AcacianLeaves said:
I know I'll need to give examples of 'plot holes' and 'odd character actions' so here goes.
Why exactly does Batman need to take the blame for Harvey's actions? He's dead. He'd be no more a symbol for the city to rally behind than Batman would.
Dent was a legitamate hero, one who operated within the boundaries of civilised law and who had managed to keep himself apart from the rampant corrupt bureaucracy infesting every level of Gotham's government. He was special because he abided by the rules which the people are expected to abide by; Batman can't be that guy because he doesn't abide by the rules. The people may well venerate him but he could never be the hero Dent is; it's a similar thing in The Watchmen. A dead hero is better than a live one, especially if he died for his heroic principles; he made the ultimate sacrifice. People will eventually be jealous of Batman anyway, "why can he go around doing as he pleases when I can't?" which is what happens in The Watchmen.
How is the Joker able to orchestrate all this with nobody to help him except for unreliable nut-cases?
This is the unfortunate curse when dealing with unrealistic comic book stories; not everything is going to be realistic. How did the Joker get all those bombs in the hospital or on the boats? It makes no sense, even with organised backing from the various criminal organisations the pure volume of bombs makes it completely unrealistic.
The only thing I can suppose is that the numerous cans of explosives were put in for cinematic effect; put several small but powerful bombs at key structural points in the hospital and/or the boats and you could destroy them much more efficiently. The visual effect of them would be much less though, so for purely cinematic effect they were put in. Also, it was a nod to Hollywoods love of explosions that make no sense.
Why didn't they use the awesome Scarecrow more?
Not a plot hole or even a problem; a character that you liked didn't get more screen time, shame?
What was the point of Rachel Dawes even existing?
Batman is all about good vs evil and how to go about it. Rachel Dawes as a character is basically a female version of Dent; Batman's link to Bruce Wayne (his humanity not his cover); and, an innocent victim. The story isn't about her, it's about Batman and the fight of good vs evil; to be in the story it must be related to this, she is part of his motivation.
If Batman needs to disguise his voice, why doesn't he use a $5 voicebox rather than damage his vocal chords with a ridiculous growl?
The voice is silly, aye but, Batman is all about intimidation. Also, a voicebox would be either on his throat or have to be spoken through, aye? More problems for manoeuvrability about the head which Batman had been criticised for before, you can't have it both ways.
The part of the film that gives me trouble is the sonar computer and his goggles at the end, that is complete bollocks. I know that Batman's strengths come from advanced training and technological superiority from his vast personal wealth and company but, seriously? Much like the Joker's bombs a simpler and realistic solution is available but, it doesn't lend itself to big cinematic fun bang.
