History Headscratchers / TheDarkKnightTrilogy

** Also, because Gotham's a fictional city, which means they can call it whatever they want. If they wanted to completely mirror New York City, they'd just set the film in New York City.

* How do you think the people of Gotham view Bruce Wayne in universe? On the one hand in Batman Begins you have him jumping into fountains with supermodels and giving his car as a gift to the valet, then apparently insulting and pissing off some of the richest and most influential people in the city before drunkenly burning down his own home. That screams RichIdiotWithNoDayJob. But the very next day he pulls off a plot to purchase the majority share in his company while pulling the wool over the eyes of every major business and financial expert around. Does that make him an ObfuscatingStupidity MagnificentBastard, or maybe a BunnyEarsLawyer? Considering his behavior in The Dark Knight with stuff like falling asleep in business meetings and randomly taking an entire ballet troupe out on a cruise, do people think that Wayne really is that much of an idiot, and is just a pawn for TheManBehindTheMan: Lucius Fox?
** Perhaps not Lucius Fox specifically, but they probably assume he's a RichIdiotWithNoDayJob who just has the best team of business gurus money can buy running the show for him.

** Also, there's not just one "mob" in Gotham, there's multiple mobs who were competing with each other until Batman showed up. And even in real life, it doesn't take much to corrupt a police department. Generally powerful gangs have a few patrol cops directly on their payroll, a few investigators in divisions like burglary, homicide and narcotics, someone in the evidence room and maybe someone in Records. And then they regularly try to suborn judges and city officials on top of that. Spread that out over multiple precincts and turn it UpToEleven, and you have Gotham City.

*** We're kind of getting into the weeds a little bit here; whether or not it ''could'' have been useful is pretty much irrelevant, because it's clear that for whatever meta- or in-universe reason it simply wasn't done. If Batman had wanted to use a voice modulator to emulate the growl he uses, he almost certainly wouldn't bother to electronically distort it in such a way while also cleaning up the distortion so that it sounded almost natural, because there'd be no point; his voice would be distorted anyway, so it would be a waste of time and effort. If he wanted to disguise his voice with a modulator while making it sound natural, he'd set it so that he sounded like someone else completely, not just so that he sounded like someone growling in their natural voice. Plus, electronic voice modification hasn't yet reached a point where it's possible to completely distort your voice in such a way that it sounds completely and undetectably natural, especially if you're just going for "distorting growl". Batman's voice in these films contains no hint of electronic modification; ergo, he's not using an electronic modifier. Furthermore, had the filmmakers wanted to suggest that Batman ''was'' using a voice modifier, they would have included it in the fiction to establish this, in dialogue and/or certainly in actually modifying his voice in some way that made it clear to the viewer; again, they didn't, so the default assumption is that he's not using one. Whether one could be useful is another question, but that brings us back to the fact that the filmmakers not choosing to give him one and the character not choosing to use one isn't really a headscratcher, since it's not a plot-hole.

** It's not really a "consensus" about what's happening, as if there's some element of debate, it's just an outright statement of what actually is happening, really; Bale didn't use a voice modulator for his Batman and his voice just doesn't sound electronically modified, it just sounds like someone putting on a voice. It is, of course, perfectly fine to speculate that in-character might be using one anyway, but that's a WMG, and and one that, really, there's not a heck of lot of evidence to support (for one, the Batman voice in these movies is clearly not electronically modified). As for why Batman doesn't use a voice modulator in these movies, he just might not have been able to fit one in the mask; it's clearly somewhat specialised and streamlined in this version.

** Also, because Gotham's a fictional city, which means they can call it whatever they want. If they just wanted to completely mirror New York City, they'd just set the film in New York City.

* This is from cracked.com, but how did the stuff in the batcave get installed, and how is it cleaned?

[[/folder]]

[[folder:Trilogy]]
* Since when is it a trilogy?
** Since Nolan announced it was a trilogy way back when Begins was released.

* How does the US government view Batman in the Nolan universe? In Man of Steel, they are paranoid and afraid of Superman. How would/do they view an ordinary human running around in a mask, taking matters in his own hands?

[[folder:No Harley Quinn]]

* Did Nolan think Harley wouldn't work in his vision of Batman and Gotham?
** Possibly. This version of The Joker is a bit too chaotic to really have the time and wherewithal to have a PsychoSupporter like Harley, but it was more because the movie already had plenty of villains, save some for later.

[[/folder]]

[[folder:Mayor eyeliner]]
* Why is the mayor wearing eye-liner?
** If you type in the name "Nestor Carbonell" to google, it tries to autofinish it with "eyeliner." Suffice it to say, he doesn't wear eyeliner. It's just what he looks like.
** Original Troper here: Wow. Those are some pretty damn awesome eyes then. Unless its something bad that causes that.
** Different troper -- I'm pretty sure he just has really beautiful dark eyelashes.

[[/folder]]

** I imagine they view him they way society currently view Richard Branson. As an eccentric weirdo we all secretly envy.

** The guy captured the freaking Joker. I think that deserves a promotion.

* Gotham City is portrayed as a pretty big city. Lucius Fox says there are "30 million people" in (presumably) the metro area. That would mean that Gotham has around the population of New York City within its borders. NYPD has almost 40,000 cops on its payroll. Let's presume Gotham has a similar amount, probably less (let's say 30,000). How can most of those cops be on the mob's payroll? I can understand paying off certain parts of the force (Narcotics and Vice detectives, beat cops who patrol areas where the mob deals usually take place, etc.) but the majority of the force is portrayed to be corrupt. I doubt the mob can afford to pay all these cops without bankrupting themselves.

* Bruce Wayne's hair. He's got this thick, slicked-back business hairdo, but that's gotta be annoying under his helmet/mask. Why doesn't he have something more practical? I'm not asking for an army-issue buzzcut, just something that would work in both Bruce-mode and Bat-mode.
** Hair is pretty flexible. I've seen people with thicker heads of hair wearing just as--if not more--restrictive headware (football helmets, hockey helmets) without problems.

* This has always bugged me about Batman in any media (but at least the recent films have corrected it): Batman would need to wear body armor rather than just "dodge bullets." Why haven't the crooks in Gotham figured that out and started using armor-piercing rounds? Also why doesn't Batman suffer most of his injuries from the kinetic impacts from the bullets that hit him? And really, even if Batman's armor could stop armor-piercing rounds, why wouldn't Wayne Industries patent and sell that type of anti-ballistic armor and make even more money than they have?

* This might be solved in the upcoming third movie but I have trouble believing the League of Shadows has been wiped out. If Ra's claims that they secretly run governments is true then they should still be in heavy operation. If not, they still proved to be an ominous, international terrorist group. It was obviously designed to continue functioning after its leader died so Ra's death should not be a problem. They should still be out there and they should be pretty interested in visiting Gotham again.

* All right folks, this is maybe just me, but I have yet to see someone aims for Batman's mouth. You see, that part of him isn't armored.

** In addition, I don't have a lot of experience with FN Minimis, but I wager that they're probably incredibly heavy and awkward to carry around and use (there's a reason you only ever see soldiers using them when they're lying down). If you're in a face-to-face combat situation with someone, or if you're in a situation where swift and efficient movements are essential (as most criminal activities tend to be), then 'heavy' and 'awkward to use' aren't exactly advantages when it comes to weapons. Especially if it's all to deal with just one person.

* I find the different versions of Gotham in ''Begins'' and ''Dark Knight'' very jarring. In ''Begins'' Gotham was grimy, cramped and dirty looking. In ''Dark Knight'' it was modern day Chicago. I can understand how Batman and Dent helped clean up the place, but the geography seems entirely different.

** It's make-up, same as with the Burton/Schumacher Batmen. As I understand it, ''Film/BatmanBegins'' originally had a bit where Alfred stopped to remind Bruce to take the makeup off before going into his birthday party.
** Besides, we ''never'' see his clean face after he took the cowl off. There was a reason his back was turned to us in that scene.

* I suppose here is as good a place as any to put this. We all know that Batman will not kill. However, it's addressed in ''The Dark Knight'' that the criminals have caught on to this and no longer fear Bats anymore, since they know he just won't go that far. Is there anything about this particular version of Batman that would prevent him from successfully pulling off the trick he does in the comics? The one where he takes care to mention that if he ever DID kill, there wouldn't be any evidence of it? Because he's just that good?
** This version of Batman is not real talkative. I doubt there's anyone he could mention it to that would spread it all over the city. Secondly, I did not get the impression that all criminals knew he didn't kill as most of them seemed still very scared of him. The only one who seemed to know for sure was Joker who happened to be very smart and quite probably good at guessing.

[[folder:Soundtrack titles]]
* The soundtrack for ''Batman Begins'' gave each track a seemingly random-word title. Any idea why Music/HansZimmer and Music/JamesNewtonHoward dropped this practice from the sequels?
** The tracks are the Latin names of bat species.
** So why didn't they follow that practice with the sequels?
** Its possible they ran out of cool sounding Latin bat names, or they felt people would be confused if there were many soundtracks with Latin track titles.
** It may also be because actual bats are most prominent in the first movie, with its central theme of fear.
** I may incur the wrath of fanboys, but.. maybe it's possible that giving the tracks Latin bat names wasn't a good idea in the first place? I'll admit it's "cute," but it defeats the purpose of naming when someone wants to listen to a piece of music from a certain part of the score, and the only clue you have is the track order.
** In fairness, you could say that about any music score which doesn't call the tracks something like "The Bit From The Scene Where Batman Punches The Joker And Throws Him Off A Building".

[[/folder]]

* What did Gotham City ever do to the League of Shadows?
** Seriously. [[WellIntentionedExtremist I get that they want to cleanse the "corrupt"]] and all but Gotham is hardly the only "corrupt" city in the world. Why travel all the way around the world when they can target another "corrupt" city closer to home? It just doesn't seem very practical. Or maybe they do? Is the league wiping out other cities [[AMillionIsAStatistic the viewers don't care about]] off-screen? Or do those other cities have their own superheroes stopping them in order to maintain the status quo [[IneffectualSympatheticVillain in which case does the League ever succeed at all?]]

** OK, while I haven't read as many Batman comics as I would've liked to, nor have I seen the whole of ''Film/BatmanBegins'', there are a few things that seem like easy explanations. First, the attack took place in what seemed like the middle of the day, when bats usually sleep. Second, even if it was night, when Bruce pulled that trick in the first movie, it was in a cramped building that officers were going INTO; the final battle with Bane takes place in the open streets. Third, ignoring that, Bane still had a few tumblers with weapons that could've most likely included flares or flash bang grenades, dismissing the bats quickly. And fourth, as said before, this is a fight in the OPEN STREETS in the DAYLIGHT; odds are, Bruce's stealth tactics wouldn't be as effective. [[SincerityMode Then again, I don't know everything so I could]] [[CriticalResearchFailure be totally wrong in some areas,]] [[SincerityMode in which case, my bad.]]

* Something I have wondered over is the timeline for the events of the first two films (I searched through, and didn't notice that anyone else asked this.) How much time passes between Bruce returning to Gotham (around age 30) in Batman Begins, and the end of The Dark Knight? From those two points (the return to Gotham and the deaths of Harvey and Rachel), did only about a year pass? Two years? Five years? Is there a canon answer to this?
** Normally, timeline stuff like this doesn't bother me in movies, but I'm really curious here. The reason I ask is because the amount of time, to me, subtly affects how we perceive the characters. If it's only a year, it sort of become a statement that Bruce just doesn't have the endurance to be Batman, as if he drastically fell short of achieving what he wanted. If it's somewhere in the range of five years, it's a huge testament to Alfred's commitment to, and Rachel's trust in, Bruce during that time. It also might make a bit more sense regarding Bruce's physical condition in The Dark Knight Rises, as he could be anywhere from his late 30s to his late 40s.
** I always got the impression that a year had passed and as a result in TDKR Bruce is around 38-39.

** Did it explicitly state that there is only a one year gap between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight? I know the Joker says that the mob wasn't all that scared of anyone a year prior to TDK, but that could just mean Batman was busy trying to get the fallout from the Narrows going to hell under control for a while before targeting organized crime became a reasonable goal. I might be and probably am reading too much into that, but is there a point where the film (or the top guys working on the film) unambiguously state its only been a year like they did with eight years in The Dark Knight Rises?

** I was looking closely at Batman's mask during the scene where Joker's pinned him down, and noticed there are indeed two nostrils poked in the mask's nose. [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4xFtkYxXCg You can see them here]] when he says "But I know how you got these!"

* There is something that bugs me off about the Tumbler. Thorough the movies we have seen that the vehicle (both the one Batman uses, and later others that Bane stole) is armed with some SERIOUS firepower: high caliber machine guns, rocket launchers, auto cannons, missile pods, and I recall reading the vehicle even had mine-laying capabilities. But in the first movie it's established that the tumbler was created with one purpose, to quickly lay out mobile bridges for the military. Why would they arm such specialized vehicle with much more firepower than most actual fighting light armored vehicles posses?

** The Tumbler has a cloaking function which is capable of turning off street lights in the surrounding area among other things. It's very likely that The Bat has a similar functionality. And even if the police are able to maintain pursuit regardless, he can rely on superior horsepower and/or brute force regardless to evade or disable their cars. It's easily capable of driving along building rooftops to traverse the city as a parkour runner would, something cop cars clearly can't hope to match. With the perfect trifecta of speed, stealth ''and'' strength, they don't have a chance. And if I were a citizen of Gotham, I would assume that it's Batman's personal jet flying around, and whatever my opinion of him I would just leave him to it. There's no method or reason I would have for intervening, much less ''pursuing'' him.

[[folder:Burning the money]]

* The scene where the Joker sets all the money he is paid by the mob bosses on fire was fairly interesting, and one of the few moments where the Joker stops being profoundly terrifying for a minute and is funny again. Until half an hour after walking out of the theater, when I thought back, and remembered that '''there was a man, bound and gagged, sitting on top of the money'''. And the camera cuts had managed to make me forget about it by simply not showing him. It turned the scene all the way around to "creepy" again.
** That was no random {{Mook}}, that was Lau, the Chinese mafia accountant. I had to watch it a second time before I caught that.
** And what was Ra's al Ghul's long-term plan in ''Film/BatmanBegins''? Destroy Gotham's economy. The Wayne family screwed that up, so he went to plan B and failed. OK, kids, what happens when you take a bunch of money from a given economy and destroy it in one fell swoop? GO JOKER!
** You get a small decrease in overall liquidity, but actually, having less currency in circulation is de-inflationary. Not that it matters much today anyway, when most of the money in existence is purely digital.
** In the scene where Harvey Dent is at the dinner party, shortly before the Joker arrives, he has a conversation with Alfred. He asks him "So you've known Rachel your whole life?". He replies "Not yet, sir." Guess who dies first?
** At first, I passed off the "only burning my half" as a brilliant example of The Joker's humor. It wasn't until later that I thought about how vital this scene is to setting The Joker up as Batman's mirror. To be a mirror, his motives have to be as pure as Batman's are. He's as dedicated to mayhem as Batman is to justice. He's more than a man -- he's a force. For that to be legitimate, money can't play into things. The money scene, which for any other villain would be the sum of all their efforts, their crowning moment before the hero intervenes to set things right, instead serves as an opportunity for The Joker to declare exactly what kind of man he is. Money doesn't matter to him. He's doing this because Gotham deserves a "better class of criminal", one that isn’t in this for monetary gains.
** "Only burning half." Foreshadowing, ''foreshadowing, '''foreshadowing'''! ''
** One problem, that scene came AFTER Harvey's disfigurement.
** I never noticed that, that's interesting! And it gets me thinking: specifically, the Joker says, "I'm only burning my half." (I checked). Now, what is the Joker trying to prove throughout the movie? That everyone is as ugly on the inside as he is. By saying he's only burning ''his'' half, it implies that the half of Harvey that he burns is already "his" - that is, there was already the potential for madness and evil in Harvey. The Joker (or so he believes) only brings it to the surface. The burns visually represent Two-Face's "evil" side, but the burns themselves were only part of the equation.
** Well, of course there was already potential for madness and evil in Harvey. [[AcceptableTargets He's a]] [[EvilLawyerJoke lawyer.]]
** To add another foreshadowing twist, remember Alfred's story to Bruce Wayne about his trip to Borneo and met the sadistic leader with a horde of diamonds he did not care about having as a warning about the Joker's behavior. "Only burning half."
** Which makes the Joker, in a way, better than Alfred's company--they burned the whole forest down for money, while the Joker is burning his half of the mob money.
** Yep, it's pretty unsubtle: "Some men don't care about money. Some men '''just wanna watch the world burn.'''"
** Also, the Joker says "only burning ''my'' half" - claiming full responsibility for Harvey's transformation, that the "evil" half of Harvey essentially belongs to him.
** The best part of that scene for me is that "only burning my half" is absurd: the fire's gonna spread to the entire pile anyway. Symbolic of more than one thing: symbolic of the way the Joker's chaos spreads around the city, and also of the way Harvey's burns actually turn him entirely evil (with things like shooting the driver) instead of only half.
** I always saw that as the Joker's literal half. There was another pile just as big that belong to the mob. Maybe I missed something.
** Yeah, he was just Joking to the Chechen to Troll him ForTheEvulz.
** And I only realized when someone pointed it out to me that '' [[VillainsNeverLie the Joker lied]]!'' Batman goes to rescue Rachel and sends the police after Dent. But it's Batman who rescues Harvey and the cops who see Rachel blow up. Knowing that the Joker does things like this adds another layer to the scene with the two boats...
** Oh, but that's the whole point, don't you see? The way the Joker explains it to Batman in the interrogation room, he makes it out that his game is to force Batman to make the devil's choice about who to save between Dent and Rachel - the man Gotham needs versus the woman he loves. But by ''switching them around'', he forces Batman to commit to his choice, only to find out that he's got the OPPOSITE of what he wanted. Either way, Joker wins TWICE.
** Additionally, that little maneuver was pivotal in getting Harvey to do his [[FaceHeelTurn Face Heel Turn]]. By saying "I just do things. The mob has plans. The cops have plans. Gordon's got plans. You know... they're schemers. Schemers trying to control their little worlds. I'm not a schemer. I try to show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are." and later "Nobody panics when things go 'according to plan'..." Joker was implying to Harvey that it wasn't his fault that Rachel died, it was the Police and Batman's for choosing their precious district attorney over her, while at the same time admitting that he did the switch to screw with them.
** But if the Joker admitted that he did the switch to Harvey that meant that when Batman, clearly the more effective rescuer, pulled out Harvey he had actually been trying to save Rachel. No one chose Harvey over Rachel. Rachel was the one who was supposed to get saved while the less-effective police force was sent after Harvey in the unlikely event that they could save both. The Joker admitted that not only is it his fault that Rachel is dead because he put a bomb on her in the first place but it's also his fault in that his lies prevented Batman from saving her. And he blames Batman for this because...?
** The Joker's switch was a brilliant move because it ensured that Dent would live. Think about it... he knows Batman will save Rachel. He is trying to corrupt one of the two knights Gotham has. If Dent dies, he loses one knight and the other manages to save his love. By tricking Batman into saving Dent, he ensures that both knights are in play while also pitting them against each other. The Joker can lie all he wants about plans... but he truly is a [[TheChessmaster chessmaster]].
** With the reversed choice in that scene in mind, consider the Ferry Boat scene. The Joker plainly lays out two choices, kill, or die. But what reason does he give us to believe that he is playing the choice straight this time? The thought occurred to me in a moment of chilling [[FridgeBrilliance Fridge Brilliance]]: what if the detonators that each boat holds in their hands do not trigger the explosives on the ''other'' boat, but the ones ''on the same boat?'' Then, anyone who triggers their detonator would be killing ''themselves'' instead. Given the Joker's love of irony and glee in twisting familiar concepts into cruel mockeries, I found it to be exactly the sort of thing he would do to display 'Justice' in this manner. Fortunately, there was a [[TakeAThirdOption Third Option]].
** Actually the idea that the detonator on each boat blew up the actual boats they were on would be in a reference to the early "Only burning my half" scene. Look at it like this: The Joker wants to bring humanity's true nature to the surface, to show how they're like him, to show that they're ''his'' people. Whoever pulled the trigger would be his people, and that would be the half that burned in a fiery explosion.
** Am I the only person who, upon hearing the Joker's statement regarding the bombs on the ferries, assumed that had one of the detonators been triggered, '''''both''''' ferries would have exploded? Because ''that'' would have been in character for the Joker?
** I'd always had a problem with the "it'd blow up your own/both boats" theory, and I just now realized why, conveniently in a moment of FridgeBrilliance. Joker is trying to prove HumansAreBastards, right? If the people who turned the key died, they would be dead bastards. However, if they were to actually live through the ordeal, ''they would go through the rest of their lives knowing Joker was right, and that they sentenced hundreds of people to their deaths.'' How's THAT for breaking Gotham's spirit?
** Well, consider this: If it was rigged to blow up the boat that gave in, he could have ''never explained this''. As a result, everyone on the surviving boat would be viewed as the people who blew up a bunch of others in cold blood. Most of the boat, in fact, would probably have no idea it wasn't true, and would be suspicious of the rest of the passengers, thinking they did it. And god help whoever happened to be near the controller at that point; they'd probably never be trusted again. So he gets some extra psycho irony to laugh about: not only do the people who take his SchmuckBait die, the other group gets viewed as evil no matter what they actually did.
** Alternately, the Joker probably guessed it would be the "good people" who pushed the button since they had more to live for. I always thought he would have let Gotham remain under the idea that the thugs killed a bunch of innocent citizens to save themselves just long enough for a lynch mob to form, then after utter mayhem erupts and a few more people die, call the news and tell everyone the truth. That'd give Gotham something to chew on.
** On the other hand, the detonator was in clear view the whole time, and even if Joker were to create suspicion like that, each person on the boat would still be convinced of their own innocence. It works a whole lot better for Joker to prove HumansAreBastards if he were to actually make people kill each other; it just doesn't seem like something Joker would lie about this time. True, he could have the guy holding the detonator look like the bad guy without his doing anything, but how much better would it work out for him if he successfully proved people can be made into monsters, as his victims actually realize this for themselves?
** Doesn't seem like something he would lie about this time? That's exactly the attitude that he would exploit. He's not JUST trying to prove something. He also wants to create havoc for kicks. Having the detonators blow up their own boats would satisfy both goals just fine.
** I had a weird moment of Brilliance with this scene; you see, I had always been absolutely certain that the Joker had given the people on the boats the detonator for their own bombs; it wasn't until later that I realized that the fact is never mention or implied or as some mention not that at all! I just knew it because that was what the Joker do and there was no need to establish that.
** It's entirely possible that ''neither'' boat would have blown up. ''That'' would be quite a prank, wouldn't it? And still sit on the detonator's conscience all his/her life. I think that may be part of the point: that there is no telling what would have happened. Maybe neither boat, maybe both boats, maybe the same, maybe the other. Maybe it wouldn't have been an explosion at all but his laughing gag or something. ''With the Joker, you just don't know''. His unpredictability is his deadliest forte.
** No, because when they didn't blow up by the deadline, Joker tried to fire his detonator.
** Going on if the detonators blew up their own boats, it works out either way for the Joker. It doesn't matter what the people on the ship know, they're being watched by the entire city. The Joker making it clear that he intends to blow up both boats is the perfect cover. If only one boat blows up, nobody is going to believe that the Joker was responsible for it. Also, if the citizens boat blows, the criminals become dehumanized and mobbed after. If the criminal boat blows, there'd be no way to determine which citizen did it, so they would all be criminalized by the city. In truth, Joker blowing both ships us was the last thing he wanted because it only makes him out as more of a monster when what he really wants is to make himself and the people of Gotham city indistinguishable.
** I just had a thought, but it isn't very plausible, the biggest joke on them would not to blow up the other boat, not to blow up theirs, not blow up both; Blow up a part of the city or something. This doesn't really fit with The Joker's plans, but hey it would be scary.
** The problem with the "blow up both boats" and "blow up own boat" thing is that it doesn't really fit what the Joker's trying to prove. It would be great if he was just trolling them for the lulz, but he's trying to make a point about how, when people have their back against a wall, they're just as murderous as he is. Now, the public perception of the people on the boat is ultimately meaningless. You have one boat of innocent civilians and one boat of murderous criminals. If the criminal boat explodes, people outside the situation will reason that whoever blew up the boat did it to protect innocent people. Given the choice between the two boats, a lot of people who don't have to push the button themselves would immediately say, "Blow up the criminals, save the innocents." It's only a hard decision when you have to be the one to take a life. Nobody would care that they think someone on that boat murdered a bunch of murderers. Similarly, if the civilian boat explodes, everyone would look at that as, "Oh, a bunch of murderous thugs killed people. What else is new?" No matter what happens, even if the detonators blow their own boats up, ''nobody cares'' because either outcome would be reasonable and within expected parameters as an outcome of the situation. The only people who will be affected by the events are the ones on the boats. Forcing one group or the other to murder a lot of people to save themselves will have a devastating impact on the people who had to commit the act, and makes a point ''to those people'' about what atrocities they are capable of when cornered and desperate. Killing them in the process serves no purpose, undermines his goal, and leaves him walking away with nothing to show for his efforts. Yes, I get that this is the Joker, but he ''was'' trying to accomplish something, and when the only evidence for why he would completely undermine his own goal is "because he's the Joker", it's not a terribly compelling argument. A point could be raised about how we know that he cared at all about making the point he claimed to be trying to make with the boats, and the answer is because he had a detonator too. If he just wanted to kill a bunch of people for the lulz and make the other boat think they did it, he could have rigged his detonator to blow up one of the boats and fired it ''himself'' at any point during the deliberation process. He clearly wanted them to make the choice to commit the murder of their own accord and act on it.
** I always assumed that all three detonators (the Joker's plus one on each boat) would just blow up both boats. Remember, Joker isn't trying to prove anything to the people on the boat - he's trying to prove it to Gordon and Batman (he's already turned Harvey). Going back to the money burning scene, he said that he was only going to burn his half of the money - but sets the whole pile on fire anyway, along with Lau. It's symbolic of Harvey - Joker burns half of his face, but destroys all of the man. He says that only one of Rachel or Dent can be saved, but in the end neither can be. So, he might say that he's going to only blow up one boat but in reality he'll take both of them. Batman and Gordon will be left with the knowledge that people will turn on each other when their backs are against the wall ''and'' that the complete destruction of everything is inevitable. In a way, it's very similar to Bane's philosophy on despair and hope: show them a way out and let them tear each other apart trying to get there.
** That doesn't work at all, though. Even if the Joker's point is to teach ''Gordon and Batman'' and not the people on the boats, if both the boats explode, Batman and Gordon will just assume that the Joker blew them both up because he's an asshole, and nothing will be "learned" from the experience. Killing both the boats defeats the entire purpose of the boat exercise ''regardless'' of whether it's meant for the people inside the boats or out.
** One final, defining moment of FridgeBrilliance from this moment AND the Debate over it: that's the point. The Joker is chaos and madness incarnate. There's no way to tell what would have really happened if one of them pressed the button, until it happens. That's the point of Chaos Theory; until an event is observed, there's no way to tell what will happen. We never saw what would have happened, so it's impossible to know. Besides, he is definitely insane, so you know, applying logic doesn't always help.
** Concerning the "burning his half": that huge pile of money was conceivably indeed HIS money, due to the deal he'd made with Gotham's mobsters (he gets half of the money Lao had took with him). As for his plan with the boats, remember the line he uses on Dent earlier, about how people freak out when their plan doesn't go...well, as planned. It's one of the few times that his plan fails/backfires completely, he gets exasperated by the failure, goes to do it himself (the exasperation shown especially in his expression and what he mutters as he pulls out the detonator), becomes distracted enough by the failure that his usual "know how I got these scars?" line becomes his downfall. All of this proving his thought about "normal" people falling apart when their plan does.
** The Joker's dual backstories. I realized several hours later that the back stories have not one, not two, but ''three'' completely separate layers. Layer the first. He's trying to scare Gambol and Rachel by telling them about his scars. Layer the second. Each story is tailored to the listener. Rachel is a woman about to be married... so he tells her a story about how his wife committed suicide. Gambol is a gangster, likely with a higher emphasis on family... so The Joker tells him a story about how ''his father was an abusive alcoholic''. Finally, both scenes are parodies of the stock standard FreudianExcuse in comics. Where the majority of super villains were either abused by their fathers (literally, 90% of all male super villains), or had self-inflicted misfortunes (Penance, anyone?).
** This was before Rachel had agreed to marry Harvey or before anyone but Harvey, Rachel, and anyone they might have told knew about it. Why would the Joker realize that she had been proposed to but was thinking about it?
** He knew she was in a long-term relationship with Dent. Marriage is a reasonable assumption.
** Now you've got me wondering what story he was going to tell Batman.
** I've always thought it'd go something like this:
----> '''Heath Ledger''': He was a great knife-maker, my father. When the one-armed man appeared and requested a special knife, my father took the job. He slaved a year before he was done. The one-armed man returned and demanded it…but at one-tenth his promised price. My father refused. Without a word, the one-armed man slashed him through the heart. I loved my father, so naturally I challenged this man to a duel. I failed... the one-armed man left me alive, but he gave me this (a scar on his cheek) and this (another scar)...
** Batman, of course, being [[CrazyPrepared who he is]], would know [[Film/ThePrincessBride exactly where it came from]].
** Batman is many things, but I have trouble believing he's seen too many movies in his life. He doesn't exactly have time for Movie Marathon Fridays.
** Considering Batman's obsession with law and order, he'd probably say that they were inflicted by a sadistic cop or something. Or better yet - a ''vigilante!''
** While reading all these things about the Joker, I came to the conclusion that they're probably all TRUE. It's the Joker. He'd just as easily lie to you as tell you the truth, but there's really no way to prove it. Which just makes it that much more frustrating, which is EXACTLY WHAT THE JOKER WANTS!
** They all ARE true. He only tells two stories, two scars, two scars that look different in type. While it does make it impossible to conclude what he would have said to Batman, my assumption would have been something simple that would have compared them to each other, like "These are from my loved ones. They made me who I am."
** "If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be [[MultipleChoicePast multiple]] [[TropeNamers choice!]]" - Joker, ''ComicBook/TheKillingJoke'' by Alan Moore
** The Joker was almost certainly lying about the scars, and about the boats, and about almost everything he ever said. Why? Because the only true thing he ever said is that he's an agent of chaos. He's never going to tell you the truth, if he can help it, because the truth is neat, and orderly, and boring. And it's not like any of the people he tells about his scars are there for the other stories. If he lies to someone, and they know he's lying, they still don't know anything. If he lies to someone, and they believe him, then he's successfully gotten to them. If he lies, [[XanatosGambit then the net effect in every scenario will be to further his goal of spreading confusion and chaos]]. If, however, he tells the truth, then some people might not believe him, and he's trolled them by not trolling them, but a lot of people will believe him. Which means he told the truth, and they accepted it at face value, and everything is copacetic. And that is NOT acceptable.
** The Joker said a ''lot'' of things that were true. Like when he pointed out that the TV's plan was terrible because Batman has no jurisdiction. Or when asked if he thinks he could steal the mob's money and walk away, and he replied, "Yeah." How about, "I kill the bus driver." or "Every day that Batman doesn't take off his mask, someone will die," or his promise to blow up a hospital? Even during his manipulations, he says a lot of things that are, in and of themselves, true, like "I just want my phone call." To my knowledge, the ''only'' lie he actually tells in the entire movie is when he mixes up Rachel and Harvey's locations. The rest of the film, every word that comes out of his mouth ''is true''.
** Except for the mutually contradictory backstories, and when he says he doesn't make plans, and...
** One does not have to lie to deceive. Picking and choosing which truths to tell, and what context to tell them in, is a pretty good way to lie without lying.
** Joker licks his scars several times during the movie, implying that either or both of them were attained much more recently than he's letting on.
** I'm going with the assumption it's more of just a mannerism to show insanity.
** Joker couldn't tell Harvey a scar story because Rachel had almost certainly told him already. So he gives him another tailored lie; he says he's an Agent of Chaos (true), and that he doesn't make plans or have any real direction or sense of morals (false). This would twist the knife for Harvey, who is a man who lives his life by rules and plans and justice and morals.
** Consider that in prison, convicted child abusers need to be isolated. In short, criminals ''like'' kids. In the good way. I thought it was absolute perfect genius the prisoners would give up their lives for the kids.
** Adding to that is the line the ScaryBlackMan says: "Give it to me, or we'll kill you and take it from you." In light of what happens a moment later, that line actually means he was fully willing to ''kill'' the police officers just to make sure ''they'' didn't have a spat of cowardice and blow up the boat of children.
** To add more,"Give it to me and I'll do what you should have done 10 minutes ago." [[LikeYouWouldReallyDoIt Some of us think that scary black man is going to blow them up]]. He didn't. The brilliant part is, he basically telling the cop: "Give it to me and I'll do what you should have done ''[[WhatTheHellHero as sworn officer of this state and public servant]]'', 10 minutes ago."
** I always had the idea that EvenEvilHasStandards in regard to the criminals on the boat. Hence why the ScaryBlackMan [threw out that detonator.
** In a movie full of [[IronicEcho Ironic Echoes]], one struck me hard, just days after getting the DVD, even though I saw it in the theater. Harvey and his trademark two-headed coin, an obvious sign of things to come, is first indicative of not his reliance on chance, but his apparent vigilant philosophy, as noted by Rachel: "You create your own luck?. It demonstrates just how far things have gone when Joker pulls his BreakThemByTalking and convinces him that luck and chance are inescapable. Despite the fact that Harvey and Rachel weren't targeted by chance at all, nor that he'd be the one saved instead of Rachel, Joker successfully convinces him that it was so. And thus he creates the Two-Face we all know and cringe from.
** And on top of that, as I realized on rewatching it on DVD myself, Two-Face's coin ''doesn't'' work with pure randomness: it comes up good head, then bad head, then good head and so on in a perfectly alternating pattern until the end. The instrument Two-Face uses to enact random chance is perfectly, mechanically predictable, which tells you just how twisted he is (and helps undercut the Joker's logic).
** Uh, I think that was just an unfortunate coincidence that it turned out that way, since there's never any suggestion that Two-Face is cheating on the coin toss (at least, not after his double-headed coin is burned on one side anyway).
** This is more of a Two-Face in general thing, but the scars on the "bad" side make it lighter, and therefore, it's more likely to come up in a toss.
** By the logic of perfect switching back and forth between life and death sides of the coin, Two-Face's last flip should have ended up on death. But after Batman tackles him, the coin landed on the cement on the life side. Because he refused to believe in the "One Bad Day" theory like Two-Face and the Joker, Batman changed the outcome of that flip and thereby disproved the theory. What a perfect way to subtly reinforce the theme of the movie.
** Another thought on the coin. When he was the idealistic crusading DA, his coin had two sides, both of them the "Good" side. Regardless of chance, he was going to do the right thing, no matter what, because ''there is no other option''. After Rachel dies, the coin is defaced on one side, showing that he now has the capability in him to do bad.
** After Harvey becomes Two-Face, he goes around claiming that "the only morality in a cruel world is chance". Except he doesn't, really, shoot people by chance; he's the one who chooses who he shoots, made very clear in the scene where he shoots Maroni's driver. Bit of an IronicEcho of his line from before "I make my own luck"...
** Paying close attention to the scene, Two-Face clips the coin ''twice'': One for Maroni (which comes out heads, sparing Maroni the gunshot) and ''one for his driver'' (which comes out tails, ergo Harvey shooting him and crashing the car). He's been stated to be going for everyone involved in Rachel's death, including people indirectly involved, hence why his shooting of Maroni's driver is perfectly in accordance with his current M.O. of leaving EVERYTHING to chance.
** On subsequent viewing, I picked up some richer subtext than the first time around, particularly regarding the scene when the Joker is apprehended. I had thought Batman's game of chicken, resulting in his Batpod wipeout, was a little odd. Now I see that this happened because he really ''was'' thinking about running the Joker down (in keeping with Batman's struggle over what he "had to become" to beat men like him), but couldn't do it at the last second. I also realized this was the ''exact'' moment that the Joker decided Batman was "just too much fun" to kill.
** Under this interpretation, when the Batpod crashes, look at the Joker's face when he turns to look at Batman. Not before, not after, during.
** It wasn't until I got home from the theater that I grasped the subtleties of the ending. Earlier in the film, it is very briefly alluded to that Batman is having difficulty: the criminals of Gotham have figured out that Batman won't kill them, and they no longer fear him as they once did. By accepting the blame for the killings committed by Two-Face, Batman not only prevents Dent's name from being tarnished, but he gives the crooks reason to believe that he's willing to kill. They have a reason to fear him again, and Batman doesn't need to violate his code against killing.
** He also solved the problem of the copycats that were emulating him. People stopped "looking up to him". He didn't wanted to be a symbol of what's ''good'', he wanted to be a symbol of ''fear'' to the criminals of Gotham.
** But none of that matters since he then retired for eight years.
** I realized that the Rachel/Dent choice isn't just a cruel trick on Batman and the cops, it's also one for the victims. Both Dent and Rachel think that they are the one that's going to be saved over the other. As D.A. is more important than A.D.A., Dent sees himself as more valuable to the police. Dent also thinks he has a stronger relationship with Batman since Batman met with him face to face and he just risked himself to protect Batman's identity. Rachel thinks she's going to live because of her own relationship with Batman, who might take the chance [[MurderTheHypotenuse to get rid of her fiancee]]. If you listen to their conversation, both Rachel and Dent are trying keep the other calm because they know the other is being left to die.
** Having just read this, I re-watched it and saw Rachel's expression as she realizes Harvey is being rescued, and not her... and she seems to suddenly realize she is about to die. Never saw that expression before.
** And that lead me to the realization that even after all the talking Bruce had done about giving up being Batman, and his clear intent to save her, she died thinking he chose saving Harvey over her. Thus she died believing that in the end, Bruce chose the Batman over her. Relief, betrayal, and sudden fear of death.
** This sounds good for further [[TearJerker tragic value]], but what I distinctly remember was that, like many lovers, they are precisely wishing that [[HeroicSacrifice the other would be saved instead of them]]. For one, Harvey was going ballistic ("NO! WHY ME! NOT ME!") when he saw Batman about to save him. And even if Rachel showed a few seconds of shock at these turn of events, she went back to being resigned to her fate (not too different from Ducard/Ra's al Ghul).
** I came to understand that the day after Rachel's death and the death of Batman's parents are stylistically very very similar. First, there's Bruce Wayne looking out in his own world, when Alfred comes in wanting to prepare something to help take his mind off of things. Initially Bruce is unresponsive, so Alfred leaves with a "Very well", but then Bruce says, "Alfred." and then Alfred has to give some comforting words to Bruce in order to help the disillusioned person. In the first movie it was to help rid Bruce of his self guilt over leaving the theater, to provide comfort, and the first spark that "It was his fault, and his alone." to inspire the future Batman. In ''The Dark Knight'', it's to remind him that, "You have inspired good, but you spat in the face of Gotham's criminals. Things were always going to get worse before they got better." This congruency makes the scene much more different because it lends extra depth to the idea of Alfred as Bruce's father figure after the death of his real father, and that even in the worst of time, he'll have something to say to comfort and encourage him.
** There is a further, stronger, parallel between Alfred and Bruce across ''Batman Begins'' & ''The Dark Knight''. In ''Batman Begins'', there is a subtext of Bruce searching for a father figure, which by the end of the movie and throughout ''The Dark Knight'', is Alfred. When Rachel gives Alfred her letter to Bruce, Alfred reads and then later burns the letter because its contents would destroy Bruce after he'd sacrificed so much. For Alfred, the truth is not as important as giving people the reward they deserve and the drive to keep going. Then, at the end of ''The Dark Knight'', Bruce/Batman takes the blame for Two Face's murders, and he gives the reason that "the truth isn't good enough. Sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded". Bruce has taken on Alfred as a father figure so completely that he's internalized Alfred's values and is expressing them as Batman, and without even realizing that Alfred is treating him the same way. The fact that Batman delivers his reasoning as a voice-over to Alfred burning the letter is very anvilicious.
** When Alfred tells Bruce that the only way he caught the jewel thief was to burn down the forest, I thought that he was just providing a cautionary tale about the lengths Bruce might have to go to stop the Joker. However, then I remembered Alfred describing earlier that the only thing the thief wanted was to "watch the world burn". So, in order to catch the thief, Alfred had to do ''exactly'' what the thief wanted! This is prophetic because in the end of the movie, in order to stop the Joker, Batman has to sacrifice his heroic image by taking the blame for Harvey's crimes. If you remember from earlier in the film, the Joker's main strategy was to ''turn Gotham against Batman''!
** That sounds cool, but there's no indication the thief wanted them to literally burn down the forest. Maybe you're right, but it doesn't actually say that.
** No, even better than that: there are three things the Joker wants: to kill off the criminals who are in it for the money, to make Harvey Dent violate his moral code, and to make Batman violate his "one rule". He gets all three.
** It gets even better for him than that. Batman doesn't kill the Joker - he kills Dent. He broke his code not by becoming a criminal, but by killing to fulfill his goal. It was to save Gordon's son, but he was still forced to cross the line just like Alfred did - and it was in a way that even ''benefited'' the Joker, who still lives to see his triumph. Conversely, Batman and the Joker ''both'' won - the Joker accomplished his three main goals; Batman accomplishes his, in becoming the hero the city needs (though in a horrible, twisted way).
** I never got the impression that Batman was trying to kill Harvey, just that he was trying to stop him and killed him inadvertently.
** What I took from Alfred's line was that it had to do with Batman's use of the cellphone sonar device, which in Lucius's eyes seems incredibly immoral. Just as Alfred exposes the thief by burning down his hiding place, Batman exposes the Joker by removing all of the privacy and anonymity of not only the Joker, but all of Gotham.

[[/folder]]

** Possibly. This version of The Joker is a bit too chaotic to really have the time and wherewithal to have a PsychoSupporter like Harley, but I find it far more likely it was more because the movie already had plenty of villains, save some for later.

** The guy captured the freaking joker. I think that deserves a promotion.

* The consensus on this wiki seems to be that [[FanNickname Baleman]] is not using a voice modulator (unlike [[Franchise/DCExtendedUniverse Batfleck]] who unambiguously ''does'' have an artificial, robotic-sounding vocal tone in his batsuits)) but the jury may be out here. If he was just putting on a growly tone all the time, he could hurt his vocal cords (the fact that apparently Christian Bale himself had training to do this safely for the portrayal notwithstanding; further, he likely did a good amount of this as overdubbing from the comfort of the voice over booth, rather than in the heat of the moment of a scene take) and it's like one more thing he shouldn't need to concern himself with actively putting on when an autonomous voice modulator could take care of that for him. Why not use a modulator to distort the voice, masking him to everyone he interacts with for security and also creating an intimidation factor, rather than making an active effort and risking screwing it up? People may bring up the fact that he sometimes speaks in a normal tone (e.g. when he's being choked by Ra's Al Guhl in ''Begins'', or when he's stabbed in ''Rises'') as evidence against a modulator. But it may be both that he has some control to adjust the modulator (maybe his suit's gloves can be flexed in a certain way to turn it on or off) as he sees fit, and also that the modulator is programmed to adjust when the user's base voice is strained (as it would be when he is choked or stabbed. If he's shocked and high pitched after a stab in the ribs, the modulator will pitch shift this to what sounds like Bruce's normal speaking voice, but it still coming across as strained). So, is it possible that he does in fact have a modulator in this movie trilogy and it's supplemental works? If so, then therefore, other articles on the wiki would have to be adjusted to account for the possibility.

* The consensus on this wiki seems to be that [[FanNickname Baleman]] is not using a voice modulator (unlike [[Franchise/DCExtendedUniverse Batfleck]] who unambiguously ''does'' have an artificial, robotic-sounding vocal tone in his batsuits)) but the jury may be out here. If he was just putting on a growly tone all the time, he could hurt his vocal cords (the fact that apparently Christian Bale himself had training to do this safely for the portrayal nonwithstanding; further, he likely did a good amount of this as overdubbing from the comfort of the voice over booth, rather than in the heat of the moment of a scene take) and it's like one more thing he shouldn't need to concern himself with actively putting on when an autonomous voice modulator could take care of that for him. Why not use a modulator to distort the voice, masking him to everyone he interacts with for security and also creating an intimidation factor, rather than making an active effort and risking screwing it up? People may bring up the fact that he sometimes speaks in a normal tone (e.g. when he's being choked by Ra's Al Guhl in ''Begins'', or when he's stabbed in ''Rises'') as evidence against a modulator. But it may be both that he has some control to adjust the modulator (maybe his suit's gloves can be flexed in a certain way to turn it on or off) as he sees fit, and also that the modulator is programmed to adjust when the user's base voice is strained (as it would be when he is choked or stabbed. If he's shocked and high pitched after a stab in the ribs, the modulator will pitch shift this to what sounds like Bruce's normal speaking voice, but still coming across as strained). So, is it possible that he does in fact have a modulator in this movie trilogy and it's supplemental works? If so, then therefore, other articles on the wiki would have to be adjusted to account for the possibility.

* The consensus on this wiki seems to be that [[FanNickname Baleman]] is not using a voice modulator (unlike [[Franchise/DCExtendedUniverse Batfleck]] who unambiguously ''does'' have an artificial, robotic-sounding vocal tone in his batsuits)) but the jury may be out here. If he was just putting on a growly tone all the time, he could hurt his vocal cords (the fact that apparently Christian Bale himself had training to do this safely for the portrayal nonwithstanding) and it's like one more thing he shouldn't need to concern himself with actively putting on when an autonomous voice modulator could take care of that for him. Why not use a modulator to distort the voice, masking him to everyone he interacts with for security and also creating an intimidation factor, rather than making an active effort and risking screwing it up? People may bring up the fact that he sometimes speaks in a normal tone (e.g. when he's being choked by Ra's Al Guhl in ''Begins'', or when he's stabbed in ''Rises'') as evidence against a modulator. But it may be both that he has some control to adjust the modulator (maybe his suit's gloves can be flexed in a certain way to turn it on or off) as he sees fit, and also that the modulator is programmed to adjust when the user's base voice is strained (as it would be when he is choked or stabbed. If he's shocked and high pitched after a stab in the ribs, the modulator will pitch shift this to what sounds like Bruce's normal speaking voice, but still coming across as strained). So, is it possible that he does in fact have a modulator in this movie trilogy and it's supplemental works? If so, then therefore, other articles on the wiki would have to be adjusted to account for the possibility.

* The consensus on this wiki seems to be that [[FanNickname Baleman]] is not using a voice modulator (unlike [[DCExtendedUniverse Batfleck]] who unambiguously ''does'' have an artificial, robotic-sounding vocal tone in his batsuits)) but the jury may be out here. If he was just putting on a growly tone all the time, he could hurt his vocal cords (the fact that apparently Christian Bale himself had training to do this safely for the portrayal nonwithstanding) and it's like one more thing he shouldn't need to concern himself with actively putting on when an autonomous voice modulator could take care of that for him. Why not use a modulator to distort the voice, masking him to everyone he interacts with for security and also creating an intimidation factor, rather than making an active effort and risking screwing it up? People may bring up the fact that he sometimes speaks in a normal tone (e.g. when he's being choked by Ra's Al Guhl in ''Begins'', or when he's stabbed in ''Rises'') as evidence against a modulator. But it may be both that he has some control to adjust the modulator (maybe his suit's gloves can be flexed in a certain way to turn it on or off) as he sees fit, and also that the modulator is programmed to adjust when the user's base voice is strained (as it would be when he is choked or stabbed. If he's shocked and high pitched after a stab in the ribs, the modulator will pitch shift this to what sounds like Bruce's normal speaking voice, but still coming across as strained). So, is it possible that he does in fact have a modulator in this movie trilogy and it's supplemental works? If so, then therefore, other articles on the wiki would have to be adjusted to account for the possibility.

[[/folder]]