The Dark Knight (Batman Movie) - A religious statement?

Any of you seen the new Batman movie?
Do you think the director was making a statement
about religion and christianity at the end of the movie?
I did.

I did not quite get that. What about it was a religious statement? (be sure to warn people if you are going to include spoilers!) I thought the ending was a little goofy myself. :stuck_out_tongue:
The best parts were the beginning and the biggest middle chunk.

NO. Its just a movie (and a good one)!

Ah no way, the ending was PERFECT for the title!!! Did you guys not understand it? The ending is the *reason * for the title “Dark Knight.” Don’t you get it?

It IS a Dark movie, but pretty good.**

Hehe, my wife and I immediately thought it made sense, a perfect ending for the movie “Dark Knight.” That’s what Batman is, he’s not really that noble, not like Super or Spiderman. He’s more so dark, attitude and all, while being good at the same time. And the ending showed that, the speech from the elder man was all about that. :slight_smile:

I liked both Part 1 and Part 2, most people say 2 was way better, but I think it is a tie. (This remake was way, way, way better than the Batman series of the 80s and 90s. This is one of the few remakes that blew away the originals) I don’t know why this bugged me so much, but his car in part 2 was UGLY and the motorcycle was even worse looking! (and I’m not someone who is into cars at all)

I don’t think he was making a religious statement, but was going back to the more ‘traditional’ movie themes of letting the cops take care of the bad guy. (though I thought that was pretty corny and not how it should have ended)

None the less, the best and most entertaining film I have seen in a longtime, A+, 9-9.5/10.

Sometimes,a film is just…a film. :wink:

but what if he was trying to say batman was lucifer?

what if batman’s explanation at the end of how
people need to fight and chase monsters and how
he was willing to take the blame was about lucifer
or maybe evil in general. good is not always good
and bad is not always bad because maybe it’s just
not that simple or black and white. maybe
there really is no “good” and “evil” per say but
these things were just created for order.

No. Its much deeper than simplicist dualistic thinking most religions tout in their mythology.

Read the 80s/early 90s graphic novels from which the movie is based off of. The ending is reminisant of the Dark Knight Returns by Miller.

If that is what Nolan was going for, then it wasn’t a “Christian” theme. :slight_smile:

Perhaps you can start a thread explaining how Christian “mythology” is an example of “simplicist dualistic thinking,” and how the Dark Knight’s approach is deeper.


Why are you wasting time with this worldly entertainment:p

No other thread is necessary, observe:

Dark Knight’s approach tells a story of greys more reminisant of reality. Batman must break the law to uphold it. In an ironic twist, his zeal to clean the streets of gotham creates more pain and suffering in the world through the Joker. Another theme held over from the comics, is identity. Despite making the life of Batman much easier (and sparing the world from future suffering), batman cannot bring himself to kill the Joker, whereas the Joker cant bring himself to kill batman.

Now compare this to christian mythology
Following God (personified by Jesus) = good
Not following God (personified by Satan) = bad.
Deep indeed:rolleyes:

This understanding is equally deep.

Is this a correct statement? I don’t remember this at all.

And in following God, Jesus (who is also God) finds Himself condemned to death and abandoned by God, and in doing so takes upon himself all the evil of the world and destroys its power. Now you may think this is silly. But it’s far removed from the ludicrous, moralistic caricature you have just presented. Your criticisms of Christianity would have more weight if it appeared that you actually knew something about it.


I don’t know if I agree with you. The Joker could have indeed killed Batman, and more than likely would have if given the opportunity. He was actually about to do it, just before Commissioner Gordon put a gun to his head and arrested him. But that’s what makes Batman and the Joker different, in that Batman would not kill the Joker, because it is wrong.

The Joker said that they need each other, but in reality, the Joker needs Batman more than Baman needs the Joker. There will always be crime, always be someone up to no good, and Batman will be there to take care of it. But without the good that is Batman, the Joker is nothing more than a crazy terrorist acting like a buffoon for no apparent reason, and he knows that. I like the way the movie ended, and I agree with how it was done.

And on a personal note, I’m also glad Maggie Gylenhal was cast as opposed to Katie Holmes…I just can’t get past her as Joey on Dawson’s Creek.

Actually that was the point that the joker was trying to make. The movie ended with the opposite point being emphasized. With the final experiment of the joker he failed and the people decided to not do evil for the sake of saving their lives. The joker was trying to make the point the laws only exist to create order so he tried to create chaos. He was proved wrong by the goodness in man.

Heh, dunno if I agee with you. Check out Moore’s “The Killing Joke”. it explores the kind of mental state a person would have to be to put on a costume and fight crime, which is dangerously close to that of the Joker’s (highlighted in the end in a brilliant way).

Here too I must disagree. The movies strongly implies that the Batman’s actions produced the Joker. Thing is, if the Joker hadnt appeared, Batman wouldve simply retired in time. Ditto goes for the Joker (remember he protects Batman’s secret identity when the accountant wants to go public).

Yes, Im glad for the switch as well, I hated the character in the first movie.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit