even get me started what a load of pretentious rubbish that scene was. Doesn't help that Batman completely threw his faith in people right in the bin at the end. It was a message that the film itself didn't believe in.

And yes, Batman accidentally killed Two-Face because he posed an immediate threat to an innocent's life.  He wasn't trying to kill Two-Face out of vengeance.

I never said Batman was trying to kill Dent out of vengeance. I was merely trying to point out that if Batman was willing to use lethal force when the circumstances got dire, then he should've killed the Joker as well. I don't buy the argument that offing Joker would've been an execution. The man was ready to pull the trigger and blow up millions of people, and was, to quote Dent, "a mad dog". I don't think it would've been an act of vengeance at all.

[Travesty]

Harvey was the 'white knight'.  The guy who played by the rules (i.e. the law), or so everyone thought, rather than take the law into their own hands as Batman, as his many misguided imitators did.  Thus he was seen by Batman as an incorruptible symbol of hope for the city to aspire to.  Batman, as a vigilante who operated outside the law (i.e. forcibly taking a Chinese citizen to Gotham without using proper legal rendition measures, and using sonar to illegally tap the phones of every person in Gotham), was not that incorruptible figure.

But Harvey wasn't exactly perfect, either. He already had the nickname of Two-Face, which I can only assume to be based off his temper and way of handling his job/position. We did see him take Joker's goon in the alley to try and trick him into confessing with pure intimidation, and Batman was the one to stop him. And lets not forget, he was working with Batman, so while he didn't actually bring Lau back to Gotham, he signed off on Batman doing it. Lets not try and kid ourselves, Dent worked outside the law a lot in the movie. He wasn't exactly perfect. But most importantly, Dent/Two-Face did become corrupt, and again, both Batman and Gordon knew this. Which was complete opposite of why Bruce chose to be Batman in BB, he even said, "As a man, I'm flesh and blood, I can be ignored, I can be destroyed; but as a symbol... as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting".

So why did Bruce/Batman set it up to hand over his mantle to a person who could potentially be corrupted, and in the end, most definitely was? He just threw away the very thing he worked 6-7 years for, on a person who was corrupt. He completely contradicted what was set up for us in BB, or what Batman stood for. And for what, so Gordon could sound all pseudo-intellectual at the end? The only thing worse, is that by the time TDKR came around, we learned that Gotham turned into a near Utopia because of his death. Some of the most convenient and nonsensical writing I have ever seen in a trilogy.

[The Dark Knight]

I agree. Batman in the trilogy was too eager, and way too trusting to hand the job over to others. The comic Batman never would have that inclination, or at least to that degree. He'd only hand over to someone when he had to. Eg - when his back is broken, or when he's way too old ala Batman Beyond. Batman at his core doesn't trust anyone, save Gordon and Alfred, to do anything important such as protecting his beloved Gotham. That's his curse. He wants there to be an end point, but there's never going to be.

[The Laughing Fish]

But Harvey wasn't exactly perfect, either. He already had the nickname of Two-Face, which I can only assume to be based off his temper and way of handling his job/position. We did see him take Joker's goon in the alley to try and trick him into confessing with pure intimidation, and Batman was the one to stop him. And lets not forget, he was working with Batman, so while he didn't actually bring Lau back to Gotham, he signed off on Batman doing it. Lets not try and kid ourselves, Dent worked outside the law a lot in the movie. He wasn't exactly perfect. But most importantly, Dent/Two-Face did become corrupt, and again, both Batman and Gordon knew this. Which was complete opposite of why Bruce chose to be Batman in BB, he even said, "As a man, I'm flesh and blood, I can be ignored, I can be destroyed; but as a symbol... as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting".

So why did Bruce/Batman set it up to hand over his mantle to a person who could potentially be corrupted, and in the end, most definitely was? He just threw away the very thing he worked 6-7 years for, on a person who was corrupt. He completely contradicted what was set up for us in BB, or what Batman stood for. And for what, so Gordon could sound all pseudo-intellectual at the end? The only thing worse, is that by the time TDKR came around, we learned that Gotham turned into a near Utopia because of his death. Some of the most convenient and nonsensical writing I have ever seen in a trilogy.

Great post. And let's face it: if the Lau kidnapping happened in the real world, there would be huge political ramifications between the US and China. I'd go far by saying that kidnapping a Chinese citizen in his own country is an act of war! Such an operation would be unsanctioned by the US government, and both Batman and Dent would become international fugitives.

I agree. Batman in the trilogy was too eager, and way too trusting to hand the job over to others. The comic Batman never would have that inclination, or at least to that degree. He'd only hand over to someone when he had to. Eg - when his back is broken, or when he's way too old ala Batman Beyond. Batman at his core doesn't trust anyone, save Gordon and Alfred, to do anything important such as protecting his beloved Gotham. That's his curse. He wants there to be an end point, but there's never going to be.

Yes. I'd like to argue also that in many cases, Batman is the kind of guy who is depicted as somebody who is always wary of something going wrong and likes to plan ahead to cover the risk. That includes even if the risk is quite unlikely e.g. in Justice League: Doom, Batman created contingency plans to expose the other Leaguers' weaknesses in case one of them were to go rogue one day. In fact, whenever I read Batman appearing together with Superman in the comics, it's Superman who opts for a leap of faith, whereas Batman is the cynical realist. Superman keeps a sense of ideals and principles to earn the trust of the people; to let them know he'll never be overstepping his authority. Batman needs to evoke the symbol of fear among criminals, and in order to maintain that, he has to prepare his body and mind in anticipation for the worst things that could happen.

[The Dark Knight]

You see people saying how there's nothing wrong with Batman retiring.

Well, yeah, that's true. Batman has given up the cowl in TDK Returns and Beyond. We all know this. Baleman's reasons for becoming a hermit are flimsy, but nonetheless, it has prior grounding in the comics.

But that's not the issue being debated.

It's the fact TDK Rises' ending is foreign to the character's core.

Batman can retire, and he has done before. But the point of those stories (TDK Returns, Batman Beyond) is that he's forever Batman. It may be 10 or 20 years laters, but that persona is always ebbing under the surface. It's a part of his soul. Nothing from what I saw from TDK Rises leads me to believe that will be the case for Baleman.

Batman wasn't a passion for him like the other incarnations. It was simply a task he performed for a couple of months at most. Yes, he saved the City at the end. But as for being a well known icon? Nah. In this way, I fail to see how he could be that highly regarded or even known by the people of Gotham - and have a statue built after him like mythology, when his careeer was extremely short.

TDK Rises had Bruce retiring because he couldn't wait to hand the job over - in this instance to a young, untried and incompetent police officer. Baleman is shown to be happy at the end, something I think he should never be. TDK Returns has him bitter and angry, and Beyond has him alone and depressed.

There's not a happy ending for Bruce, and that's something Burton nailed with Batman Returns.

[Travesty]

Nolan's entire premise for Batman is flimsy. I actually love BB. I think it's a great movie. Sure, it has its flaws, and it's not a perfect Batman movie, but I do like it a lot. But one thing that always bothered me about it, is Bruce deciding to train and do something with his life after Rachel smacks some sense into him. He didn't start dedicating his life at a young age, it was kind of a spur of the moment realization when he was in his early 20s that he should do something about it. And then he goes off for years to train and become Batman. After about a year, he's looking to hand over his mantle to Harvey, so he could retire with Rachel. And then in the end, retires to cover up Harvey's murders. Then, at the beginning of TDKR, he wants to become Batman again, because Selina stole his mothers pearls. After he saves the city, he then retires AGAIN(with Selina, mind you. A woman he barely knows), and hands over everything to Robin John Blake(who he barely knows).

Is it just me, or is this the most "selfish" that Bruce has ever been portrayed?

[The Laughing Fish]

Nolan's entire premise for Batman is flimsy. I actually love BB. I think it's a great movie. Sure, it has its flaws, and it's not a perfect Batman movie, but I do like it a lot. But one thing that always bothered me about it, is Bruce deciding to train and do something with his life after Rachel smacks some sense into him. He didn't start dedicating his life at a young age, it was kind of a spur of the moment realization when he was in his early 20s that he should do something about it. And then he goes off for years to train and become Batman.

Like I said in the 'Misc. Nolan' sub-forum, one of my biggest complaints about Bale's Bruce Wayne is that he needs everything explained to him. Bruce might never have noticed how corrupt Gotham became if Rachel never said anything about it in the car. Bruce might have never embarked on a misguided journey around the globe to understand the criminal mind had it not been for Falcone taunting him for his inability to understand how crime works. And he certainly wouldn't have the purpose to become a "symbol" if he had never met Ra's gl Ghul and continued to rot in jail.

The point I'm making is that Bale's Batman was reactive in nature. And that's one of the things I've always disliked about this version. In my opinion, this was very alien to the character whose passion to become a crime-fighter, like TDK said, became ingrained into his very existence. For example, Frank Miller's Bruce Wayne in Year One didn't know what identity he wanted to adopt to terrify mobsters yet, but nonetheless, he started his personal war on crime by training himself to peak physical and mental condition for many years. The desire was embedded into his soul. Same thing is said about Batman's backstory when it was formerly by Bob Kane and Bill Finger in 1940; following the deaths of his parents, the kid swore an oath to spend his whole to rid the city of criminals and you see him growing up by learning science, practicing weightlifting and so on. Even Burton's Batman gives you the clue that Bruce being Batman is ingrained into him, because he explains to Vicki in the Batcave that nobody else can deal with crime in Gotham. Him being Batman was the only thing that could fill the void in his life once his parents were murdered. Bale's Batman just doesn't resonate me like those other examples.

As for him being "selfish"...I'd say he's just a badly written character. He doesn't do anything in character, he's just a victim of continuous plot contrivance that tarnish the entire series.

[Dagenspear]

Nolan's entire premise for Batman is flimsy. I actually love BB. I think it's a great movie. Sure, it has its flaws, and it's not a perfect Batman movie, but I do like it a lot. But one thing that always bothered me about it, is Bruce deciding to train and do something with his life after Rachel smacks some sense into him. He didn't start dedicating his life at a young age, it was kind of a spur of the moment realization when he was in his early 20s that he should do something about it. And then he goes off for years to train and become Batman. After about a year, he's looking to hand over his mantle to Harvey, so he could retire with Rachel. And then in the end, retires to cover up Harvey's murders. Then, at the beginning of TDKR, he wants to become Batman again, because Selina stole his mothers pearls. After he saves the city, he then retires AGAIN(with Selina, mind you. A woman he barely knows), and hands over everything to Robin John Blake(who he barely knows).

Is it just me, or is this the most "selfish" that Bruce has ever been portrayed?

It didn't happen that way. Bruce had had skilled training before he'd come across Ra's. Rachel's speech didn't change Bruce's goal, it just changed why he was doing it and how it he wanted to do it. He didn't become Batman because Selina stole his Mother's pearls. He became Batman because he found out about Bane. He doesn't retire with Selina. He retires, but Selina just happens to be who he decides to be with after. He does this for Alfred. Him knowing John Blake isn't really an issue.

[The Laughing Fish]

I made this point in another thread, but I'll post it here too.

If the message in TDKR is saying that it's wrong to enact a law that's predicated on a lie, which is what the Dent Act was...then how the hell can anyone in their right minds argue that TDK had an 'uplifting' and 'inspiring' ending?

No logic whatsoever.

[Travesty]

Not only is The Dent Act predicated on a lie, but Batman himself took the blame for the murders of Two-Face. And for what? A lie to protect Harvey? Batman is supposed to be about stopping crime and corruption, not to cover it up, and take the villains blame. Why not enact The Batman Act that would be pure and true, and not The Harvey Dent Act that is a lie, to cover up the fact that Harvey was a psycho killer. Nahhhhh, apparently, Batman should never be the true hero.

And so in the end of TDKR, sure, he saves the city from a nuclear bomb, but Gotham got into that position, because Batman covered up Two-Face's kills, while also creating the damn bomb himself. Bravo, Bruce Wayne.