Is the ending of The Dark Knight stupid?

[Fox12]

My only issue is that he spends the whole movie swearing not to kill anyone, then five seconds later murders Dent. Thematically, it was kid of a big oversight. Otherwise, the film was brilliant. I always just saw it as a dumbed down version of The Killing Joke.

 

[Sampler]

Not read all the replies, but, doesn't Batman want to be blamed for killing Dent so criminals fear he may kill them. He's supposed to be a symbol of fear to criminals and as Marconi pointed out, he is not, as they do not fear he'll kill them.

Now he's killed Dent, that fear is restored, the Bat kills.

 

[ninjaRiv]

You have presented a nice list of things you thought were wrong with the movie, the problem is they are not flaws but opinions. Saying it relied on melodrama is an opinion without basis in fact, there's no distinction between melodrama or drama except the way we view it.
You say it had no logic or not as much as it should have but that's like saying the movie didn't have as many horses as it should have. It's an opinion with no logical grounds.

Oldman seemed to obedient? So were the scenes of him arguing with authority not confrontational enough? The movie was never meant to be a direct remake of the comic characters, so complaining that the characters are not exactly the same is just kind of silly. Might as well complain about the absence of robin.

The "old guy recapping things we already knew" while the monorail goes is a vital part of the movie. Not every line is meant to simply state a fact you need to know, it's meant to link ideas to the symbolism presented. You say the movie relied on "melodrama" but you still don't say how that differs from regular drama. Characters don't just mope and whine in any Nolan movie I have seen, especially the prestige, so I don't get where you are going with that. Did you see the movie or just the trailers?

Yes some characters get sad or angry, that's because those are human emotions that most humans experience in times of trial. Some people get something out of watching characters go through those struggles. It's not like the movies are nothing but people whining and moping.

Everything you list is either just a scene from a movie (with no real flaw presented) or a strange opinion like "too much melodrama" or "not enough cowbell" which there's no point in debating because it's like saying the sky is too blue. If it's too dramatic for you, don't watch dramatic movies.

I'm glad you liked the avengers, maybe that's more your speed. None of that human emotion stuff, just big green guy and metal man beating up aliens and eachother. Hey it's a fun movie but there's nothing more going on, no reason for me to watch it again or even the first time.
The Avengers was even more "illogical" had far more "plot holes" and the moping in that movie (From the two useless human characters) bored me to no end because I can care less how these action figure models feel when neither one seems human in the slightest.
The Avengers was basically a Michal Bay movie that has a huge fanbase and a lot of praise because it's made by the guy that writes great stories. It's sappy, pro establishment, needlessly patriotic, slug fest. It's a Michael Bay movie through and through.

Even if you hated the dark knight trilogy, at least it had something to cause a debate, at least it could incite real discussion. Nobody is going to get into a thought provoking ideological debate over the Avengers.

But hey, at least it wasn't as "illogical" as an old man explaining things we already know, because pointless exposition is certainly not present in the Avengers.


Sorry, I just had to, you didn't answer any of my questions and only presented baseless opinion so I really had nothing to debate there. The movie was too dramatic, too dramatic for whom?
The movie was stupid, again how is a movie stupid? You never explained that, how can a movie be stupid? Can a movie be smart? Can a movie be strong or tall too?

Hold on... Would this all go a lot better if I had said "In my opinion, these are flaws"? Because I thought that went without saying. Of course these are my opinions and interpretations.

I don't think "Old dude explaining things" was needed at all. Just my opinion. I get that you liked it and I'm certainly not going to fault you for it. I addressed melodrama in the following post, though, and said it was something that an individual interpretation. You saw these characters and thought they were interesting. I did not. Opinions, man.

At the end of the day, these are just things I didn't like. You liked them, fine. I didn't.

Avengers was good because of the plot holes and stupidity. I liked that. In between your Blade Runners, Scanner Darkly's, Unforgiven's, Un chien andalou's, etc there's room for explodey shit like Avengers. But DK did nothing for me and I presented to you reasons why.

Oh, man... "a movie is stupid" is a generalised term that encompasses different things, which I explained to you in detail. It can not get plainer than that. At all. You're either missing the point entirely or purposely trying to twist things to suit your own goals. Both of which baffle me. Can it not just be "You like the movie. I do not."?

 

[ninjaRiv]

Can you explain to me how the "melodrama" in the dark knight differs from "drama" in other movies?
Is it possible that the only difference is how you view one of them?

And maybe YOU don't view comic book movies differently after the dark knight but society sure does. Keep in mind that spiderman was the superhero movie before batman begins. Try to understand that the only reason people hate on "Green Lantern" is because it's a superhero movie made for a pre batman movie going audience. Watch it next to the spiderman movie (the Ramey one) and it makes a lot of sense.

The batman trilogy raised the standard of storytelling in superhero movies but because it still has "super heroes" the drama is seen as silly by those that are not use to comics which commonly feature drama along with costumed characters.

I see you added more.

Melodrama is exaggerated emotion and drama. Drama is one thing but I feel Nolan takes it too a whole new level. But melodrama is, of course, something an individual interprets which is why I never presented it as a fact. What may seem melodramatic to me could be perfectly reasonable drama to another.

I don't know that society on a whole views them differently after DK but I agree, a lot of people use it as the standard to compare everything else to. Your comment was that I view these movies differently now, which I don't. I understand that others do.

I am VERY used to comics so I see your point, I just disagree. I don't feel that DK was close to the comics at all. Perhaps the sort of Batman stories a person prefers factors into this.

I am not saying it is close to your batman comics, I am saying it better represents what is found in most modern comics as opposed to a movie like spiderman which was basically a movie version of the cartoons and not much else.

Nothing about the emotion in DK was exaggerated in fact in most if not all cases it's dampened. The only strong emotion we see is from harvey dent and even then it seems a little too light for a guy that just lost his loved one and at the same time became disfigured for life.

What about the emotions were exaggerated? Did bruce wayne crack a bit of a frown after his girlfriend died? I mean a real person might start breaking things and shouting.

Again, it's all open to interpretation. Opinions. I see melodrama, you see regular drama. Both interpretations are acceptable.

 

[Carpenter]

My only issue is that he spends the whole movie swearing not to kill anyone, then five seconds later murders Dent. Thematically, it was kid of a big oversight. Otherwise, the film was brilliant. I always just saw it as a dumbed down version of The Killing Joke.

Yes that was an oversight. It wasn't a storytelling choice but a clear mistake in the writing.

It couldn't possibly be that batman might be a dishonest person or that he had ulterior motives or even that he made a snap decision like people might do.

I have to wonder if you people are joking or if you really don't understand how writing or film making works.

 

[Carpenter]

You have presented a nice list of things you thought were wrong with the movie, the problem is they are not flaws but opinions. Saying it relied on melodrama is an opinion without basis in fact, there's no distinction between melodrama or drama except the way we view it.
You say it had no logic or not as much as it should have but that's like saying the movie didn't have as many horses as it should have. It's an opinion with no logical grounds.

Oldman seemed to obedient? So were the scenes of him arguing with authority not confrontational enough? The movie was never meant to be a direct remake of the comic characters, so complaining that the characters are not exactly the same is just kind of silly. Might as well complain about the absence of robin.

The "old guy recapping things we already knew" while the monorail goes is a vital part of the movie. Not every line is meant to simply state a fact you need to know, it's meant to link ideas to the symbolism presented. You say the movie relied on "melodrama" but you still don't say how that differs from regular drama. Characters don't just mope and whine in any Nolan movie I have seen, especially the prestige, so I don't get where you are going with that. Did you see the movie or just the trailers?

Yes some characters get sad or angry, that's because those are human emotions that most humans experience in times of trial. Some people get something out of watching characters go through those struggles. It's not like the movies are nothing but people whining and moping.

Everything you list is either just a scene from a movie (with no real flaw presented) or a strange opinion like "too much melodrama" or "not enough cowbell" which there's no point in debating because it's like saying the sky is too blue. If it's too dramatic for you, don't watch dramatic movies.

I'm glad you liked the avengers, maybe that's more your speed. None of that human emotion stuff, just big green guy and metal man beating up aliens and eachother. Hey it's a fun movie but there's nothing more going on, no reason for me to watch it again or even the first time.
The Avengers was even more "illogical" had far more "plot holes" and the moping in that movie (From the two useless human characters) bored me to no end because I can care less how these action figure models feel when neither one seems human in the slightest.
The Avengers was basically a Michal Bay movie that has a huge fanbase and a lot of praise because it's made by the guy that writes great stories. It's sappy, pro establishment, needlessly patriotic, slug fest. It's a Michael Bay movie through and through.

Even if you hated the dark knight trilogy, at least it had something to cause a debate, at least it could incite real discussion. Nobody is going to get into a thought provoking ideological debate over the Avengers.

But hey, at least it wasn't as "illogical" as an old man explaining things we already know, because pointless exposition is certainly not present in the Avengers.


Sorry, I just had to, you didn't answer any of my questions and only presented baseless opinion so I really had nothing to debate there. The movie was too dramatic, too dramatic for whom?
The movie was stupid, again how is a movie stupid? You never explained that, how can a movie be stupid? Can a movie be smart? Can a movie be strong or tall too?

Hold on... Would this all go a lot better if I had said "In my opinion, these are flaws"? Because I thought that went without saying. Of course these are my opinions and interpretations.

I don't think "Old dude explaining things" was needed at all. Just my opinion. I get that you liked it and I'm certainly not going to fault you for it. I addressed melodrama in the following post, though, and said it was something that an individual interpretation. You saw these characters and thought they were interesting. I did not. Opinions, man.

At the end of the day, these are just things I didn't like. You liked them, fine. I didn't.

Avengers was good because of the plot holes and stupidity. I liked that. In between your Blade Runners, Scanner Darkly's, Unforgiven's, Un chien andalou's, etc there's room for explodey shit like Avengers. But DK did nothing for me and I presented to you reasons why.

Oh, man... "a movie is stupid" is a generalised term that encompasses different things, which I explained to you in detail. It can not get plainer than that. At all. You're either missing the point entirely or purposely trying to twist things to suit your own goals. Both of which baffle me. Can it not just be "You like the movie. I do not."?

Yes of course those are your opinions and some people like to have their opinions based on evidence or facts. In my opinion, blue is the best color. Even though it's just my opinion, I can still back it up with facts for instance I could say "water is blue and the sky is blue so blue represents purity and health" or some crap like that.

The fact that it's an opinion doesn't mean you can't have it based on reality. I also got the impression that your posts are trying to sound smarter than they really are, you should talk to your posts about that.

Melodrama has absolutely nothing to do with how interesting characters are. I asked you how they "exaggerated human emotion" when most depression and anger is showcased by people have slight frowns. That's not exaggerated human emotion, it's the opposite and it kind of annoys me that movies can't show genuine human emotion anymore because people like you get upset or uncomfortable and movies have to be made for a massive audience.

No you never once "explained in detail" how a movie can be stupid, you just made a list of odd complaints such as the oranges not being as orange as they should be.

How can a movie be stupid, that is a very simple question.

BTW you can quit hiding behind the "you like the movie, I don't" line because this has nothing to do with liking or disliking the movie. I didn't really like the dark knight, I simply acknowledge that a lot of thought was put into it and it's actually a thought provoking symbolism driven film.

 

[ninjaRiv]

You have presented a nice list of things you thought were wrong with the movie, the problem is they are not flaws but opinions. Saying it relied on melodrama is an opinion without basis in fact, there's no distinction between melodrama or drama except the way we view it.
You say it had no logic or not as much as it should have but that's like saying the movie didn't have as many horses as it should have. It's an opinion with no logical grounds.

Oldman seemed to obedient? So were the scenes of him arguing with authority not confrontational enough? The movie was never meant to be a direct remake of the comic characters, so complaining that the characters are not exactly the same is just kind of silly. Might as well complain about the absence of robin.

The "old guy recapping things we already knew" while the monorail goes is a vital part of the movie. Not every line is meant to simply state a fact you need to know, it's meant to link ideas to the symbolism presented. You say the movie relied on "melodrama" but you still don't say how that differs from regular drama. Characters don't just mope and whine in any Nolan movie I have seen, especially the prestige, so I don't get where you are going with that. Did you see the movie or just the trailers?

Yes some characters get sad or angry, that's because those are human emotions that most humans experience in times of trial. Some people get something out of watching characters go through those struggles. It's not like the movies are nothing but people whining and moping.

Everything you list is either just a scene from a movie (with no real flaw presented) or a strange opinion like "too much melodrama" or "not enough cowbell" which there's no point in debating because it's like saying the sky is too blue. If it's too dramatic for you, don't watch dramatic movies.

I'm glad you liked the avengers, maybe that's more your speed. None of that human emotion stuff, just big green guy and metal man beating up aliens and eachother. Hey it's a fun movie but there's nothing more going on, no reason for me to watch it again or even the first time.
The Avengers was even more "illogical" had far more "plot holes" and the moping in that movie (From the two useless human characters) bored me to no end because I can care less how these action figure models feel when neither one seems human in the slightest.
The Avengers was basically a Michal Bay movie that has a huge fanbase and a lot of praise because it's made by the guy that writes great stories. It's sappy, pro establishment, needlessly patriotic, slug fest. It's a Michael Bay movie through and through.

Even if you hated the dark knight trilogy, at least it had something to cause a debate, at least it could incite real discussion. Nobody is going to get into a thought provoking ideological debate over the Avengers.

But hey, at least it wasn't as "illogical" as an old man explaining things we already know, because pointless exposition is certainly not present in the Avengers.


Sorry, I just had to, you didn't answer any of my questions and only presented baseless opinion so I really had nothing to debate there. The movie was too dramatic, too dramatic for whom?
The movie was stupid, again how is a movie stupid? You never explained that, how can a movie be stupid? Can a movie be smart? Can a movie be strong or tall too?

Hold on... Would this all go a lot better if I had said "In my opinion, these are flaws"? Because I thought that went without saying. Of course these are my opinions and interpretations.

I don't think "Old dude explaining things" was needed at all. Just my opinion. I get that you liked it and I'm certainly not going to fault you for it. I addressed melodrama in the following post, though, and said it was something that an individual interpretation. You saw these characters and thought they were interesting. I did not. Opinions, man.

At the end of the day, these are just things I didn't like. You liked them, fine. I didn't.

Avengers was good because of the plot holes and stupidity. I liked that. In between your Blade Runners, Scanner Darkly's, Unforgiven's, Un chien andalou's, etc there's room for explodey shit like Avengers. But DK did nothing for me and I presented to you reasons why.

Oh, man... "a movie is stupid" is a generalised term that encompasses different things, which I explained to you in detail. It can not get plainer than that. At all. You're either missing the point entirely or purposely trying to twist things to suit your own goals. Both of which baffle me. Can it not just be "You like the movie. I do not."?

Yes of course those are your opinions and some people like to have their opinions based on evidence or facts. In my opinion, blue is the best color. Even though it's just my opinion, I can still back it up with facts for instance I could say "water is blue and the sky is blue so blue represents purity and health" or some crap like that.

The fact that it's an opinion doesn't mean you can't have it based on reality. I also got the impression that your posts are trying to sound smarter than they really are, you should talk to your posts about that.

Melodrama has absolutely nothing to do with how interesting characters are. I asked you how they "exaggerated human emotion" when most depression and anger is showcased by people have slight frowns. That's not exaggerated human emotion, it's the opposite and it kind of annoys me that movies can't show genuine human emotion anymore because people like you get upset or uncomfortable and movies have to be made for a massive audience.

No you never once "explained in detail" how a movie can be stupid, you just made a list of odd complaints such as the oranges not being as orange as they should be.

How can a movie be stupid, that is a very simple question.

BTW you can quit hiding behind the "you like the movie, I don't" line because this has nothing to do with liking or disliking the movie. I didn't really like the dark knight, I simply acknowledge that a lot of thought was put into it and it's actually a thought provoking symbolism driven film.

Ugh... Dude, I've explained several times what I mean, why I mean it and so on and so forth. I've even tried being diplomatic but I think you're doing this on purpose. If you really want to know what I mean, see if someone else can put it into words you'd understand. I'm sure they can. But I am done responding to insults, intentional misunderstandings and general bad attitude.

 

[invadergir]

My only issue is that he spends the whole movie swearing not to kill anyone, then five seconds later murders Dent. Thematically, it was kid of a big oversight. Otherwise, the film was brilliant. I always just saw it as a dumbed down version of The Killing Joke.

Yes that was an oversight. It wasn't a storytelling choice but a clear mistake in the writing.

It couldn't possibly be that batman might be a dishonest person or that he had ulterior motives or even that he made a snap decision like people might do.

I have to wonder if you people are joking or if you really don't understand how writing or film making works.

Why are you being so defensive and emotional about this movie? Your posts are downright unreadable due to sarcasm and insults.

 

[senordesol]

Yeah that's all really cool but that was tdk.
Yes the joker was brilliant, I loved it.

Bane had conviction, he had dedication. He is batman had Bruce wayne stayed with the league of shadows just like Joker is batman had he given in to the depraved nature of his city and given up his morals.

Would you shoot a person to save a family member is not a deep moral issue, it's messed up but it's simple, family comes first. Bane presents an even more chilling idea, one that can't be summed up in one sentence but rather visuals. What happens when that "peace built on a lie" finally crumbles as it was always going to?
What happens when a real dictator is dropped into an american city? We love to think we are so much smarter than "third world" countries but at the end of the day the only advantage we have is comfort and technology, both things that are easily turned against us.


You didn't get any of what you got from TDK because they are telling very different stories and presenting different ideas. The trilogy is really three acts of one massive movie. Batman begins is act one, batman in his prime.
The dark knight is act two, a challenge is presented throughout the movie and he does something to solve it that makes the problem much worse in the third act

The third act is batman attempting and eventually reaching the point he was at act 1 but improving himself even further throughout the journey.

The motivations are actually pretty easy to understand once you consider that the league of shadows, while fictional, is based on very real organizations and don't go thinking I only mean some scary foreigners in some other country, there are groups within this country that want to see society crumble so it can be rebuilt. That's something they only ever talk about in the movies, the rebuilding. The destruction is the plot of the movie but it's only a small part of their plan.


Bane is a martyr, plain and simple. He never planned nor wanted to leave gotham before destroying it. It may seem "two dimensional" because they are following a master plan to the point where they sacrifice their own lives in seemingly illogical circumstances, but given some real world events and groups, is that so hard to believe?

The goals of these people are not hard to understand, they want to destroy the old world piece by piece to create a new and in their view, better world. Corruption is viewed like a disease, that's why they believe the city itself and all of it's people must be destroyed.

Yes he spoke to the hearts of the people. He convinced them that the bomb was only being used to prevent outside interference. Please don't think for a moment that prisoners are not people. He gave them freedom and power after the old system imprisoned them unlawfully.
"Gotham is yours. Do as you please, nobody will stop you"

That right there is speaking the the hearts of the people. If you feel the need to list all the "bad stuff" he did, you are missing the point. I never said he was a good guy or doing good things, I'm saying he knows how to manipulate people into thinking this is their revolution and not an invasion.

Does that not sound a bit familiar, invading a country while pretending to liberate it?

It's not likable but it's certainly not unreal, just dressed up a bit.

Again, I can't quite go with you there. It was proven at the end that Bane wasn't acting on his own initiative, but was doing what Talia was telling him to. And, while -yes- prisoners are people, the idea that if you broke them out and gave them guns is some sort of shattering social commentary is...well...not --regardless of the circumstances of their incarceration. If they were imprisoned unjustly as well as unlawfully, I could understand, but for me...it was just a bunch of psychos with AKs and APCs. Yeah, that's a compelling narrative obstacle, but it didn't make my skin crawl like the Joker did...that's more...comic book Batman (and I mean that in the worst possible way)

Also if Batman is coming 'full circle', doesn't that contradict his stated goals (a Gotham that doesn't need Batman)? And, in truth, it *wasn't* about Batman coming full circle and improving himself; he retires at the end. There should have been more focus on why Robin (Blake) should be the new Batman -a better Batman (though that, again, contradicts the stated goals).

I know it sounds oxymoronic, but I felt the DKR focused entirely on Batman (more specifically: Batman being terrible at being Batman). If the focus was on themes of Vox Populi, then there should have been more focus on the people. If we wanted to focus on Batman 'improving' himself, well...don't spend half the movie with him doing nothing and being crippled and then resolve it with him jumping a moderate gap.

But perhaps my opinion is colored. Perhaps the reason I'm so down on it is because the film had been setting me up to expect something far more awesome than what actually happened. I figured the climax would go like this: Batman goes round 2 with Bane. They go blow for blow; bone shattering punches with each strike. They're tired. They're bleeding. Bane's facemask is all fucked up, but he's the clear winner. Between rasping gasps, he declares "I've broken you again, Batman. Your attempts to resist the inevitable are as futile as they were before." This elicits a chuckle from Batman. "I didn't have to beat you to win, Bane, he does ." Then WHAMO! Robin out of fucking nowhere, equiped with all of Batman's awesome gadgets, starts running Bane's shit. He saves the day, he's the hero, leaving Wayne with nothing to do but step aside via nuclear detonation, secure in the knowledge that the city is in good hands.

 

[Fox12]

My only issue is that he spends the whole movie swearing not to kill anyone, then five seconds later murders Dent. Thematically, it was kid of a big oversight. Otherwise, the film was brilliant. I always just saw it as a dumbed down version of The Killing Joke.

Yes that was an oversight. It wasn't a storytelling choice but a clear mistake in the writing.

It couldn't possibly be that batman might be a dishonest person or that he had ulterior motives or even that he made a snap decision like people might do.

I have to wonder if you people are joking or if you really don't understand how writing or film making works.

Well, clearly it had nothing to do with Batman being bad because... he spent the whole movie actively trying no to kill anybody. And yes, it was clearly a snap decision made to save a child. That doesn't stop it from being a thematic mistake.

Do you know what a theme is? You should probably do some research before you comment on something. A massive chunk of the drama is about Batman being tempted to sacrifice his moral code, essentially his soul, in order to stop a great evil. Is it worth doing a little evil to stop a greater evil? Batman says no, otherwise the film would have been much shorter. Essentially the entire film is a commentary on human nature and morality. Batman could kill the Joker, but that would prove the Jokers point, in which case the Joker would still win because he forced the Batman to betray his beliefs. The Joker kills a ton of people Batman cares about, but in the end Batman refuses to sacrifice his own morality, therefore winning a symbolic moral victory over the Joker. The film isn't about a physical battle between the Joker and Batman, it's a philosophical battle. Batman's great victory is NOT killing the Joker, which I would argue is the harder choice to make.

This victory is cheapened, however, if Batman kills someone two minutes later. Dents death is not a story plot hole, it's a thematic plot hole. There's a difference.

You need to learn to look beyond the surface to find out what a story is really about. The Dark Knight isn't about a man in a bat costume fighting a clown anymore than Lord of the Flies is about a bunch of kids on an island. Dig a little deaper next time.

 

[00slash00]

I would like to retract my vote and change it to "No, the movie is good." I voted after reading the title and had read it wrong. I read it as Dark Knight Rises, for some reason. That movie didn't just have a bad ending, it was easily the worst in the trilogy, in my opinion. Dark Knight, however, I liked the ending of. Really my only issue with it is the same issue I had with Spider-Man 3. They add one of the coolest villains right at the end, and kill him off in about half an hour. I don't give a shit about Bane, I wanted Two Face to be a main villain

 

[Glongpre]

I disagree. It is hard for me to put into words but Harvey represented the people. He had a face, and crime was largely cleaned up based on his character. The whole point was so that the criminals are not released, which they would be if it was found out that Harvey was just as bad (which happens in Rises). So Batman is taking the fall so that everything does not revert to how it was when he first began. Anyway, it made sense to me.