So let me get this straight...
Batman quit after he killed Two-Face. Luckily for Gotham, the Mayor passed the Harvey Dent Act to clean up the streets involving...no parole for major criminals? I know the virals had the full memo from the Mayor, but I'm only going off of the movie script here and the only detail I can recall about it was a line that Blake said.
It was vague to me how this worked for eight years. I realize that it's "based on a lie" of Harvey Dent, but that doesn't change the fact that the law, whatever it entailed, was clearly effective and the police had cleaned up their act. Plus it's not like the law would be repealed if the truth about Two-Face were exposed. Harvey had no role in actually writing the law anyway.
Hell, once the lie is exposed, the only chaos that results comes from Bane, the League of Shadows, and the released Blackgate criminals, not from any Gothamite citizens who felt betrayed or lost hope (and whom Batman and Gordon felt they were protecting at the end of the last movie).
A bigger issue to me was that the truth of Harvey Dent's crimes never went anywhere. There were barely any ramifications towards Gordon and Batman for having the truth kept from the city all this time, which made me wonder what the point was.
Bane revealed the truth to Gotham, but why would this terrorist be trusted by the public? After eight years of believing Dent to be a hero and Batman to be a murderer, people are suddenly going to believe this criminal's word and believe in Batman again when he comes back (to the point that Foley, who was out to take down Batman, takes up arms and fights Bane's army simply after seeing the fire Bat Signal on the bridge)?
Since 2008, I've been wondering how they would show the consequences of Batman and Gordon's decision in The Dark Knight's ending and all it amounts to is Bane reading papers that were conveniently in Gordon's coat when he caught him and Blake criticizing Gordon in a living room.
Gordon's guilt over the Dent lie is a little hard for me to swallow.
Firstly Gordon is guilty that Batman took the blame for Dent's actions and Dent is made to be a hero.
Regardless of the fact that Dent threatened Gordon's family - Gordon is sure to know that "Two-Face" wasn't Dent due to Dent having a breakdown. Dent was a victim of the Joker pure and simple.
Batman taking the blame does no one any harm - especially since it helps clean up the city. It's not like Batman went to jail for the killings he burdened on himself. In fact it was the best for Batman as he wasn't needed anymore.
I really don't get why Gordon was so cut up about it.
When Bane reads Gordon's cue cards for 'the truth' he releases many of the prisoners in a much more dramatic fashion to what would have potentially happened anyhow.
If it were public info what Harvey did after the scarring, there's the potential it COULD undermine all the people he had thrown in jail. Now that is of course the official explanation which is kind of weak, Harvey going crazy after Rachel dies and he loses half his face does not undermine anything he did before that.
Quote from: riddler on Tue, 24 Jul 2012, 01:36
When Bane reads Gordon's cue cards for 'the truth' he releases many of the prisoners in a much more dramatic fashion to what would have potentially happened anyhow.
Indeed, which is why the moment felt flat to me, since it was a lot more extreme for Bane to release hundreds of criminals (who care more about being free than whether or not Dent was a bad guy) than to expose the truth to the city.
I didn't know the best place to share this, but I saw this as the signature of a SHH forum poster named Severus_Snape and cracked up:
Quote"All these years, since I first saw the 1989 film, I've wanted to be Batman. Seeing him as a depressed hermit who moped over a woman that ultimately didn't even want him, Batman became me."
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Mon, 23 Jul 2012, 18:54I really don't get why Gordon was so cut up about it.
The most I've got is that a good man's name (Batman) was being marred so that a guilty man's name could remain clean.
And honestly, Nolan did such a poor job of bringing Harvey's split personality across that I'm not at all convinced that Two Face is a distinct persona from Harvey. In TDK, "Two Face" comes off as a victim of the Joker's crimes than as a completely separate psychological entity.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 20 Aug 2012, 02:27
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Mon, 23 Jul 2012, 18:54I really don't get why Gordon was so cut up about it.
The most I've got is that a good man's name (Batman) was being marred so that a guilty man's name could remain clean.
Yep, simple as that really. And we're told in the other film by Gordon that Batman can take it. Time marches forward and opinions change, but I agree with ral in that Gordon being cut up over it so badly is hard to swallow. They won. Peace reigned, criminals - and lets face it, they were bad and the police fought them in the finale, were locked away off the streets. Batman wasn't needed and Batman took this tag on himself. It wasn't put on against his wishes. The only real reason why Gordon is so cut up about it is so Bane can steal the letter he wrote. But even then, it's hardly concrete proof.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 20 Aug 2012, 02:27
And honestly, Nolan did such a poor job of bringing Harvey's split personality across that I'm not at all convinced that Two Face is a distinct persona from Harvey. In TDK, "Two Face" comes off as a victim of the Joker's crimes than as a completely separate psychological entity.
I really wish Harvey was a character in all three films since his character development perfectly lends itself to a trilogy and would've given them a lot more room to explore his character and make his transformation into Two-Face less rushed. Using Year One, Long Halloween, and Dark Victory as broad templates, there's Film 1 introducing him as a frustrated ADA who becomes Batman's first ally, Film 2 giving him the DA position and showing his descent over the edge and becoming Two-Face, and Film 3 having him in full Two-Face mode and exploring the ramifications of Batman and Gordon having to fight their former friend/ally. Instead, we got all of the Harvey Dent story in one movie.
Still, after killing Harvey in TDK, they could've at least done something interesting with the aftermath. There's a blogger named about_faces who speculated something really cool months before the movie came out. He believed that the "Harvey Dent Act," revealed in the viral marketing, could have serious ramifications in the story of the movie:
QuoteWhile Harvey was willing to bend the rules, he was never the type to outright support the removal of rights such as parole. It makes you wonder just what else has been taken away in the name of enforcing law and order, especially unrest and protests similar to the Occupy movement seem to be a central part of TDKRises' conflict. If the government and the heroes have "saved" the city through extreme order, then it's no wonder that Bane seems to be rallying together his own army of citizens in response. [...]
If the people in that poster as well as this one indeed are angry Gotham citizens rather than Bane's (or perhaps Ra's, maybe possibly?) own private army, then it looks like the reckoning that Bane represents is the response to the oppressive war on crime that Gordon and Batman have waged in Harvey's name.
And that's when I thought of something which actually gave me chills. If my deductions are correct, then maybe, just maybe, Nolan still has something to say about Harvey after all. If all this is true, then the real legacy of Harvey Dent is a city at war with itself, on the verge of being torn in two.
Holy. Crap.
http://about-faces.livejournal.com/77033.html
Sadly, this was not to be.
The thing is, with this movie, they had a lot of things they could have done, but they didn't latch onto it. Call it nitpicking, call it not accepting what the movie is, but I can't shake that vibe off. What we received was disappointing and half baked. That concept above for example sounds fantastic. I think Nolan didn't live up to his reputation here. People were expecting something elaborate and intricate from him, but we just didn't get that. People's thoughts on what could've been are above and beyond the finished film IMO. We could have had a really awesome Bruce sneaks back into Gotham sequence - taking out some Bane goons and disguising himself as one. Or something, anything. But alas, nothing. Nolan chose to put more time into Blake instead.
For example, passing the torch to a replacement Batman isn't a new concept and it's rooted in the comics. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. On a really simple level, I wanted to see what people thought about Harvey once the lie was exposed. We get the general idea what they think beforehand I guess- with Harvey Dent day and such. But nothing after. Which is a shame. Some could hold the view that Dent no longer has their respect. Some few might say the guy died a loser, but it brought out a positive result. And then of course the people attacking the imprisonment without parole. The fact that the movie started eight years after TDK made such ideas ripe for the picking. Because the myth of Dent would've become greater as the years passed, and the truth would've hurt even harder.
The series is over, there is no viable way to do a sequel; commissioner gordon is no more nor is bruce wayne as batman in the Nolanverse.
There's so many plot holes merely in the harvey dent aftermath itself;
-as mentioned him going crazy isn't enough to reverse the previous convictions
-blaming it on Batman basically affirms to his skeptics that batman was a bad guy. The fact that gotham cleans up after batman 'leaves' affirms to the public that every bad thing that happened was batmans fault
-continuing on the above point. Gordon was linked to batman, it was well known he controlled the bat signal (another batman trademark sorely missed in this film) so why had he not been question or blamed for Batmans 'crimes'
-throughout the first two films it was established batman wanted to create a positive symbol and inspire good in others and hopefully have someone aspire to take up his mantle. While the mantle does eventually get taken up by John Blake, any positive inspiration or hope created by Batman got erased with him getting falsely accused of the crimes
-did Bruce Wayne never consider that he could land in prison for murder if he were ever outed as batman? Reese knew it, plenty of that equipment could have been traced to wayne enterprises. There clearly was a trail. If anyone even suspected that they could put the pieces together; batman first shows up when Bruce wayne returns to gotham, batman goes into hiding at the same time bruce wayne does, bruce then comes out from his mansion and mysterious injuries and starts making waves again at the same time Batman returns.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Mon, 20 Aug 2012, 04:43I really wish Harvey was a character in all three films since his character development perfectly lends itself to a trilogy and would've given them a lot more room to explore his character and make his transformation into Two-Face less rushed. Using Year One, Long Halloween, and Dark Victory as broad templates, there's Film 1 introducing him as a frustrated ADA who becomes Batman's first ally, Film 2 giving him the DA position and showing his descent over the edge and becoming Two-Face, and Film 3 having him in full Two-Face mode and exploring the ramifications of Batman and Gordon having to fight their former friend/ally. Instead, we got all of the Harvey Dent story in one movie.
Apparently Goyer's original outline set up Harvey Dent in TDK and his transformation in what became TDKRises. You and I wouldn't be the first to propose that TDK is too busy, too many characters, too many moving pieces on the chessboard, all that. Assuming that rumor (and I swear to think I read the sourced reference from the Wikipedia page but that may not have been it) is true, to me it says that TDK truly was too crowded. I don't think different pacing would've radically improved my enjoyment of these films but it is still interesting to consider how things were originally conceived. I can't help but thinking the original structure would've ultimately been more satisfying.
Besides, there was already a district attorney in Batman Begins. One wonders why the crap he couldn't have been Harvey from day one. But whatever, it's done.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 21 Aug 2012, 01:09
But whatever, it's done.
Indeed. I think I'm over talking about TDK Rises, actually.
I watched B89 again, and what a solid gold classic. That is a movie with good pacing, scene after scene something interesting is going on. A rather simple, easy to follow plot - or just a few plot threads at a time, can do wonders with a movie.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 21 Aug 2012, 01:09
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Mon, 20 Aug 2012, 04:43I really wish Harvey was a character in all three films since his character development perfectly lends itself to a trilogy and would've given them a lot more room to explore his character and make his transformation into Two-Face less rushed. Using Year One, Long Halloween, and Dark Victory as broad templates, there's Film 1 introducing him as a frustrated ADA who becomes Batman's first ally, Film 2 giving him the DA position and showing his descent over the edge and becoming Two-Face, and Film 3 having him in full Two-Face mode and exploring the ramifications of Batman and Gordon having to fight their former friend/ally. Instead, we got all of the Harvey Dent story in one movie.
Apparently Goyer's original outline set up Harvey Dent in TDK and his transformation in what became TDKRises. You and I wouldn't be the first to propose that TDK is too busy, too many characters, too many moving pieces on the chessboard, all that. Assuming that rumor (and I swear to think I read the sourced reference from the Wikipedia page but that may not have been it) is true, to me it says that TDK truly was too crowded. I don't think different pacing would've radically improved my enjoyment of these films but it is still interesting to consider how things were originally conceived. I can't help but thinking the original structure would've ultimately been more satisfying.
Besides, there was already a district attorney in Batman Begins. One wonders why the crap he couldn't have been Harvey from day one. But whatever, it's done.
Thats what fans originally thought too. As soon as it was revealed Harvey Dent would be in the dark knight, the assumption was it would set up two face for the third film. The debate would be whether or not the scarring of dent would happen in the second film or third. It was eventually revealed it would happen in the second. Nobody actually predicted two face would die in that film.
Contrast this to another comic film; spider-man 3. In that film it was known Eddie Brock would be a character and spider-man would have the symbiote which leads to venom. Again the debate would be whether Brock became venom in that film or the next film. Eventually it was revealed Venom would appear. He was brought in for about 15 minutes and then killed off. There was huge backlash of how such a popular villain was brought in for basically an extended cameo and then killed and why they couldn't have devoted an entire film to him? So why did Raimi take so much heat for doing that to Venom when Nolan took very little for doing the same to two face?
Sorry for bringing this into another thread but I also question why Nolanites keep claiming that Burton had no right killing the joker yet Nolan had every right to bring two face in for a few scenes and then kill him?
Quote from: riddler on Tue, 21 Aug 2012, 15:57Sorry for bringing this into another thread but I also question why Nolanites keep claiming that Burton had no right killing the joker yet Nolan had every right to bring two face in for a few scenes and then kill him?
It's something the majority of them probably hadn't even thought much about until David Goyer mentioned it in some interview before BB came out, after which it became a popular meme for arguing the inevitable superiority of the Nolan version. But after what all happened to Ra's al Ghul, Two Face, Bane and Talia, I'm guessing we won't hear them repeat that argument very often anymore.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 21 Aug 2012, 01:09
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Mon, 20 Aug 2012, 04:43I really wish Harvey was a character in all three films since his character development perfectly lends itself to a trilogy and would've given them a lot more room to explore his character and make his transformation into Two-Face less rushed. Using Year One, Long Halloween, and Dark Victory as broad templates, there's Film 1 introducing him as a frustrated ADA who becomes Batman's first ally, Film 2 giving him the DA position and showing his descent over the edge and becoming Two-Face, and Film 3 having him in full Two-Face mode and exploring the ramifications of Batman and Gordon having to fight their former friend/ally. Instead, we got all of the Harvey Dent story in one movie.
Apparently Goyer's original outline set up Harvey Dent in TDK and his transformation in what became TDKRises. You and I wouldn't be the first to propose that TDK is too busy, too many characters, too many moving pieces on the chessboard, all that. Assuming that rumor (and I swear to think I read the sourced reference from the Wikipedia page but that may not have been it) is true, to me it says that TDK truly was too crowded. I don't think different pacing would've radically improved my enjoyment of these films but it is still interesting to consider how things were originally conceived. I can't help but thinking the original structure would've ultimately been more satisfying.
Besides, there was already a district attorney in Batman Begins. One wonders why the crap he couldn't have been Harvey from day one. But whatever, it's done.
You're not wrong. Here's the source:
QuoteWriter David Goyer talks about possible sequels and says (spoilers ahead), "The next one would have Batman enlisting the aid of Gordon and [Harvey] Dent [aka Two-Face] in bringing down the Joker... but not killing him, which is a mistake they made in the first one." The article then says that "In the third, the Joker would go on trial, scarring Dent in the process."
http://www.superherohype.com/features/articles/88561-premiere-features-batman-begins
Though I suppose that, since Goyer spilled the beans to the magazine, he, Nolan, and his brother decided to go in a different direction.
They also tried to fit Harvey into Batman Begins, according to their introduction to Absolute Long Halloween, but "didn't think [they'd] do him justice."
Goyer did have a mention of Harvey in his original draft in the scene between Rachel and her boss, but even that was cut:
Quote
RACHEL
That was then- but now he's
importing drugs, everybody knows it, let's take it to Harvey Dent and-
FINCH (looking around)
Keep your voice down.
QuoteWhile Harvey was willing to bend the rules, he was never the type to outright support the removal of rights such as parole. It makes you wonder just what else has been taken away in the name of enforcing law and order, especially unrest and protests similar to the Occupy movement seem to be a central part of TDKRises' conflict. If the government and the heroes have "saved" the city through extreme order, then it's no wonder that Bane seems to be rallying together his own army of citizens in response. [...]
If the people in that poster as well as this one indeed are angry Gotham citizens rather than Bane's (or perhaps Ra's, maybe possibly?) own private army, then it looks like the reckoning that Bane represents is the response to the oppressive war on crime that Gordon and Batman have waged in Harvey's name.
And that's when I thought of something which actually gave me chills. If my deductions are correct, then maybe, just maybe, Nolan still has something to say about Harvey after all. If all this is true, then the real legacy of Harvey Dent is a city at war with itself, on the verge of being torn in two.
Holy. Crap.
^ That would have been incredible.
In all honesty I'm more interested in Harvey Dent's journey to becoming Two-Face, than in him actually being Two-Face. Some of Rucka's writing and the material in No Man's Land softened my view on this a bit (especially Two-Face putting himself on trial, being prosecuted by Harvey Dent) but other than that he becomes a bit too (two?) gimmicky. The tragic resonance present in Two-Face's appearances (in particular post-Long Halloween and in the Animated Series) is rooted in who he *was* not necessarily what he is now.
For me, Two-Face in TDK was handled quite well. The white knight--the public image of justice that needed not to be tarnished. It's a bit on the surface, but I dug it.
Keeping Dent alive for TDKR or, perhaps, really exploring what his legacy has done to the city would have been far more interesting than a throwaway line about the Dent act in the beginning and a conveniently (I mean, the LEVELS of convenience) place papers in Gordon's pockets for Bane to find when Gordon *happens* to stumble into his subterranean hideaway.
i guess i kind of can respect the fact that Harvey was a symbol of a white knight wh gave Gotham hope that good can triumph over evil and one person can make a difference. The flaw to that theory though is the same could have been said by Batman. Though I'll give Nolan the benefit of the doubt on this one; Batman was inspiring negativity including other copycat viginalntees, forcing the mob to up the stakes and get desparate (essentially giving the joker his power) and forcing the police to use some of their resources on him instead of the true criminals- his return in TDKR helps Bane and Catwoman to an extent as the police start chasing him instead.
I've seen a couple of people elsewhere online who claim that the Dent Act, and its uncovering as a sham, shows that Batman and Gordon covering up Two-Face's crimes was a mistake.
Well, yeah. That's common sense, and anybody with half a brain would've thought it was the worst thing that Batman could've done under the circumstances. So where were the scenes that showed Batman realizing that he made a mistake?
Gordon did show regrets because he felt sickened to cover up a madman who nearly murdered his son, which is why he wrote that letter in the first place. But even he never acknowledged that telling that lie Dent was the wrong thing to do. As a matter of fact, while Bane was exposing the cover-up, Gordon tried to justify himself to Blake by arguing he had no other choice. He and Batman were afraid that Dent's crimes could release every crook he ever put away and they thought the entire town would lose hope (despite this going against everything that Batman said about the city being ready to believe in good, when everybody had the strength and compassion to not kill each other by the end of that stupid boat scene. But never mind).
*** The last sentence in the dialogue with Blake shows that he had some gratitude over Batman's "bravery" to frame himself:
QuoteWhen structures fail, when rules aren't weapons anymore, they're shackles, letting the bad guy getting ahead. One day you may face a moment of crisis and in that moment, I hope you have a friend like I did. To plunge their hands in filth, so you can keep yours clean.
And despite dismissing Gordon's excuses, Blake suddenly sees Gordon's point of view in the end, following his confrontation with the army officer on the bridge:
QuoteYou know what you said about structures becoming shackles. You were right and I can't take it.
Yes, the film showed us the terrible consequences when Gotham City was told about Harvey Dent's crimes. But not once did the film ever imply that Batman and Gordon's decision to cover up Dent's mess was a mistake. It was presented that they were forced to do it because of the corrupt and flawed justice system.
In any case, it wouldn't matter to me even if the movie presented us the message that the Dent Act was wrong. I still regard Batman and Gordon's handling of the Dent situation not really as a mistake, but rather, an act of pure negligence. It gave the citizens of Gotham a false sense of security, and put them in harm's way when the truth eventually comes out. It's unacceptable.
***NOTE:*** I agree with riddler when he said in this thread earlier on, and in the 'Your Version of The Dark Knight' thread (which he explained in even greater detail) that the whole excuse that Batman had to sacrifice himself to protect Two-Face's reputation is bogus because Dent's crimes had nothing to do with his work as a DA. Lawyers get caught red-handed for committing crimes in the real world, but their prosecutions of criminals don't get overturned, unless they were found to be tampering with evidence or rigging verdicts.
Another excuse I see some people try to use is that Batman had to frame himself to protect Dent because he became a fugitive by the SWAT team after he fought them during that reckless attempt to save the Joker's hostages, and nobody would believe him if he told the truth. But that too doesn't make any sense because Batman was involved in a highly dangerous Tumbler-car chase with the cops in the first film, and he was extremely lucky that he didn't kill anyone. If an incident like that didn't make Batman become Public Enemy #1, then I see no reason why his fight with the SWAT team would immediately make him a fugitive, especially not after spending a whole year establishing himself as a crimefighter.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 24 Sep 2015, 10:41
I've seen a couple of people elsewhere online who claim that the Dent Act, and its uncovering as a sham, shows that Batman and Gordon covering up Two-Face's crimes was a mistake.
Well, yeah. That's common sense, and anybody with half a brain would've thought it was the worst thing that Batman could've done under the circumstances. So where were the scenes that showed Batman realizing that he made a mistake?
There were scenes doing that. They weren't completely extensive certainly, but Alfred has that line about how it's time that stop trying to outsmart the truth and let it have it's day.
QuoteGordon did show regrets because he felt sickened to cover up a madman who nearly murdered his son, which is why he wrote that letter in the first place. But even he never acknowledged that telling that lie Dent was the wrong thing to do. As a matter of fact, while Bane was exposing the cover-up, Gordon tried to justify himself to Blake by arguing he had no other choice. He and Batman were afraid that Dent's crimes could release every crook he ever put away and they thought the entire town would lose hope (despite this going against everything that Batman said about the city being ready to believe in good, when everybody had the strength and compassion to not kill each other by the end of that stupid boat scene. But never mind).*** The last sentence in the dialogue with Blake shows that he had some gratitude over Batman's "bravery" to frame himself:
Bruce's feelings about the people being ready to believe in good was based on Harvey. It's developed in the film that Bruce sees batman as something that hurt gotham.
QuoteAnd despite dismissing Gordon's excuses, Blake suddenly sees Gordon's point of view in the end, following his confrontation with the army officer on the bridge:
He sees the point of view about the structures becoming shackles. He doesn't mention the lie.
QuoteYes, the film showed us the terrible consequences when Gotham City was told about Harvey Dent's crimes. But not once did the film ever imply that Batman and Gordon's decision to cover up Dent's mess was a mistake. It was presented that they were forced to do it because of the corrupt and flawed justice system.
The situation itself shows that it was a mistake.
QuoteIn any case, it wouldn't matter to me even if the movie presented us the message that the Dent Act was wrong. I still regard Batman and Gordon's handling of the Dent situation not really as a mistake, but rather, an act of pure negligence. It gave the citizens of Gotham a false sense of security, and put them in harm's way when the truth eventually comes out. It's unacceptable.
There isn't anyway either of them could've predicted what would happen.
Quote***NOTE:*** I agree with riddler when he said in this thread earlier on, and in the 'Your Version of The Dark Knight' thread (which he explained in even greater detail) that the whole excuse that Batman had to sacrifice himself to protect Two-Face's reputation is bogus because Dent's crimes had nothing to do with his work as a DA. Lawyers get caught red-handed for committing crimes in the real world, but their prosecutions of criminals don't get overturned, unless they were found to be tampering with evidence or rigging verdicts.
As I understand it, the idea was that it would call his character into question and make it more easy for the system to be tampered with, or so they thought.
QuoteAnother excuse I see some people try to use is that Batman had to frame himself to protect Dent because he became a fugitive by the SWAT team after he fought them during that reckless attempt to save the Joker's hostages, and nobody would believe him if he told the truth. But that too doesn't make any sense because Batman was involved in a highly dangerous Tumbler-car chase with the cops in the first film, and he was extremely lucky that he didn't kill anyone. If an incident like that didn't make Batman become Public Enemy #1, then I see no reason why his fight with the SWAT team would immediately make him a fugitive, especially not after spending a whole year establishing himself as a crimefighter.
That isn't the reason. The way I see it is that Bruce blamed himself for what happened to Harvey and Rachel and saw batman as bad for the city, so he turned the cops on himself.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
Over the years, many people have defended the TDK's ending and the need of the Dent Act because the moral of the story was supposed to be Batman inspires violence and psychopaths, and Gotham City needed to look up to a political hero so the town could begin social reform.
Yet TDKR ends with the Dent Act abolished because it was based on a lie and Blake takes the mantle as Batman. As long as a Batman is needed, Gotham City can't ever stop being a dysfunctional town, can it?
Great storytelling there.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 30 Dec 2016, 07:34Over the years, many people have defended the TDK's ending and the need of the Dent Act because the moral of the story was supposed to be Batman inspires violence and psychopaths, and Gotham City needed to look up to a political hero so the town could begin social reform.
Yet TDKR ends with the Dent Act abolished because it was based on a lie and Blake takes the mantle as Batman. As long as a Batman is needed, Gotham City can't ever stop being a dysfunctional town, can it?
Great storytelling there.
Was it repealed? I don't recall that in the movie but it's been a while since I've seen it.
ETA- Upon reflection, that is a fair point. There wasn't a need for Batman after TDK thanks to the Dent Act. If Blake becomes Batman, you'd think there'd be a need for it. So that might imply the Dent Act was repealed. I just don't remember it being made explicit in the movie, that's all I'm saying.
I think it's safe to say they never used the Act again once Harvey was exposed as a murderer. The Batman Wikia page says the Act was abolished too. Now I know that anyone could write a Wikia page, but still...
EDIT: Sorry colors, I saw your follow-up to your post just now.
Good point there TLF. If policy works, keep it. Sure, if it fails, get rid of it. But if murderers are locked up indefinitely and the streets are safe, I'm okay with that. These people are not angels, they are killers, and they lived up to their reputation as soon as Bane let them loose again. I honestly don't see what really changes once it's revealed Dent killed a bunch of people eight years ago. It's disappointing, but that's about it. It's about achieving real results, and especially in the here and now. It's like standing up for terrorist rights and saying waterboarding isn't acceptable even though we get the vital information quickly, so we stop doing it. It's dumb. Batman shouldn't have lied about Dent in the first place, but as it evolved, the Act put him out of business. And that should have been the whole point of the trilogy's arc. Especially given he retires with Selina. Handing over to Blake is a regression and blows up the balloon again.
I can't understand how anyone could say Batman was a short term goal for society to rebuild itself. If that was the goal that Nolan wanted to convey in his narrative then I'm afraid to say he failed badly.
If the message is supposed to be that it's wrong to enact a law that's predicated on a lie (which makes Batman and Gordon's decision to cover-up for Two-Face even more despicable), it offers no solution to Gotham's social problems. At the same time, if the Dent Act was still active by the end of the film, and it continued to keep scumbags off the streets, then why would Blake take the mantle as Batman?
As a matter of fact, you can easily interpret the movie's message as if it's saying law and order won't ever work. After all, Alfred confesses to Bruce that he never wanted him to come back to Gotham because it was a place that brought him nothing but pain and tragedy, and Bruce leaves the city in the end. This gives me the impression that Bruce realises Gotham is irredeemable, and would rather give the keys to Batcave to Blake. As if he's saying "I quit. Good luck taking care of that sh*thole, it's your problem now". And let's not forget: the reason why Blake turns to vigilantism is because he lost all faith in law enforcement.
Seriously, this ending is far more cynical than people care to admit. But hey, let's not think about it too much because we're just glad that Bruce got a happy ending. No thanks. As far as modern cinematic interpretations go, give me an ending where Batman rises above his powerlessness and blind rage with newly found gratitude, and continues to search
for redemption as he forms the Justice League.
Of course, Nolan tries to hide this lapse in logic by coming up with this "anyone can be Batman" bullcrap, but as it's discussed many times before, it doesn't make sense because inspiring copycats wasn't what Batman wanted in TDK.
I'd feel strange to ask for a superhero movie to promote against vigilantism and favour law and order instead, but it was Nolan who wanted to explore this theme. Not the audience. It's Nolan's fault if his approach and exectution is a muddled mess.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 2 Jan 2017, 01:59But hey, let's not think about it too much because we're just glad that Bruce got a happy ending.
I well recognize that this doesn't work for you but that single fact you mention cuts through a lot of crap for me. It's not that you're wrong. You're not. But the problems you mention don't bug me all that much because TDKRises showed a way to send Bruce riding off somewhat happily into the sunset. I can overlook a lot of stuff because of that.
Again, you're not wrong. It's just that the good elements outweigh the nonsense for me. Frankly, I see no rational argument for repealing the Dent Act simply because it was premised upon a lie. That fact notwithstanding doesn't invalidate the fair, just and lawful arrests that were made.
In the real world, it truly wouldn't bother me if something like the Dent Act was passed under the same or similar circumstances as long as it got violent gangs and criminals off the streets. Then again, I'm not exactly a libertarian when it comes to law enforcement issues. Get out of the police's way and they can get it done.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 2 Jan 2017, 23:26
I well recognize that this doesn't work for you but that single fact you mention cuts through a lot of crap for me. It's not that you're wrong. You're not. But the problems you mention don't bug me all that much because TDKRises showed a way to send Bruce riding off somewhat happily into the sunset. I can overlook a lot of stuff because of that.
Yeah, we'll definitely have to agree to disagree there. I was so put off by this Batman's negligence throughout the trilogy that I was even more disgusted by the ending of TDKR than ever before. It was a "happy" ending that wasn't earned. And considering how much I hated TDK, that's saying a lot.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 3 Jan 2017, 01:56Yeah, we'll definitely have to agree to disagree there. I was so put off by this Batman's negligence throughout the trilogy that I was even more disgusted by the ending of TDKR than ever before. It was a "happy" ending that wasn't earned. And considering how much I hated TDK, that's saying a lot.
I get that. But one powerful element of the story for me was the theme of the ghosts from Bruce's past coming back to haunt him. He thought he'd put the League of Shadows down. Nope. He thought he'd buried Harvey's secrets. Nope. Alfred thought he was helping by burning Rachel's note. Nope. Miranda as a deep cover saboteur. The list goes on.
I think there's an argument that Batman is ultimately not helpful to society. Even if he's effectual against crime and villainy, his actions still damage his own environment. So there's something to be said for Bruce cutting his losses and letting the city's judiciary and law enforcement officials handle things from here on in. It's a recognition that perhaps his crusade is ultimately self-defeating.
Yes, Blake replacing Bruce as Batman undermines that. I realize that. I'm just saying it's a powerful realization for Bruce to make and you can extrapolate that realization as TDKRises unfolds.
Plus, this is arguably Zimmer's best Batman score. It has the widest cross-section of new and old themes. Really, all it's lacking are the Joker theme and the Harvey theme from TDK.
The Nolan trilogy isn't perfect and it's certainly not my Batman but there are some positive aspects to it and the things that work usually work
REALLY WELL.
I think BatmAngelus came up with a much better ending: Bruce "picked himself up again" by regaining what's left of his wealth to help rebuild Gotham and followed his parents' footsteps by becoming a philanthropist. The city finally moves on without Batman for good. If TDKR had that ending, I could have salvaged something in Nolan's Batman.
But as the current ending stands? No. I can't accept that. And that's all I have to say.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 2 Jan 2017, 01:59As a matter of fact, you can easily interpret the movie's message as if it's saying law and order won't ever work. After all, Alfred confesses to Bruce that he never wanted him to come back to Gotham because it was a place that brought him nothing but pain and tragedy, and Bruce leaves the city in the end. This gives me the impression that Bruce realises Gotham is irredeemable, and would rather give the keys to Batcave to Blake. As if he's saying "I quit. Good luck taking care of that sh*thole, it's your problem now". And let's not forget: the reason why Blake turns to vigilantism is because he lost all faith in law enforcement.
Bruce leaves because he understands that he can't be Batman anymore, not only is it bad for him emotionally, physically and mentally, he's not capable of being it. Alfred says it himself.
QuoteSeriously, this ending is far more cynical than people care to admit. But hey, let's not think about it too much because we're just glad that Bruce got a happy ending. No thanks. As far as modern cinematic interpretations go, give me an ending where Batman rises above his powerlessness and blind rage with newly found gratitude, and continues to search for redemption as he forms the Justice League.
If you don't care about Bruce's character, then I don't know why you'd watch a story about him. Gotham's inability to move forward doesn't inhibit Bruce's ability, if he simply can't continue to be Batman physically. Bruce's character is the focus. His journey is what we're following, not Gotham's. More than anything, it's your interpretation that's cynical, not the ending. Moving on with your life and not destroying yourself with something you're not capable of anymore isn't cynical. What you want isn't what you've gotten. You've gotten Batman stopping being a killer, apparently, because Superman died. His actions not motivated by decency, friendship, honor or empathy. But just because.
QuoteOf course, Nolan tries to hide this lapse in logic by coming up with this "anyone can be Batman" bullcrap, but as it's discussed many times before, it doesn't make sense because inspiring copycats wasn't what Batman wanted in TDK.
Blake is someone Bruce picked, not a copycat. This ignores the fact that Bruce realized that a hero with a face isn't necessarily going to work. And that statement referred to anyone being Batman symbolically.
QuoteI'd feel strange to ask for a superhero movie to promote against vigilantism and favour law and order instead, but it was Nolan who wanted to explore this theme. Not the audience. It's Nolan's fault if his approach and exectution is a muddled mess.
You haven't said why it's a muddled mess to you, factually. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 2 Jan 2017, 01:59
if the Dent Act was still active by the end of the film, and it continued to keep scumbags off the streets, then why would Blake take the mantle as Batman?
Possibly Blake would only fight, rarely, against supervillains rather than ordinary criminals or (a) Batman continuing to fight against crime would continue to be a positive symbol, making the police and civilians better. The endings to both BB and TDK have the idea that like it or not Batman probably will have to do what he does forever and yet Bruce himself doesn't.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 2 Jan 2017, 01:59
Seriously, this ending is far more cynical than people care to admit. But hey, let's not think about it too much because we're just glad that Bruce got a happy ending.
It does seem pretty cynical and should-be-more-controversial for the hero to fake his death and retire from his task. But maybe the films argue that it's not possible for someone to do Batman's tasks for long, especially given what he gives up and loses.
Quote from: Andrew on Tue, 21 Aug 2018, 00:01
Possibly Blake would only fight, rarely, against supervillains rather than ordinary criminals or (a) Batman continuing to fight against crime would continue to be a positive symbol, making the police and civilians better. The endings to both BB and TDK have the idea that like it or not Batman probably will have to do what he does forever and yet Bruce himself doesn't.
Not sure how TDK's ending supports this rationale since his decision to lie about Two-Face taints his symbol. That, and the rationale itself makes the whole cover-up and the idea that Gotham needed Harvey Dent to be the alternative symbol to Batman pointless. Remember, Bruce was starting to have second thoughts about his crusade when he saw how it brought negative consequences like inspiring copycats and psychopaths, and was convinced Dent was the man Gotham needed to be inspired by. That's a popular excuse people like to argue when trying to justify why the ending couldn't have finished differently. If this plot point didn't exist, I could've bought the idea that Batman was a mantle that needed to pass on. But as it is, it just doesn't make any sense.