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

[The Dark Knight]

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.

The more 'Batmany' thing to do would've been telling the truth. Harvey died as a stone cold killer, and the law will come for you no matter WHO you are. Bruce owning that truth and spreading it wouldn't have been easy either. But it had to be done, and hell, he couldn't do it. He put Harvey above the law. Telling the truth is the trademark of a real alpha male. Not a cuck who falls on his sword and plays the victim. But remember folks, Baleman never wanted to be Batman long term, and was always looking for a chance to quit. Bottom line, telling the truth makes things a lot easier in the long run. Batman may be a shadowy character, but he's not dumb. And there lies the difference.

[The Laughing Fish]

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.

And to think there are people who call BvS an unmitigated disaster. But as long as one movie gets called that, while the other gets overpraised despite how terrible and muddled its messages are, the critics are always objectively correct. Right? 

I think Talia and Bane were always going to take over Gotham anyway because they wanted to get revenge at Batman for killing Ra's. But yes, Batman and Gordon's cover-up made the situation much worse and gave Bane the opportunity to take advantage of the situation. The fact that Gordon wrote the letter because he felt guilty about the cover-up, but was still too afraid to tell the truth, tells me that lying for eight years wasn't worth it.

If Batman actually backed up his belief that "this city has proven that they're ready to believe in good" by telling the truth by the end of TDK, he could've saved Gotham so much trouble. It actually would've saved the movie for me too. Apologists love to counter-argue by claiming Batman's cover-up could be seen as a moral victory for the Joker, but I call bullsh*t on that because the Joker would never allow the city to go without chaos for eight years. If he had a choice, I'm sure he'd want to finish what he had started.

The decision to cover up Two-Face's crimes has got to be the worst thing that Batman has ever done in live action to date.

The more 'Batmany' thing to do would've been telling the truth. Harvey died as a stone cold killer, and the law will come for you no matter WHO you are. Bruce owning that truth and spreading it wouldn't have been easy either. But it had to be done, and hell, he couldn't do it. He put Harvey above the law. Telling the truth is the trademark of a real alpha male. Not a cuck who falls on his sword and plays the victim. But remember folks, Baleman never wanted to be Batman long term, and was always looking for a chance to quit. Bottom line, telling the truth makes things a lot easier in the long run. Batman may be a shadowy character, but he's not dumb. And there lies the difference.

^This.

[Dagenspear]

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.

That's the point. It was the wrong thing to do. But it's a heroic choice at the time because Bruce is taking responsibility for the crimes that he believes he's the cause for, whether he committed them or not. Not to mention that he's not being a hero in that moment as Alfred says. TDKR shows that making a single heroic choice and doing the wrong thing in the process, a "necessary evil" if you will, doesn't necessarily work. The whole point is that you can't achieve good like that. It's not really heroic, not purely, because it's a dirty choice. TDKR acknowledges this in Jim's line about how Batman plunged his hand into the filth. It's a dirty choice to try and end the problem for good, but that's not how that works and you can't end crime like that. It won't just end because we compromise what we know is right to achieve it. It all plays nicely into Bruce's choice at the end, where even though he can't fight forever, Batman will always be needed, because you can't just clean up crime in one sweep and "bury it", it will always be there in the world as it is. So Bruce lets go of his obsession and allows someone else to have that mission. It's not illogical. It's exploring the consequences of a choice. Bruce made an active choice to be Batman at the end of BB, and we see the consequences in TDK, and in TDK he chooses to throw himself under the bus for the crimes of Harvey, because he thinks that it will help the city achieve something more than vigilante justice, because he believes that him being Batman is the reason the Joker exists, that Rachel died and that Harvey became the way he was, so we explore the consequences of that choice in TDKR. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[Dagenspear]

And to think there are people who call BvS an unmitigated disaster. But as long as one movie gets called that, while the other gets overpraised despite how terrible and muddled its messages are, the critics are always objectively correct. Right? 

The messages weren't muddled or, as I understand it, terrible.

I think Talia and Bane were always going to take over Gotham anyway because they wanted to get revenge at Batman for killing Ra's. But yes, Batman and Gordon's cover-up made the situation much worse and gave Bane the opportunity to take advantage of the situation.

Not really. By virtue of Batman not being around I guess, but in no real way other than that.

The fact that Gordon wrote the letter because he felt guilty about the cover-up, but was still too afraid to tell the truth, tells me that lying for eight years wasn't worth it.

Exactly.

If Batman actually backed up his belief that "this city has proven that they're ready to believe in good" by telling the truth by the end of TDK, he could've saved Gotham so much trouble. It actually would've saved the movie for me too.

Why? Batman can't be flawed and make mistakes and make bad choices? The whole point is that he did something wrong. The movie doesn't need to be saved. You didn't like it. That doesn't make it bad. Batman believed that he wasn't the cause of Gotham being ready to believe in good. He saw himself as a catalyst for the awful things that had happened by the Joker and Harvey.

Apologists love to counter-argue by claiming Batman's cover-up could be seen as a moral victory for the Joker, but I call bullsh*t on that because the Joker would never allow the city to go without chaos for eight years.

This is something a hater would say, considering that I think the only kind of moral victory Joker achieved, if he did, was that Batman compromised himself, not even necessarily on purpose by his, Joker's, doing.

The decision to cover up Two-Face's crimes has got to be the worst thing that Batman has ever done in live action to date.

That's trying to murder a for all intents and purposes innocent man.

[The Laughing Fish]

Bloody hell...the ever opinionated Max Landis, who is a staunch critic of MOS and BvS, apparently tweeted this nonsense about TDK:

Rewatching Dark Knight; it's such a fun, silly good-natured movie. Interesting that it's thought of as a grim, serious epic.

Source: https://twitter.com/Uptomyknees/status/887798390712446976

Right, because the idea of Batman putting an entire town in harm's way for no good reason, and betrays everything he stands for to protect a psychopath is a "fun, good-natured movie". Never mind all the other dark sh*t that happens in this movie. He also said that Joker acts like Joker, Two-Face acts like Two-Face and Batman acts like Batman...

All I'll say is this: his Twitter handle says "Uptomyknees". Judging by these opinions and his eccentric behaviour in front of the camera, it should read "Outofmymind" instead. As Rick James once said, cocaine is a hell of a drug.

[Dagenspear]

Bloody hell...the ever opinionated Max Landis, who is a staunch critic of MOS and BvS, apparently tweeted this nonsense about TDK:

Rewatching Dark Knight; it's such a fun, silly good-natured movie. Interesting that it's thought of as a grim, serious epic.

Source: https://twitter.com/Uptomyknees/status/887798390712446976

Right, because the idea of Batman putting an entire town in harm's way for no good reason, and betrays everything he stands for to protect a psychopath is a "fun, good-natured movie". Never mind all the other dark sh*t that happens in this movie. He also said that Joker acts like Joker, Two-Face acts like Two-Face and Batman acts like Batman...

All I'll say is this: his Twitter handle says "Uptomyknees". Judging by these opinions and his eccentric behaviour in front of the camera, it should read "Outofmymind" instead. As Rick James once said, cocaine is a hell of a drug.

If you think that anything Batman does in that movie is to protect the Joker or that he betrays everything he stands for to do so, then I question if you've seen the movie. And dark things can and do happen in many movies that are still fun and good natured. Darkness happening doesn't erase good or fun. Let's also not ignore that a character can act like the character their based off of and not be completely accurate. There you go again belittling a human being for not sharing your opinion on a fictional story and characters. You can find a way to be better than that. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[thecolorsblend]

Landis is a contrarian dillhole. He disagrees just to disagree, the nitwit. Not worth listening to.

[riddler]

I actually think the dark knight rises is the most unheroic Batfilm.

The Dark Knight is the film in which he beats the mob; kidnapping Lau and bringing him back to Gotham is something only Batman could do. Without that, the RICO case against the mob wouldn't have stuck. The few mob members who don't go down, operate on a much smaller scale. They don't meet at night, Sal Maroni ends up helping Gordon stop the Joker and realizes that things have gone too far. In the end Batman not only captures the Joker twice, he saves Gordon's family and who knows how many other from Dent's wrath.

In the Dark Knight rises, the character is extremely unheroic. Bruce let's his company go bankrupt rendering many orphans homeless. He sits back and watches during the first half while Bane terrorizes Gotham, when he finally comes out of hiding, he ends up helping Bane get away by drawing the police off of him (as though he apparently forgot that Batman is a wanted man), he aids Selina Kyles criminal endeavours. He lets Talia al ghul in on the arc reactor among other things. You could argue he saved the city in the end but he may not have if not for Catwoman saving him by breaking his gun rule. The reason things became so dire in the final act was Batman's failures earlier in the film. Prior to his return to Gotham, Batman doesn't accomplish a single thing. His first outing he ends up helping Bane, his second outing he gets his back broken. I also found faking his own death to be very unheroic. How does he know a super criminal will never emerge again in Gotham? And why can't Bruce Wayne be a hero in his own right by being an uncorrupt businessman in Gotham?

[thecolorsblend]

Bruce let's his company go bankrupt rendering many orphans homeless.

He had a good idea for free energy but feared it could be used as a weapon. Under the circumstances, you can't say he was wrong.

He sits back and watches during the first half while Bane terrorizes Gotham,

Oh? Bane's first public act that Bruce could've responded to is the stock exchange operation... which coincided with Batman's return.

when he finally comes out of hiding, he ends up helping Bane get away by drawing the police off of him (as though he apparently forgot that Batman is a wanted man),

That was the police department's call; not Batman's.

he aids Selina Kyles criminal endeavours.

Are you seriously arguing this is the first time Batman has ever done that?

He lets Talia al ghul in on the arc reactor among other things.

If he'd known Miranda's true identity, I think it's safe to say he might've made a different choice.

You could argue he saved the city in the end but he may not have if not for Catwoman saving him by breaking his gun rule.

Speaking of things that are arguable...

The reason things became so dire in the final act was Batman's failures earlier in the film. Prior to his return to Gotham, Batman doesn't accomplish a single thing. His first outing he ends up helping Bane,

The entire point of the first two acts of the movie is that Bruce didn't have his head screwed on straight after the events of TDK. What you're commenting upon isn't incidental to the film. It speaks to Bruce's entire character arc in the movie.

I also found faking his own death to be very unheroic.

If we take the ending literally, yeah. Bruce faked his death. He had given Gotham City literally everything he had. He had nothing more to offer the city and the city had nothing more to offer him. Leaving the city was Bruce seizing a new destiny. Considering how broken (figuratively and literally) that city had made him, you can't argue that wasn't for the best.

If we take the ending metaphorically, he didn't fake his death. He sacrificed his life to save Gotham from the nuke and Alfred saw what he wanted to see.

How does he know a super criminal will never emerge again in Gotham?

He believes that Gotham City and John Blake will be capable of dealing with it. Again, the first half of the movie showed Bruce unwilling to share his technology and methods with anybody. By turning the mantle over to Blake, he's showing that he has grown at least enough to trust one other person to protect the city. That's kind of a big deal for him.

And why can't Bruce Wayne be a hero in his own right by being an uncorrupt businessman in Gotham?

The city has only hurt him. And it would be fair to say that Bruce hasn't always been successful with the city. Still, he protected it from Ra's al-Ghul and half of the League of Shadows, the Scarecrow, the mob, the Joker, Bane, Talia and the other half of the League of Shadows. The entire point of the conclusion of the movie is that Gotham is only likely to face standard issue street crime from now on.

The point of giving a character a happy ending is because they really will live happily ever after. That's the entire idea.

I can't believe this, I, of all people, am stuck playing Nolan apologist. But I really do think some of you are going a little too hard on these movies. They're not really MY Batman either. But they're still Batman and they're not all that bad.

[The Laughing Fish]

I actually think the dark knight rises is the most unheroic Batfilm.

The Dark Knight is the film in which he beats the mob; kidnapping Lau and bringing him back to Gotham is something only Batman could do. Without that, the RICO case against the mob wouldn't have stuck. The few mob members who don't go down, operate on a much smaller scale. They don't meet at night, Sal Maroni ends up helping Gordon stop the Joker and realizes that things have gone too far. In the end Batman not only captures the Joker twice, he saves Gordon's family and who knows how many other from Dent's wrath.

The point I'm making is for every good thing Batman does in TDK, he undermines with it every bad decision he makes.

If he were more consistent with breaking his rules as he did with the other villains in the trilogy, he would've ran over the Joker at the end of the chase scene, and the second half of TDK would never have happened. Rachel might still have been alive and Harvey might never have become Two-Face. He definitely wouldn't have started a killing spree. Another thing's for certain is Gordon's family and the rest of Gotham City would've been spared from more terror.

Likewise, if Batman truly believed that people's moral strength was strong, like he did in that ferry scene, and told the public the truth about Two-Face, Gotham would've coped a lot better than being misled for eight years, and the trauma of Bane exposing the truth would never have happened. In fact, I'd argue the public would've been stronger to cope through that Bane ordeal if they were told the truth from the beginning; instead of undermining that ferry scene even further.

The worst thing is not only does the character get compromised because of plot convenience, the films gloss over he was at fault. As in Nolan didn't care to make Batman any sense, he just wanted to tell an overly-convoluted plot at all costs. Similar to how Marvel is overusing its' comedy at the characters' expense.

The reason why TDKR exists as the story it is, is because it carried over what was established in TDK. If TDK ended differently, you wouldn't have such a distaste for Rises right now.

As a sidenote: it appears the RICO law is something that can only be enacted by U.S. federal attorney in real life, not a district attorney at state level this movie implies. Whether this is true or not, I'm not sure, but it's interesting nonetheless.
http://www.thedarkknightsucks.com/2008/07/24/hey-lucy-rico-retardo-is-home/