|
Post by dhunter333 on Aug 19, 2008 18:37:05 GMT -5
why exactly did he have gordon accuse him of murdering 5 people (including dent?)
i dont really get why exactly it HAD to be batman, couldnt they just say the joker did it or what not?
|
|
|
Post by supermanisbetter on Aug 19, 2008 21:09:33 GMT -5
my guess is, if they tried to cook the books they thought it was possible someone might find out the truth.
A good defense attorney (and the Joker would need someone Johnny Cochran-level good) could poke holes in the case after the first sign of something misrepresented. He might even have a real alibi "I dIdN"T KiLL tHe COpS, cAUsE i waS kIlLiNg ThOSE oTHer PEoPle AcRosS ToWn WHEn ThEy DiEd!"
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Aug 19, 2008 22:57:09 GMT -5
There are many reasons that Batman took the blame.
1. If the DA went around killing people, the huge number of mob guys would not go to jail.
2. If Harvey took the blame, the hope of Gotham would have died with him. It was better that he died a hero.
3. It would have meant that the Joker succeeded in destroying Gotham.
4. The only other person that could have taken the blame was Gordon, so it had to Batman.
I believe that that about covers it. I'm sure there are a few more reasons I haven't thought of, but those are the big ones I saw.
|
|
|
Post by havedunter74 on Aug 20, 2008 4:26:23 GMT -5
that pretty much sums it up. Harvey Dent had given hope to the people of gotham and for them to know he was a psychotic murderer wouldve destroyed their hope. Batman has always had a love/hate relationship with the citizens of gotham.
|
|
|
Post by anthonywayne on Aug 20, 2008 10:18:52 GMT -5
One other point was that Bruce believed Harvey was a better man than he - but his willingness to take the blame, especially as illustrated by Gordon's monologue at the end, proved that he was the better man and was what Gotham needed - 'a Dark Knight'.
|
|
|
Post by dhunter333 on Aug 20, 2008 10:46:22 GMT -5
"1. If the DA went around killing people, the huge number of mob guys would not go to jail.
2. If Harvey took the blame, the hope of Gotham would have died with him. It was better that he died a hero.
3. It would have meant that the Joker succeeded in destroying Gotham.
4. The only other person that could have taken the blame was Gordon, so it had to Batman.
I believe that that about covers it. I'm sure there are a few more reasons I haven't thought of, but those are the big ones I saw. "
all those reasons say that they cannot have dent taking the blame
but why batman....?
|
|
Doomsday
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Y'wanna know how I got these scars?
Posts: 234
|
Post by Doomsday on Aug 20, 2008 11:17:55 GMT -5
Wwwwoowww he just explained it can you not read?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Aug 20, 2008 19:56:46 GMT -5
Are you suggesting that Batman frame the Joker?
|
|
|
Post by frankcostanza on Aug 21, 2008 1:00:21 GMT -5
He is asking why it had to be specifically Batman who took the blame, rather than anyone else. I was wondering this same thing, and thought about it for a bit. Batman took the blame on himself because it would be wrong to put the blame on someone else who didn't actually commit these crimes. It is safe to assume that nobody else would have been willing to accept the blame, so Batman took it on himself.
|
|
SuperPa
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Posts: 198
|
Post by SuperPa on Aug 23, 2008 21:03:00 GMT -5
"Why Batman? " who else was there to take the blame,Batman was the only one that could have taken the blame.
|
|
|
Post by Batlaw on Aug 24, 2008 1:53:09 GMT -5
Lets not overlook the further fact Batman needed to re-establish himself as a genuine threat to Gotham's criminal underworld.
|
|
SuperPa
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Posts: 198
|
Post by SuperPa on Aug 24, 2008 11:46:54 GMT -5
Yeah,that works too,but he was always considered a thread to the underworld,that didn't stop even when the Joker came along,it makes the character seem more unstable and dangerous if the Batman is thought of as a murderer.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Aug 24, 2008 17:42:12 GMT -5
Yeah,that works too,but he was always considered a thread to the underworld,that didn't stop even when the Joker came along,it makes the character seem more unstable and dangerous if the Batman is thought of as a murderer. Same thing kind of happened in Batman#655 where a cop in a Batman suit shot Joker, and Tim told Bruce a rumor was going around that Batman finally shot the Joker, and Bruce said to let it run; give criminals more reason to fear him.
|
|
Doomsday
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Y'wanna know how I got these scars?
Posts: 234
|
Post by Doomsday on Aug 24, 2008 21:24:49 GMT -5
Yeah,that works too,but he was always considered a thread to the underworld,that didn't stop even when the Joker came along,it makes the character seem more unstable and dangerous if the Batman is thought of as a murderer. Same thing kind of happened in Batman#655 where a cop in a Batman suit shot Joker, and Tim told Bruce a rumor was going around that Batman finally shot the Joker, and Bruce said to let it run; give criminals more reason to fear him. And more of a reason for the police to start a manhunt for him
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Aug 24, 2008 21:39:19 GMT -5
I still don't understand the question to be honest. Why did Batman itake the heat instead of framing someone for a crime they didn't commit or letting someone else take the blame? Batman has been on the brink of going too far through his anger, but to frame someone would be a conscious effort to do something immoral. And as far as letting someone else take the blame, who else could? Gordon could have, but he had a family and would not be able to continue in his role if he did. It HAD to be Batman. Are there any more reasons to continue this subject?
|
|
|
Post by BruceBatman on Aug 31, 2008 17:19:21 GMT -5
Well, me personally, I don't get it. But the movie explains it as this: Batman can be an ever changing hero and will conform to any type of hero gotham needs. Well, Gotham doesn't need Batman for now. Gotham will fall apart if they find out what Harvey Dent did. So Batman took the Blame so the city wouldn't fall apart!
|
|
|
Post by cessnadriver on Sept 2, 2008 12:23:14 GMT -5
"Gotham doesn't need Batman for now."
For now.
Exactly right.
There will indeed be a clearing of the Batman's name, and the bat signal will return to Gotham again.
We shall see the Batman triumphant over all this in the next film. I am sure of it.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Sept 2, 2008 13:12:33 GMT -5
Well, me personally, I don't get it. But the movie explains it as this: Batman can be an ever changing hero and will conform to any type of hero gotham needs. Well, Gotham doesn't need Batman for now. Gotham will fall apart if they find out what Harvey Dent did. So Batman took the Blame so the city wouldn't fall apart! This brings up an interesting point. Batman is a vigilante that is only being tolerated because he is keeping Gotham safe. But once all the villains are behind bars, Gotham is going to come after him anyway. So Batman taking the blame allows him to at least get a head start and to know that he is being sought after. Interesting.
|
|