ADN

I think the the decision to have Joker literally left hanging was a purposeful one. It's left to the viewer's imagination what will eventually happen to him. Further, Harvey was Joker's ace in the hole - the conclusion of Two-Face's storyline was more dire than that of the Joker's. Personally, I would have felt that the Joker in Arkham would be more anticlimactic than Two-Face nearly killing Gordon's son and then Bats subsequently taking the blame for his crimes.

I'm calling it - Harvey isn't dead. Two-Face will return. And that's why I think the movie ended the way it did.

There is a shared focus in this film between Batman's story and Harvey Dent's story. The Joker is used basically as a catalyst to bring change in how these two characters view themselves and the world and vice versa. Batman's idea of his "one rule" and how the world views him as well as Harvey Dent's beliefs and his quest for justice are changed due to the Joker's actions. By the end of the film, they show that this was really Batman's story as his "one rule" is truly put to the test and how all of his sacrifices throughout the whole film come to a head when he makes the decision to take the blame for Harvey's murders and therefore become Gotham's true "hero" in the most precise definition of the word. I saw that as a very exciting and fitting climax of the film as it truly changes Batman's legend and how the world will eventually view him.

I agree that the ending that Jig proposed would have been a good ending... but for a TV show or maybe another type of Batman movie, not for this film. I think ne0kinght brought up a very good point about the Joker's fate. Had the film climaxed with Joker ending up in Arkham, Two-Face on the loose somewhere, and subsequently Batman as the good hero of Gotham (in terms of how the people view him), then they would have just copied the stories of the past films and incarnations of the Batman lore where you would have a "villain-of-the week" type of thing and the police calling on Batman with their Bat-Signal whenever a villain would escape or be on the loose. You'd have the police and Gordon looking like incompetent detectives and enforcers of the law while Batman is basically a police officer in a ridiculous costume and always viewed as a good guy by the citizens of Gotham. And then the villains... well, I think everyone saw how they were handled by Schumacher and co. Those stories have already been done (and repeated many times) with Batman.

As for Harvey's fate in the film, I would have to say that at first I thought he didn't die and that the funeral was a facade for the citizens of Gotham to believe. But because of it's ambiguity I can't be sure of it and I'm still on the fence about it. I'm thinking the ambiguity of his fate was on purpose much like the ambiguity of Joker's fate and it therefore brings many possibilities for the third film (if it even happens).

I'm sorry if this sounded like a rant but I just wanted to give my thoughts on how I saw the film and what it presented. I just believe TDK truly is a Batman film and how his presence changes Gotham both at the beginning of the film and by the end of the film. Truly brilliant in how they told this story that could only be told with these characters.

In the fundraiser, when Batman jumps to rescue Rachel, Joker is consequently left (along with his goons I might add) up in the penthouse with all the guests to fend for themselves. But the scene ends without even showing that and, logically, you would have to think that Joker must have known that Harvey Dent was still somewhere in the penthouse and continued to look for him. At the very least, he must have done something to/with the guests in order to find him or even just for the "fun" of it (which would have made for a pretty compelling scene).