I was just wondering.. whether the decision of Batman to pin the killings done by Harvey Dent on himself really necessary?? I mean Gordon could just have just said to the public that Joker killed all of them. And Joker killed a good number of people in the movie, so they could have easily pulled it off too. Now it just seems to be a major plot hole, just thrown in to achieve a climatic ending.
Someone please disprove me I hate it when I find plot holes in Nolan's films.

Dent was killed after the joker was caught.

theweatherman wrote:Dent was killed after the joker was caught.

Yeah, but all the killings Dent did were before the joker was caught. He killed Wurtz, maroni(and his 2 bodyguards), Ramirez(was she killed or not ) long before the joker was caught. And nobody saw Dent kill any of them. And I am guessing nobody knew where or what joker was doing at that time either. So what difference does it make to say that Joker killed all of them?

I hate to sound cynical about this but it does seem to be major problem in the plot.

If he hadn't done that, The Joker would've won. He had to let the people believe in something other than the lies that the Joker was going to feed them.

But when Dent died they still had to explain that away and though people may not have known exactly where the joker was its safe to assume he was turning to ferries into giant bombs.

Batman was just an easier scapegoat because he was a willing scapegoat. Gordon couldn't account for the Joker's whereabouts and therefore couldn't account for whether or not he had an alibi. He couldn't risk people questioning the coverup and ruining Dent's name so he just laid it on Batman.

Plus it was necessary for Batman to be the scapegoat in Dent's death because the Joker was caught and the police were there and they needed some reason for him to be dead that didn't involve him having gone crazy. And since Batman would already be wanted for one murder why would it matter if he was wanted for others.

Because it would be too difficult to pin the murders on the Joker. Batman was willing to accept those murders, while the Joker wouldn't and would tell everyone that Harvey did it. No one ever knows where Batman is, so it would be hard to disprove the idea of him committing the murders. Batman was already going to be responsible for Harvey's death, so he would become an outcast in Gotham regardless.

waveking brings up a good point, though.

But what everyone else said made sense too.


However, there is always plot holes in most movies. Even Nolan. He's great, but no one's perfect.

Vasticity wrote:If he hadn't done that, The Joker would've won. He had to let the people believe in something other than the lies that the Joker was going to feed them.

Just how would the joker have won? Had he pinned the killings on joker and not harvey dent, dent would have been completely of the murder charges and so the public would have seen him as a Hero.

Because, that is not what Batman is about. Batman is not willing to just throw the blame at somebody else, in many ways he would be giving in to the Joker's philosophy-which is that everyone is evil. Think about it, even if somebody is evil, it doesn't mean that someone should exaggerate their sins. The reason Batman does lie is that he knows Gotham will lose hope on Harvey Dent. However, Batman only takes the blame on himself.

Basically, it is Batman's philosophy and code that prevents him from suggesting that idea to Gordon.

I would say the joker did it.Why not.