The Fate of Two Face

["V"]

Dr Manhattan himself could have vapourised Two Face at the end of the film and people would still be saying Gordon had him secretly locked up in Arkham.

[regwec]

No, they wouldn't.

Plus, RIP Heath Ledger, there will be no Joker, so all the more reason that Two-Face is in the third movie in some way shape or form

I think that one or the other needs to appear, for the sake of continuity, and to provide the sense of ongoing menace in Batman's city, his life and his mind. Given the choice, I would rather it was The Joker, because Harvey's story arc is neatly self-contained, and The Joker's monologue on his eternal dance with Batman is cheapened if he just disappears. But I would dearly like to see those faces again.

[Spider-Fan]

On the wikipedia page for Two-Face, it is said that The Dark Knight/Batman Begins producer and Nolan's wife Emma Thomas said the fall was ambiguous enough to suggest that he might still be alive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Face

Wikipedia is not the most reputable source. Just look at what Stephen Colbert has done to them in the past. What source do they cite for that piece of information?

Dr Manhattan himself could have vapourised Two Face at the end of the film and people would still be saying Gordon had him secretly locked up in Arkham.

LOL...this is so true :woot:

[regwec]

No it isn't.

[Shane Diesel]

The script says "Dent lies at the bottom of the hole. His neck broken. DEAD."

[CaptainClown]

The script says "Dent lies at the bottom of the hole. His neck broken. DEAD."
You know cause its in the script doesn't mean they actually shoot that or intend that.

[Two-Face]

The script says "Dent lies at the bottom of the hole. His neck broken. DEAD."

Script writing goes changes a lot.

[regwec]

Indeed. The 'Batman Begins' script featured lots of elements which either weren't apparent or didn't appear in the movie, including references to Harvey Dent.

[The Demon's Head]

Wikipedia is not the most reputable source. Just look at what Stephen Colbert has done to them in the past. What source do they cite for that piece of information?



LOL...this is so true :woot: From IGN:

the ending of TDK seemed to suggest that Harvey Dent/Two-Face was dead, although producer Emma Thomas told IGN after an early press screening that Dent's last scene was ambiguous enough to suggest that perhaps he was still alive.

[Two-Face]

Indeed. The 'Batman Begins' script featured lots of elements which either weren't apparent or didn't appear in the movie, including references to Harvey Dent.



Man I wanted that scene with Rachel and Finch discussing that in BB.

[Shane Diesel]

You know cause its in the script doesn't mean they actually shoot that or intend that.

Script writing goes changes a lot.

True it doesn't preclude his appearance in the third film. But Dent being alive would devalue everything built in DK. If the people found out the truth they'd lose hope and continue to believe that everyone politician is corrupt. The only way I can see Dent working in the third film is if he's behind the scenes the entire movie wreaking havoc and later revealed at the end of the film to be two face who was pulling the strings all along only to die yet again in another confrontation. Pretty corny storyline.

[Spider-Fan]

No it isn't.

It is. When you can escape from a falling subway car, and the ensuing explosion, or a several story fall that (as scripted) breaks your neck, let me know. Then I'll buy the ambiguity angle.

Until then (or until Nolan himself shows me these characters again), they're dead and there is no point denying it.

From IGN:

That was the producer, right? That means nothing. Remember after SM2, no one was saying Ock died for sure, and he is still pushing up daisies in the SM movies (at least at the moment).

Script writing goes changes a lot.

They do. Except the script and scene play out the same way (from the posted pages of it). Why would that one tid bit be different when everything else was the same?

I am still amazed at how little credit Batman's other villains get. All you guys want is the movie series to be monopolized by 3 characters, and basically be the same. Stagnation is not good for a movie series. Period.

[CaptainClown]

True it doesn't preclude his appearance in the third film. But Dent being alive would devalue everything built in DK. If the people found out the truth they'd lose hope and continue to believe that everyone politician is corrupt. The only way I can see Dent working in the third film is if he's behind the scenes the entire movie wreaking havoc and later revealed at the end of the film to be two face who was pulling the strings all along only to die yet again in another confrontation. Pretty corny storyline.
I didn't say that he was alive or dead just that just because the script says it, doesn't make it so.
If the people did find the truth however they could always turn back to Batman who continued to fight for them even when they turned against him. It shows that Batman is their true savior and the city needs him.

[Two-Face]

Two-Face was great in TDK, didn't needed to be killed off and imagine if Joker died instead there would be big pissed off fans.

[The Demon's Head]

That was the producer, right? That means nothing. Remember after SM2, no one was saying Ock died for sure, and he is still pushing up daisies in the SM movies (at least at the moment).[/ Well, she also happens to be Nolan's wife. And as far as we know, Ock isn't dead. Heck, Raimi even said in an interview a while back that he wants him back so he can have the Sinister Six.

[ct joker]

they should have him in ...including riddler...and show them how that other batman film shouldve been done.

they could put a scene in the next film where when the cops go to get batman and gordon goes back over the harvey and he starts to open his eyes and gordon get him in cuffs and brings him to some secret location and gets batman to come and help put him in arkham without the public knowing...they hold the memorial and harvey sees its on a news clip at arkham and riddler who,...could be in arkham already breaks himself and harvey out because harvey makes a deal with him because they have a similar agenda harvey wants revenge on batman because he let rachel die as well cuz he didnt save her

[regwec]

Then it ought to end. Dent has been set up as a living, breathing monster who exists as an avatar of Batman's material failure, and The Joker has been set up as the embodiment of chaos and corruption in Batman's world. How do you follow that with an entirely new set of characters, without anticlimax or the B-movie cheapness of screaming "bigger" and "better" at the top of your proverbial lungs?

I am all for a broadening of the rogue's gallery in the movies, but I think that the continued existance of one or other of these villains needs to be implied in order for Gotham not to appear to be a more sedate place.

[.Rorschach.]

Haha

Dr Manhattan himself could have vapourised Two Face at the end of the film and people would still be saying Gordon had him secretly locked up in Arkham.

[Shane Diesel]

I didn't say that he was alive or dead just that just because the script says it, doesn't make it so.
If the people did find the truth however they could always turn back to Batman who continued to fight for them even when they turned against him. It shows that Batman is their true savior and the city needs him.

He's still a vigilante breaking laws and destroying property as far as the public is concerned. And after the events of DK they are probably echoing Barbara Gordon when she says "you brought this crazyness on us." I don't think the public knowing that Batman took the fall for Dent would suddenly turn them into ardent Batman supporters. Something more needs to happen.

[Spider-Fan]

Two-Face was great in TDK, didn't needed to be killed off and imagine if Joker died instead there would be big pissed off fans.

The Joker living served a purpose, as did Dent's death. Bringing him back is cheap and hurts the sacrifice Batman makes at the end.

If the Joker died, and it served a purpose, I wouldn't care.

Well, she also happens to be Nolan's wife. And as far as we know, Ock isn't dead. Heck, Raimi even said in an interview a while back that he wants him back so he can have the Sinister Six.

I doubt Ock comes back while Sam is director. I also think bringing back Ock hurts SM2, cause his sacrifice at the end becomes meaningless (and against his character journey). Same applies with Two-Face. His death and Batman taking responsibility for him served a purpose. Batman in the movie learned his limits and what Batman truly symbolized. This whole arc is null and void if you basically take him back to square one (again stagnation).

Great movie's run on character arcs...not stagnation. I think Nolan realizes this. The suit can try to talk him into using him again all she wants. Doesn't make it right or show me anything.

[Spider-Fan]

Then it ought to end. Dent has been set up as a living, breathing monster who exists as an avatar of Batman's material failure, and The Joker has been set up as the embodiment of chaos and corruption in Batman's world. How do you follow that with an entirely new set of characters, without anticlimax or the B-movie cheapness of screaming "bigger" and "better" at the top of your proverbial lungs?

I am all for a broadening of the rogue's gallery in the movies, but I think that the continued existance of one or other of these villains needs to be implied in order for Gotham not to appear to be a more sedate place.

Easy, the mobsters have lost half their money, and with Dent's death bringing the law enforcement groups together, the age of Gotham's mobsters is coming to an end. However, the Joker has inspired another group. A group whom play by their own rules. The other "freaks."

I say you make the main villain the Riddler, and it cover the freaks taking over the city. Easily an interesting movie, no Joker or Two-Face needed.

Just give Batman a lesson about himself he needs to learn, and this is a movie. I am no Christopher Nolan, and I just made a logical 3rd film without previous villains.

[The Demon's Head]

Easy, the mobsters have lost half their money, and with Dent's death bringing the law enforcement groups together, the age of Gotham's mobsters is coming to an end. However, the Joker has inspired another group. A group whom play by their own rules. The other "freaks."

I say you make the main villain the Riddler, and it cover the freaks taking over the city. Easily an interesting movie, no Joker or Two-Face needed.

Just give Batman a lesson about himself he needs to learn, and this is a movie. I am no Christopher Nolan, and I just made a logical 3rd film without previous villains. I agree about The Riddler. He's one of the most underated villains in comics, and it's time for a serious take on him. I'd love to see what Nolan does with the character, and Gary Oldman agrees.

[Spider-Fan]

I agree about The Riddler. He's one of the most underated villains in comics, and it's time for a serious take on him. I'd love to see what Nolan does with the character, and Gary Oldman agrees.

Indeed. I want a serious Riddler finally done. People just don't see the potential cause they think of Gorshin and Carrey when they hear the Riddler. The untapped potential in this character is astounding, and it gives us a reason to develop the detective aspects of Batman more so then they have in these past movies. In TDK they added a bit of it, but he still let other people shoulder their fair share of his detective load.

[JL Unlimited]

That was the producer, right? That means nothing. Remember after SM2, no one was saying Ock died for sure, and he is still pushing up daisies in the SM movies (at least at the moment).

Emma Thomas is the producer AND wife to Christopher Nolan so I think what she says would have more weight than your average producer.

[Spider-Fan]

Emma Thomas is the producer AND wife to Christopher Nolan so I think what she says would have more weight than your average producer.

No it doesn't. At the end of the day, she has to rep her company. She doesn't speak for Nolan when she makes public statements. Public statements are part of her job.

[regwec]

But The Riddler, if he is the same sort of Riddler that we know from the comics, is like The Joker's nerdy, effeminate cousin. He is obviously highly intelligent, even cold and ruthless, but he just doesn't posess anything like the same degree of raw threat as either of the villains from TDK. Your idea is fine, really, and I would support it for any other franchise, but TDK has raised the bar so high in terms of both critical and commercial recognition that I have difficulty in imagining a threequel that excludes some of its themes and characters ranking as anything other than a mild disappointment. I think this is why many people have come to support the notion of Bane as Batman's final nemesis- at least he offers some variety of escalation.

In general, I just hope for a third Batman movie of the same quality, by whatever means, but I have the suspicion that it might require some familiar faces. To which end, it would be silly to second-guess what the Nolan brothers intend to do. I doubt they have even decided for themselves.

[Spider-Fan]

But The Riddler, if he is the same sort of Riddler that we know from the comics, is like The Joker's nerdy, effeminate cousin. He is obviously highly intelligent, even cold and ruthless, but he just doesn't posess anything like the same degree of raw threat as either of the villains from TDK. Your idea is fine, really, and I would support it for any other franchise, but TDK has raised the bar so high in terms of both critical and commercial recognition that I have difficulty in imagining a threequel that excludes some of its themes and characters ranking as anything other than a mild disappointment. I think this is why many people have come to support the notion of Bane as Batman's final nemesis- at least he offers some variety of escalation.

In general, I just hope for a third Batman movie of the same quality, by whatever means, but I have the suspicion that it might require some familiar faces. To which end, it would be silly to second-guess what the Nolan brothers intend to do. I doubt they have even decided for themselves.

The Riddler can easily be done as not being min-Joker with Riddles. Look at the Batman: TAS version. He was very serious and interesting. The Riddler can be made into a great mastermind of a villain if you take the time to do so.

He doesn't need a one-piece with question marks everywhere to be the Riddler. The Riddler is an interesting character, whom has rarely been used to his potential. I think Nolan can bring out the best in him, as he has a serious approach to his characters. Exactly what the Riddler needs.

We do agree on something finally though!!! I also doubt the Nolan's have discussed a third movie yet.

[The Demon's Head]

Indeed. I want a serious Riddler finally done. People just don't see the potential cause they think of Gorshin and Carrey when they hear the Riddler. The untapped potential in this character is astounding, and it gives us a reason to develop the detective aspects of Batman more so then they have in these past movies. In TDK they added a bit of it, but he still let other people shoulder their fair share of his detective load. I think they should take some elements from Hush, and have Riddler as a mastermind manipulating other villains in order to break Batman. They can even use some lower level bad guys like The Mad Hatter, and have them work for him.

[Shane Diesel]

I've always felt that there's a lot of untapped potential in the Riddler. However I don't think he can carry a film by himself that would match what they did in DK. For that matter I don't know if any villain can match the Joker.

[Keyser Soze]

Then it ought to end. Dent has been set up as a living, breathing monster who exists as an avatar of Batman's material failure, and The Joker has been set up as the embodiment of chaos and corruption in Batman's world. How do you follow that with an entirely new set of characters, without anticlimax or the B-movie cheapness of screaming "bigger" and "better" at the top of your proverbial lungs?

I am all for a broadening of the rogue's gallery in the movies, but I think that the continued existance of one or other of these villains needs to be implied in order for Gotham not to appear to be a more sedate place.

I'm still on the fence when it comes to bringing back either Joker or Two-Face.

First off, I strongly disagree with the people who say there is no role whatsoever for The Joker or Two-Face to play in a third film. I can think of plenty interesting things to do, with either character, in another film. And of course, I loved both characters, and the fanboy in me just wants more of them to enjoy.

However, at the same time, none of my ideas for either character would be the driving force at the centre of the film narrative. More interesting than essential, I'd say. So at the same time, I disagree with the people who say you absolutely cannot do a third film without either character.

[Spider-Fan]

I've always felt that there's a lot of untapped potential in the Riddler. However I don't think he can carry a film by himself that would match what they did in DK. For that matter I don't know if any villain can match the Joker.

The Joker wasn't even by himself. Why would you think the Riddler would be.

I think they should take some elements from Hush, and have Riddler as a mastermind manipulating other villains in order to break Batman. They can even use some lower level bad guys like The Mad Hatter, and have them work for him.

YES! Someone I can agree with!!!

The Riddler should be a master manipulator, and since I think freaks taking Gotham is something that would be great for a third film, having the Riddler pull a Hush as the freaks being to rise to power would be simply awesome :up:

[regwec]

I completely agree- and love the character- but I am talking about the context of expectations (critical and commercial) of the third film, following the exploration of Batman's no.1 and no.2 adversaries to the near fullness of their potential.

We both know how interesting and cerebral Nigma can be- but is he really more exciting and threatening than Dent and The Joker together? I don't, personally, think so.

[Spider-Fan]

I completely agree- and love the character- but I am talking about the context of expectations (critical and commercial) of the third film, following the exploration of Batman's no.1 and no.2 adversaries to the near fullness of their potential.

We both know how interesting and cerebral Nigma can be- but is he really more exciting and threatening than Dent and The Joker together? I don't, personally, think so.

I'd say a Riddler (along with whom ever else is in the movie) can easily be a high threat. It just requires you to have an imagination (like Nolan has). Now, the Joker performance will always be legendary, so that to me is an unfair comparison. But, the franchise is about the characters journey, and the villains fit into their. I don't think the series should end cause Two-Face and Joker are done.

New theme. New villains. New movie. That is my slogan for this series.

[regwec]

I have plenty of imagination, as do most commited Batman fans. But the majority of the film's audience (and the audience is currently huge) do not necessarily share the same empathy for the franchise in general. You are suggesting that they be presented with another supervillain that treats crime as a cold, intellectual excersise. That just doesn't have the originality or poignance of the anarchy of The Joker or bitterness of Dent. I am not saying that it can't work, but surely the objective has to be to top TDK. Doesn't it?

[Keyser Soze]

I completely agree- and love the character- but I am talking about the context of expectations (critical and commercial) of the third film, following the exploration of Batman's no.1 and no.2 adversaries to the near fullness of their potential.

We both know how interesting and cerebral Nigma can be- but is he really more exciting and threatening than Dent and The Joker together? I don't, personally, think so.

I don't think that in terms of excitement, The Riddler is a match for Dent and The Joker together. Personally speaking, they are my two favourite villains. But, on a more objective level, in terms of generating excitement among the filmgoing public, I think the only character who could possibly be a match for the tandem is Catwoman.

But of course, she's not a villain, per se. So, I think the key is, you introduce Catwoman in a major role as the foil/love interest, and with her you get the rampant casting speculation and curiosity/debate over how she'll be adapted into Nolan's Batverse. In the early stages, she provides the "excitement". But then you introduce someone else, a real villain who can provide the "threat" for Batman. A role a well-written Riddler could very well fill. Then you're splitting up the responsibility of trying to live up to Joker/Two-Face, rather than letting it all rest on the shoulders of one character.

[regwec]

That makes more sense, and the introduction of a solid vein of sexuality cannot hurt, as it isn't really a theme that has existed in the franchise so far. But BB and TDK, between them, have established personal/social corruption vs. order/anarchy vs. honour/bravery as the key revolving themes of the narrative, and The Joker and Dent have emerged as the most resonant agents of two-thirds of those themes. How do the Nolans continue to explore that cycle, withour using their phyisical incarnations? By either trying to persuade us that escalation has occured once again (which may be stretching things, and excludes Nygma, I think), or diluting the themes in favour of expansion and a more spisodic format. I just don't think either would be entirely satisfying.

[Keyser Soze]

That makes more sense, and the introduction of a solid vein of sexuality cannot hurt, as it isn't really a theme that has existed in the franchise so far. But BB and TDK, between them, have established personal/social corruption vs. order/anarchy vs. honour/bravery as the key revolving themes of the narrative, and The Joker and Dent have emerged as the most resonant agents of two-thirds of those themes. How do the Nolans continue to explore that cycle, withour using their phyisical incarnations? By either trying to persuade us that escalation has occured once again (which may be stretching things, and excludes Nygma, I think), or diluting the themes in favour of expansion and a more spisodic format. I just don't think either would be entirely satisfying.

Good points. On a somewhat off-topic tangent, is anyone else worried that - whoever the villains are - in order to pick up the themes and ideas "The Dark Knight", and carry them through to the next level in another sequel, Nolan's going to have to make a film that is incredibly "non-blockbuster"? Now, for us fans of the franchise, that may be a good thing. But it might not be so good for a summer tentpole hoping to bring in the big bucks.

Then again, people said TDK was at risk of not getting great box office, and it is raking in drug cartel levels of money. So maybe I should just shut up. :oldrazz:

[regwec]

Nolan has become savvy, and included some sublime action set-pieces in the movie that were perhaps the least dramatically necessary moments of the narrative (particularly the whole Mr Lau business). But those only functioned well with the broader pulse of the movie's tension hammering away in the background. That's what Batman III needs to replicate and surpass.

[Shane Diesel]

The Joker wasn't even by himself. Why would you think the Riddler would be.

I phrased that wrong. What I meant to say was that Riddler isn't as compelling as the Joker and in that sense can't carry a film as well as the Joker can. Especially this Joker given how his lunacy was matched by his philosophy, intelligence and strategic mind. Nolan has set the bar very high but I think he purposely did this to deliberately challenge himself in creating a third film.

[Superman4ever]

I think they should take some elements from Hush, and have Riddler as a mastermind manipulating other villains in order to break Batman. They can even use some lower level bad guys like The Mad Hatter, and have them work for him.

Yes mother****er, YES! I as just about to post something very similar. Riddler is a fantastic villain and can easily be used as an agent of escalation. He's as smart as the Joker, ruthless and killing the Batman would definitely be something he wants, unlike the Joker who wants to play with Batman. He'd push Batman to a form of exhaustion, mentally and physically, on a scale we've never scene before. Think Knightfall and Hush!

[regwec]

Alright, so why does Nygma want to kill Batman where The Joekr doesn't? What are his motives? What are his methods, and how do they represent an escalation of those used by The Joker? How will The Joker's absense be explained in the context of Riddler stealing his thunder? How will Nygma have the same, or more, personal relevance to Bruce and the audience than did Harvey Dent? How would the Nolans make Nygma into a physical icon more resonant than Two Face of The Joker? Who can Nygma threaten, and in what way, to cause a more marked moral impact on Batman then did The Joker or Dent? Since Reese has already determined Batman's identity, can Nygma really do this in an original and intriguing way? How will the Riddler we know offer a fusion of the intellectual and the phyiscal in his assault on Batman, to a greater extent than The Joker?

[Spider-Fan]

I have plenty of imagination, as do most commited Batman fans. But the majority of the film's audience (and the audience is currently huge) do not necessarily share the same empathy for the franchise in general. You are suggesting that they be presented with another supervillain that treats crime as a cold, intellectual excersise. That just doesn't have the originality or poignance of the anarchy of The Joker or bitterness of Dent. I am not saying that it can't work, but surely the objective has to be to top TDK. Doesn't it?

To the audience, Batman movies are about the villains. Not having Joker in a movie is not an alien concept for the audience. Of the movies since 89, 2 of 6 have had him.

Also, the goal should always be to tell your story right first and foremost. When you continue to try and out do yourself consciously, then you fall into the trap so many 3rd films have fallen into. Don't focus on topping other films. Just tell the stories you feel like telling. When you have no story to tell, stop. I am not a fan of the out do yourself mentality. That is what makes crowded/failed movies.

I phrased that wrong. What I meant to say was that Riddler isn't as compelling as the Joker and in that sense can't carry a film as well as the Joker can. Especially this Joker given how his lunacy was matched by his philosophy, intelligence and strategic mind. Nolan has set the bar very high but I think he purposely did this to deliberately challenge himself in creating a third film.

Riddler is a different villain than the Joker. He offers you different things. Instead of thinking of the great things Joker offers and how they can't be out done, try focusing on what Riddler can deliver and who can compliment him.

Actually, first figure out where you want to go with Bruce Wayne first, make Riddler fit into that, and then focus on complimenting him.

[Spider-Fan]

Alright, so why does Nygma want to kill Batman where The Joekr doesn't? What are his motives?

If I were doing the movie, Riddler wants to succeed where Joker failed and establish a new order in Gotham. He should see Joker as being a failure for having no plan to maintain power.

What are his methods, and how do they represent an escalation of those used by The Joker? How will The Joker's absense be explained in the context of Riddler stealing his thunder?

The Riddler should use lots of deception and make the riddles to where it is easy to follow a red herring. Keep the cops on their toes by allowing them to plan or take control. They play his game.

Joker's absence is simple: He is in Arkham. Since he is in Arkham, the streets of Gotham are anyone's to take.

How will Nygma have the same, or more, personal relevance to Bruce and the audience than did Harvey Dent?

I would make the Riddler mirror Bruce Wayne, and be a man driven to learn all he can about the human mind and brain teasers due to his less intelligent father beating him as a child for being special. In a way, he is Bruce Wayne gone wrong in my take.

How would the Nolans make Nygma into a physical icon more resonant than Two Face of The Joker?

What do you mean? As a physical threat? That is not what the Riddler does. I would have him hire people like Catwoman to be his muscle.

Who can Nygma threaten, and in what way, to cause a more marked moral impact on Batman then did The Joker or Dent?

Riddler threatens Gotham because he is a man with a plan. He doesn't do things just to do them. He has a grand scheme, and this could easily threaten the law enforcment in Gotham, as well as the citizens by playing certain new players in Gotham's crime scene against the people of Gotham.

Since Reese has already determined Batman's identity, can Nygma really do this in an original and intriguing way?

Why does he need to know who Batman is? And if he deduces it (Riddler would not hire people to find out for him...solving puzzles is his thing), it should have a Hush like ending where Batman makes him see that telling people who Batman is makes the riddle worthless.

How will the Riddler we know offer a fusion of the intellectual and the phyiscal in his assault on Batman, to a greater extent than The Joker?

Again, play the major players in Gotham's crime scene against Batman, decieve people into following red herrings (maybe even boobie trap buildings to explode and such), hire people like Catwoman to take care of Bats, etc.

You just need an imagination. I am not Christopher Nolan, but in 20 minutes, I have a clear vision of a Riddler character and what I could do with him. Nolan is 100 times the Batman man as me, and I am sure could do better than me with all the time he'd have (though I am proud of my take, personally).

[magus]

I honestly am not keen on the idea of using the Riddler as a primary villain. I have to agree with regwec that I am unable to see how he can pose enough of a challenge for Batman to be truly compelling. I am not arguing that it CAN'T be done, but none of the ideas proposed so far really intrigue me; I just don't see him challenging Batman philosophically the way the Joker has and the little riddles and puns can only go so far. I have a feeling it would come across as overly contrived due to the nature of writing stories for the riddler -- a massive pain in the ass.

At the moment I can't really think of a primary villain that can compare to the Joker at this point; I feel the series will be better served by taking the next one in an entirely different and more low-key direction.

[BritishChap007]

I am also upset that Two-Face is dead. It would be great to see more of him.

BTW, I caught the end of Batman Forever on TV recently. Not that it matters but does it bug anyone that Batman literally just lets Two-Face die. Not only that, but he appeals to his sane side and then kills him for it.

Meh. People complain saving the kid was breaking Batman's one rule. This was for sure breaking it.

[David Rice]

I think they should take some elements from Hush, and have Riddler as a mastermind manipulating other villains in order to break Batman. They can even use some lower level bad guys like The Mad Hatter, and have them work for him.

This is the best idea I've heard for the third film yet. Riddler is the mastermind, Scarcrow makes a new/better frear toxin and Catwoman must help Batman. Maybe in the begining she helps Riddler, but then changes sides.

[David Rice]

I don't think that in terms of excitement, The Riddler is a match for Dent and The Joker together. Personally speaking, they are my two favourite villains. But, on a more objective level, in terms of generating excitement among the filmgoing public, I think the only character who could possibly be a match for the tandem is Catwoman.

But of course, she's not a villain, per se. So, I think the key is, you introduce Catwoman in a major role as the foil/love interest, and with her you get the rampant casting speculation and curiosity/debate over how she'll be adapted into Nolan's Batverse. In the early stages, she provides the "excitement". But then you introduce someone else, a real villain who can provide the "threat" for Batman. A role a well-written Riddler could very well fill. Then you're splitting up the responsibility of trying to live up to Joker/Two-Face, rather than letting it all rest on the shoulders of one character.

Nice.

[Vile]

Gordon, under pressure from city hall to take down the Batman once and for all realizes that going up against Batman is useless.

Going after the man under the mask though, is completely different. Hence he hires the services of facilitator Edward Nygma to take the Batman down by figuring out who he is under the mask.

Thats how I'd do the Riddler - much like the Mob in TDK unleashed the Joker, the GCPD unleashes the Riddler.

[returntovoid]

This is the best idea I've heard for the third film yet. Riddler is the mastermind, Scarecrow makes a new/better frear toxin and Catwoman must help Batman. Maybe in the beginning she helps Riddler, but then changes sides.

I agree with that idea and the portrayal of Riddler in Hush is by far the best in the comic books. I also think Scarecrow should have a bigger role than in BB and TDK, there was not much character development for Scarecrow in BB IMHO.

[Gilda]

I don`t get how it is so unbelievable that hes alive, well maybe one must be a little older, than say 16, and have seen more of real live.
Maroni even said this fall wont kill him: if the Regisseur is saying something this explicit, it does mean something. Nolan is a intelligent man, he`s giving the ones clues who are ready to look for them. I can really picture him reading this thread and LOL/cry because noone gets the clues.

Ok I`m spamming:
And everyone is forgetting, when saying "But Batman got his armor!"
is that:

-whatever protection the batsuit gives it is not important, when considering a fall. That it physics: the heavier an object is, the grater an impact. (Elephants can die from an 1m fall, wherelse mice can life thru falling 5m, whats equal for falling from an skyscaper for a human).
If this suit isnt antigravity it does nothing to protect him if he falls. Also he can still break his neck, just because he can still turn his head.
So Batman did have exactly the same situation as Harvey had.

["V"]

Maroni is dropped on his feet. He is conscious and breathing, he is speaking! I didn't see Two Face doing either of these things.

Nolan treats each film as an absolute; he's not saving anything with the intention of 'oh, we'll cram it in the next one'. As it stands at this moment, The Dark Knight is the last Nolan Batman movie we'll get. Therefore, Two Face died after that fall. If Nolan does ultimately decide to never make another Batman film again will everybody still believe that Two Face is alive in Arkham or on the run somehow?

Did Gordon bypass the morgue, the undertakers, put Dent into a room in Arkham all by himself? Does he go and feed Harvey so nobody knows he is there? Did he put a load of bricks in Dent's coffin at the memorial or something?! How the hell did he get him past all of the cops who set up a boundry around the building? Was he going to leave his family to go and put Dent in Arkham? Why didn't they see if Dent needed any medical attention. How come Batman, who had just been shot and been beaten by Joker and his dogs, manage to get get up and ride away on the batpod yet Dent still just laid there, not moving?

If people think Harvey Two Face really is alive can you give me a plausible explanation as to how Gordon managed to keep it all a secret? Do you think Batman and Gordon would have covered it up if Harvey was still alive and could just reveal the truth exposing them as liars?

Ultimately, the writers could bring him back - I mean, they could do whatever the hell they want - but it would be so cheap and tarnish The Dark Knight. And that's coming from someone who's disappointed that they killed him. I expect much more from Nolan than to see him just recycle an old character with a cheap 'he wasn't really dead' twist.

[Spider-Fan]

I don`t get how it is so unbelievable that hes alive, well maybe one must be a little older, than say 16, and have seen more of real live.
Maroni even said this fall wont kill him: if the Regisseur is saying something this explicit, it does mean something. Nolan is a intelligent man, he`s giving the ones clues who are ready to look for them. I can really picture him reading this thread and LOL/cry because noone gets the clues.

Ok I`m spamming:

Does this account for one person landing on their feet, while the other lands on his head?

[Gilda]

Maroni is dropped on his feet. He is conscious and breathing, he is speaking! I didn't see Two Face doing either of these things.

Even Batman was uncouncious.
The ground was wet and it was earth, not hard street.
And I don`t really see that this would tarnish the end of this movie.
Think Long Halloween or Dark Victory, and you know where the next movie goes.

And why would it be only the only way that Gordon and Batman hiding Dent away. This is a comic movie, they can bring him to Arkham or even another country, without court. Happens all the time over there (in America) <koff>Guantanamo<koff>

Everyyone I asked, said "I don`t think he`s dead" And they are not even comicgeeks, one of them is a regisseur herself.

[Ace of Knaves]

look he is alive i see him in my local boozer. the barman asked him if he wanted a pint, he replied "HALF"

["V"]

Even Batman was uncouncious.

For about five seconds.

The ground was wet and it was earth, not hard street.

I can't recall the ground. I'd have thought it have been ash, since the building had exploded. But again, Maroni fell on his feet and was very much alive, where as Two Face wasn't dropped straight down in a line, he was pushed over and we could see landed flat on his back.

And I don`t really see that this would tarnish the end of this movie.

So you don't think that Batman taking the fall for Dent's actions in order to preserve Gotham's spirit, and not letting the public (and Joker) know that The Joker had really won, would be tarnished by having them go 'Hey, Two Face is alive'? It would make Batman's sacrifice totally redundant and be a cheap cop -out.

Why would Gordon and Batman covered up Dent's actions if he was still alive to confess to them - or, commit even more!?

Think Long Halloween or Dark Victory, and you know where the next movie goes.

You mean Long Halloween where we can see Dent is sat in Arkham Asylum at the end and Dark Victory where he escapes from Arkham? I don't recall him falling to his 'death' and Gordon holding a funeral for him in either of those books.

And why would it be only the only way that Gordon and Batman hiding Dent away. This is a comic movie, they can bring him to Arkham or even another country, without court. Happens all the time over there (in America) <koff>Guantanamo<koff>

Yes, and it's perpetrated by an entire Government - not just one police chief! How would Gordon get Dent out of the country without anybody noticing!?!? You sound like you're really clutching at straws here. I mean, what's to say that Gordon didn't shoot Two Face in the head off-screen? It's just as possible as him sending him to Guantanamo. This is a movie based off a comic book, but Nolan has infused it with some reality, and to me having Gordon single-handidly orchastrate Two Face's move to Arkham (or another country!) without anybody ever finding out would betray the internal logic of Nolan's Gotham.

Everyyone I asked, said "I don`t think he`s dead" And they are not even comicgeeks, one of them is a regisseur herself.

Is there not a chance that everybody you asked could be wrong, regardless of whether they are "comic geeks" or not? At this moment in time, Nolan considers this the end of his Batman films. Therefore Two Face is dead. He could bring him back in a third, just as he could Ras, but I don't think he will because it would be too cheap and obvious for a man of his talents.

[Viper81]

just as he could Ras,

Huh?

Oh I get it, he could bring back Ras as a full on skeletal version of Two Face's face.

Or he could bring them back together....Two Face with his face burnt off and Ras who was in a massive train wreck that exploded and burned off all his skin and now he is ....Skelator!

Oh wait, that's Masters of the Universe.

If Nolan brought back Ras, I would get up out of my seat and walk out and demand a refund. I think there is NO QUESTION that Ras is dead and I can't believe anyone would even suggest that he could be brought back...unless it was in flashbacks.

I can concede that maybe Dent isn't dead (although I doubt very seriously he is alive). But that still doesn't answer the question...what purpose would bringing him back serve other than to destroy the whole premise of TDK?

["V"]

Huh?

Oh I get it, he could bring back Ras as a full on skeletal version of Two Face's face.

Or he could bring them back together....Two Face with his face burnt off and Ras who was in a massive train wreck that exploded and burned off all his skin and now he is ....Skelator!

Oh wait, that's Masters of the Universe.

If Nolan brought back Ras, I would get up out of my seat and walk out and demand a refund. I think there is NO QUESTION that Ras is dead and I can't believe anyone would even suggest that he could be brought back...unless it was in flashbacks.

Well, we just see him close his eyes on the train, we don't actually see him die, it's just heavily implied - and the idea of his character was about deception, so I think they left a bit of wriggle room as regards his fate so the fans would have a bit of hope. Then there is the idea of the Lazarus pits...

That said, I do not think that Ras will be back, as he has already served his purpose in Nolan's films, and the idea is that his character is dead. I was just making the point that by leaving characters fates 'ambigious' the writers do leave room to manouver, but they won't necessarily take it.

[Viper81]

Well, we just see him close his eyes on the train, we don't actually see him die, it's just heavily implied - and the idea of his character was about deception, so I think they left a bit of wriggle room as regards his fate so the fans would have a bit of hope. Then there is the idea of the Lazarus pits...

That said, I do not think that Ras will be back, as he has already served his purpose in Nolan's films, and the idea is that his character is dead. I was just making the point that by leaving characters fates 'ambigious' the writers do leave room to manouver, but they won't necessarily take it.

Are you being serious or is this sarcasm? I can't tell.

I HOPE you are just being sarcastic (or trolling or something).

Is there really a group of people out there who think that Ras survived? Or, rather, that it was left "ambigious"?

["V"]

Are you being serious or is this sarcasm? I can't tell.

I HOPE you are just being sarcastic (or trolling or something).

Is there really a group of people out there who think that Ras survived? Or, rather, that it was left "ambigious"?

So you have never read posts on these forums where people have said that Ras' fate was ambigious? It was left slightly ambigious as we never saw a body - there is room for manouver there if the writers really wanted to take it.

But, as I've stated, he won't be coming back. He is dead, but if they really wanted him back they'd have a get-out clause. What's the problem?

[Viper81]

So you have never read posts on these forums where people have said that Ras' fate was ambigious? It was left slightly ambigious as we never saw a body - there is room for manouver there if the writers really wanted to take it.

But, as I've stated, he won't be coming back. He is dead, but if they really wanted him back they'd have a get-out clause. What's the problem?

Uh, you never saw a body because it was probably completely burned up in the huge explosion that he happened to be in when the train crashed.

This is proof that you can literally deep fry someone on film and there will be people who still won't accept that they are dead.

(Which is also proof in a thread such as this that the people saying Dent isn't dead is just stubborn, ignorant, and wishful thinking.)

["V"]

Uh, you never saw a body because it was probably completely burned up in a fire.

This is proof that you can literally deep fry someone on film and there will be people who still won't accept that they are dead.

(Which is also proof in a thread such as this that the people saying Dent isn't dead is just stubborn, ignorant, and wishful thinking.)

Viper, why do you not seem to grasp that I have said Ras is dead and won't be coming back? However, they left enough leeway that if they did ever want to bring him back they could, but they're not going to; it would be so cliche. I've made this point (several times) and yet you just continue to ignore it...

Dent is dead, but if they wanted to, they could bring him back. It doesn't mean they are going to.

[Ace of Knaves]

ras al ghul is immortal or havn't you read the comics?

[Viper81]

Viper, why do you not seem to grasp that I have said Ras is dead and won't be coming back? However, they left enough leeway that if they did ever want to bring him back they could, but they're not going to; it would be so cliche. I've made this point (several times) and yet you just continue to ignore it...

Dent is dead, but if they wanted to, they could bring him back. It doesn't mean they are going to.

No, they can't bring him back because he's friking dead. That's my point.

It doesn't matter whether you think he's dead or not. There is no interpretation to it. He's dead and they can't bring him back unless they suspend reality and literally raise him from the dead.

[Jokers_Wild]

I know Two-Face survived that fall.

I saw him eating a donut and drinking some coffee at the local Starbuck's this morning. I'd recognize that coffee dribbling out his mouth from anywhere.

["V"]

No, they can't bring him back because he's friking dead. That's my point.

It doesn't matter whether you think he's dead or not. There is no interpretation to it. He's dead and they can't bring him back unless they suspend reality and literally raise him from the dead.

They could bring him back if they wanted - they could do anything they wanted to - but it would betray the logic of Nolan's world. The same way that having Two Face come back to life and being hidden away in Arkham would betray these film's laws and rules.

[regwec]

The same way that Gordon's faked death betrays those rules.

[MBonez12]

^point, regwec.

[regwec]

You just need an imagination. I am not Christopher Nolan, but in 20 minutes, I have a clear vision of a Riddler character and what I could do with him. Nolan is 100 times the Batman man as me, and I am sure could do better than me with all the time he'd have (though I am proud of my take, personally).
No disrespect, but your imagination has delivered us to a pretty boring place. You have answered most of my queries about how Nygma can offer the same degree of personal, moral threat as Dent or The Joker by effectively admitting that he wouldn't; his mind is orderly, his actions are planned, and his only connection with Wayne is that they are both intelligent. You could end up with a movie a bit like Die Hard III, which sees a fairly generic sort of criminal mastermind do fairly conventional criminal things. But that wouldn't have a shred of the tension seen in The Dark Knight, and it would rank as a disappointment to most people- and certainly recieve a lot less critical acclaim.

You say that Nygma could be used in the sequel precisely because Nolan shouldn't strive to out do himself. I don't agree. Nolan's philosophy for TDK was that he was obliged to do something better and more resonant than BB. Making another Batman "episode", where the major threats of Ra's, The Joker and the major moral trauma of Dent have been expunged, and we are left with a clue-leaving uber-klepticrat who unites other criminal elements (again), won't achieve that. I do not suggest that pt 3 be loaded with villains and cameos in the same way as Spiderman III, but I do think it would have to maintain some of its predecessor's tension, and do some new things, rather than leave the thrust of events to Batman's most genteel enemy.

I love the Riddler, I really do, but even The Penguin has more innate malice. Why does Nygma work so well in Hush? Because he is hiding behind an ensemble cast of more dangerous agitants. The whole story built up to a kind of grand irony when The Riddler was revealed as the over-mind, because he had been laughed off up to that point.

I think Keyser's idea of introducing Catwoman to add sexual tension where none had exited before is a good one, and I would love to see The Riddler used in some way- ideally like his appearance in The Long Halloween. But the broad thrust of the narrative tension would be better placed elsewhere, I feel.

[regwec]

Gordon, under pressure from city hall to take down the Batman once and for all realizes that going up against Batman is useless.

Going after the man under the mask though, is completely different. Hence he hires the services of facilitator Edward Nygma to take the Batman down by figuring out who he is under the mask.

Thats how I'd do the Riddler - much like the Mob in TDK unleashed the Joker, the GCPD unleashes the Riddler.
I quite like that idea, But surely Gordon doesn't actually want to catch Batman? Isn't he sort of playing kiss-chase against an ugly girl?

[Ace of Knaves]

yea his appearance in the long halloween is the way i would go. sorta like a advisor to another villain, trying to find out who batman is or something like that

[89Canes]

Even Batman was uncouncious.
The ground was wet and it was earth, not hard street.
And I don`t really see that this would tarnish the end of this movie.
Think Long Halloween or Dark Victory, and you know where the next movie goes.

And why would it be only the only way that Gordon and Batman hiding Dent away. This is a comic movie, they can bring him to Arkham or even another country, without court. Happens all the time over there (in America) <koff>Guantanamo<koff>

Everyyone I asked, said "I don`t think he`s dead" And they are not even comicgeeks, one of them is a regisseur herself.

I don't know what country you live in, and I don't really care. But when your enemies come to bash your face in, who will you call?

over there (in America)

[regwec]

I love ignorance- I have a fetish for it. Give us more, please!

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

OH NO!! Ignorance is once again flooding our forums, what shall we do? lol

[Andrizzle]

73 pages? There's still a debate going on? Am I the only one who heard the Jonah Nolan interview?

The screenwriter has said it, he is dead and batman killed him. The Joker got him to break his one rule. Listen to at 18:00 in:

http://media.libsyn.com/media/creativescreenwritingmag/TheDarkKnightQandA.mp3

Actually, listen to the whole thing, it's really good.

[GodNolan]

Gordon dies in the middle of the movie and then he is alive...

[Andrizzle]

Gordon dies in the middle of the movie and then he is alive...

:dry:

[returntovoid]

Batman killed him. The Joker got him to break his one rule.

Batman didn't exactly KILL him....he was trying to save Gordon's son, Two-Face's fall was an accident!

[ronny]

Plus, Two-Face was suicidal. So he probably didn't want to be saved anyway. No. Batman didn't kill him in any way whatsoever, he was trying to save a little boy from a homicidal maniac. The fact that Harvey fell a long distance was entirely irrelevant to what Batman's motivations were.

[I Am The Knight]

Batman tackling Two-Face was NOT an accident :o

[El Payaso]

I'm glad he died. His story was perfectly and beautifully told the way it was on TDK. :up:

[Spider-Fan]

Is there not a chance that everybody you asked could be wrong, regardless of whether they are "comic geeks" or not? At this moment in time, Nolan considers this the end of his Batman films. Therefore Two Face is dead. He could bring him back in a third, just as he could Ras, but I don't think he will because it would be too cheap and obvious for a man of his talents.

Again, :up: :up: :up:

We agree yet again.

ras al ghul is immortal or havn't you read the comics?

Movie does not equal comics in any form of math.

No disrespect, but your imagination has delivered us to a pretty boring place. You have answered most of my queries about how Nygma can offer the same degree of personal, moral threat as Dent or The Joker by effectively admitting that he wouldn't; his mind is orderly, his actions are planned, and his only connection with Wayne is that they are both intelligent. You could end up with a movie a bit like Die Hard III, which sees a fairly generic sort of criminal mastermind do fairly conventional criminal things. But that wouldn't have a shred of the tension seen in The Dark Knight, and it would rank as a disappointment to most people- and certainly recieve a lot less critical acclaim.

You say that Nygma could be used in the sequel precisely because Nolan shouldn't strive to out do himself. I don't agree. Nolan's philosophy for TDK was that he was obliged to do something better and more resonant than BB. Making another Batman "episode", where the major threats of Ra's, The Joker and the major moral trauma of Dent have been expunged, and we are left with a clue-leaving uber-klepticrat who unites other criminal elements (again), won't achieve that. I do not suggest that pt 3 be loaded with villains and cameos in the same way as Spiderman III, but I do think it would have to maintain some of its predecessor's tension, and do some new things, rather than leave the thrust of events to Batman's most genteel enemy.

I love the Riddler, I really do, but even The Penguin has more innate malice. Why does Nygma work so well in Hush? Because he is hiding behind an ensemble cast of more dangerous agitants. The whole story built up to a kind of grand irony when The Riddler was revealed as the over-mind, because he had been laughed off up to that point.

I think Keyser's idea of introducing Catwoman to add sexual tension where none had exited before is a good one, and I would love to see The Riddler used in some way- ideally like his appearance in The Long Halloween. But the broad thrust of the narrative tension would be better placed elsewhere, I feel.

My thing took twenty minutes. In like twenty minutes, that is pretty good I think. If I were Nolan and had years to make the movie, I'd give us something more.

Now, I am not going to respond to the rest of your points, cause frankly you and I just are not going to see eye to eye, so I am done there. The bolded part, however I wish to comment on. When I say Nolan should strive to out do himself, I mean don't try to make the movie too big. That is the trap. Dont try to make it bigger, and thus create a mess in the effort. We have seen that happen in other franchises. Of course he should try to use the characters he is given and make the best movie he can, but he also has to remain true to his previous films. Bringing back Ra's or Two-Face thematically is not in spirit with his previous work. Using the Joker I wouldn't have a problem with if it were not for obvious circumstances (though even if Ledger was alive, Joker in a 3rd would have to be minimalized to me since he had his own starring movie...but that is me personally). Escalation can still take place, with freaks taking over Gotham and Riddler using them in an ingenius fashion.

If you follow me in other threads, I have said would use Catwoman also. However, Catwoman is not main villain material, so she would be a secondary villain.

[Keyser Soze]

I think Keyser's idea of introducing Catwoman to add sexual tension where none had exited before is a good one, and I would love to see The Riddler used in some way- ideally like his appearance in The Long Halloween. But the broad thrust of the narrative tension would be better placed elsewhere, I feel.

Here's the role I envisioned The Riddler best fitting into in the third film. If Batman is now on the run from the law, Edward Nigma could be an outside expert brought in to solve the puzzle of Batman's identity. Set him up as an antagonist for Batman without being yet another crminal looking to bring Gotham to its knees, make it more like a Harrison Ford/Tommy Lee Jones in "The Fugitive" type of adversarial relationship. This way, rather than risking Joker-lite, you're trying something different, something more akin to Paul Dini's current take on the character - as a sleazy private investigator - from his run on "Detective Comics".

However, I see a rather clear problem with this scenario. Between this, and my other idea of bringing in Catwoman as a foil/love interest figure, you've essentially got two "non-villains", and you'd still need another character to pose the serious climactic threat.

[Spider-Fan]

Here's the role I envisioned The Riddler best fitting into in the third film. If Batman is now on the run from the law, Edward Nigma could be an outside expert brought in to solve the puzzle of Batman's identity. Set him up as an antagonist for Batman without being yet another crminal looking to bring Gotham to its knees, make it more like a Harrison Ford/Tommy Lee Jones in "The Fugitive" type of adversarial relationship. This way, rather than risking Joker-lite, you're trying something different, something more akin to Paul Dini's current take on the character - as a sleazy private investigator - from his run on "Detective Comics".

However, I see a rather clear problem with this scenario. Between this, and my other idea of bringing in Catwoman as a foil/love interest figure, you've essentially got two "non-villains", and you'd still need another character to pose the serious climactic threat.

Add another "non-villain", and you have Spider-Man 3 :cwink:

Disclamier- I quite enjoy SM3, but the movie does suffer from the lack of a prominent villain.

Perhaps you leave it as these two villains, and somehow make the Riddler have a larger goal than just Batman's identity (though it is part of his plan). This would make him more sinister, and would give us the prominent villain the film needs (though the big reveal of his true plan would not be till the third act).

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I think Two-Face is still alive.

And I think Ra's is too.

Seriously.

[Dr. Crane]

i think Andrizzle needs to listen to Jonah again...

do i think harvey is dead?.. yep.
do i think two-face is dead?... nope.
does Jonah say Harvey is dead?.. yep
does Jonah say two-face is dead?.. nope.
will it bother me if i don't ever get the answer to that question from the Nolans'? .. nope.
this movie is like the graphic novels used for influence.... less like a continuing comic book... i think if they use joker or two-face in the next.. i'd be surprised. you wanna see them... watch the dark night. they may verbally allude to them..sure.. but like Ra's after "Begins"..... not sure if he's dead are we?... didn't really get confirmation on that one in the DK either. you can still argue about the fate of Ra's if ya wanted to... just like the two-face scenario we have now.

they said Long Halloween was a big influence... and i see that a lot... the funny thing about that book as well... it has some ambiguity to it. ask anyone who's read it... "was there more then one holiday killer?".. you'll get different answers.. Just Harvey?... Gilda and Harvey?.. did Alberto kill anyone?... what about Holiday himself?... I have my opinion.. sure.. we all do. but that doesn't mean there is a definitive answer..

and when it comes to the fate of two-face... like Ra's before him... we may never get one definitive answer...

[Dark Knight]

Indeed. I want a serious Riddler finally done. People just don't see the potential cause they think of Gorshin and Carrey when they hear the Riddler. The untapped potential in this character is astounding, and it gives us a reason to develop the detective aspects of Batman more so then they have in these past movies. In TDK they added a bit of it, but he still let other people shoulder their fair share of his detective load.



I agree to this to a certain extent. Have TDK be the big explosive crime actioner and then have the 3rd film be the brainy psychological crime mystery thriller. However, I would still like to see Batman have someone to fight toe to toe with. Someone who can match him physically and hurt him. Then Bruce would have to adjust his training to beat the opponent.

[Andrizzle]

Batman didn't exactly KILL him....he was trying to save Gordon's son, Two-Face's fall was an accident!

Batman tackling Two-Face was NOT an accident :o

Glad I could start a new debate :funny:

i think Andrizzle needs to listen to Jonah again...

do i think harvey is dead?.. yep.
do i think two-face is dead?... nope.
does Jonah say Harvey is dead?.. yep
does Jonah say two-face is dead?.. nope.

I did go back and listen to it again. I want to be clear here, when I walked out of the theater I thought Two-Face was alive. But it is because I wanted him to be alive. After a fifth listen, I believe the interview shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the man who wrote the movie believes Two-Face is dead.



The interviewer says "Batman kills Two-Face" and goes on to say "Talk about the conversations between you and Chris about that huge, huge moment where he has to make that choice. And he does kill." Jonah Nolan never challenges the premise. Something he certainly would have done had he intended for Two-face to live.

Not only that, but he says "Harvey Dent pays the price because he is going to kill an innocent." He is explicitly talking about the end of the movie, not saying "Well, Batman kills Dent because he doesn't get to the warehouse fast enough, so Dent dies and two face is born. He is saying that Batman decides to kill Dent by tackling him out of the building to save the boy.

If you want to hold out hope that Chris Nolan feels differently, or that the screenwriter of the film will change his mind, or if you want to continue to hope against all evidence to the contrary, that's fine. But there is no ambiguity here.

At the time of this interview, Two-Face is dead.

[Dr. Crane]

so i listened to it again... to be honest.. it seems the tone of the conversation is to the end result of two-face being dead... i still don't think that the Nolan's will ever declare it one way or another... but i do believe that within the context of the dark knight harvey/two-face is dead...

that said, i think that the Nolan's are leaving a certain amount of ambiguity for the future.. not necessarily themselves.. but who comes after.. the director has stated in the past that he doesn't like the idea of killing off villains... i think he means in the sense of continued continuity... when the Nolan's' are done with their dark knight trilogy... who ever decides to do a fourth.. and it will probably happen.. can use the Ra's, or two-face characters within their established continuity... and justify it.

as far as the dark knight... two-face is dead..IMO.. as far as for the fourth batman movie.. could they bring him back with a different director.... sure..

now the next debate... recast... or hire Aaron?.. haha

[LastSunrise1981]

I think Two-Face is alive but Harvey is officially dead. As much as I would love to see Two-Face return, perhaps it's best if his character is just left at The Dark Knight? He had a much better treatment and was a bigger badass than Venom was.

If Nolan brought him back I'm sure he could create great story that has Two-Face hiring Bane to take out Batman.

When a fourth film is done I say bring back Aaron. Aaron played the role perfectly in my opinion and he showed some great acting chops. He was cold, detached, intense, and downright frightening with the role.

[M.O.Steel]

ok...i've been reading this for a while...but why the hell do people think Ras is alive? where is this coming from?

Ras is dead. i'm actually surprised people think he's alive.

[CaptainClown]

ok...i've been reading this for a while...but why the hell do people think Ras is alive? where is this coming from?

Ras is dead. i'm actually surprised people think he's alive.
I think Ken Wattanabe is alive liam is dead. Unless there is a new Rahs al Ghul.

[samsnee]

ok...i've been reading this for a while...but why the hell do people think Ras is alive? where is this coming from?

Ras is dead. i'm actually surprised people think he's alive.

People seem to think that everything that exists in the comics must exist in this film universe. So there's a Lazarus Pit, and Joker's skin should be bleached.

[Finlandman]

Yeah, Ra's is definately dead. So is both Green Goblins, Doc Ock, Venom, Phoenix, Cyclops, Iron Monger and everyone else that has died on comic book movie. But Two-Face is just maybe-dead.

[Shingato]

Harvey was really going to be ok... until Batman moved his neck around.

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I'm glad he died. His story was perfectly and beautifully told the way it was on TDK. :up:

I agree with you El I think he did his part in the transformation of Batman in this film, it was something different Bruce had to deal with, and the next (if Nolan gives us one) can concentrate on other different issues.

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

ok...i've been reading this for a while...but why the hell do people think Ras is alive? where is this coming from?

Ras is dead. i'm actually surprised people think he's alive.

Do you know anything about the true origin of the character?? If you did then you wouldnt be asking this question now would you?

[Finlandman]

Lazarus pits don't exist in Nolanverse. Directors can alter things, if they feel that it is improvement. Taking supernatural things from Batman was definately a wise choice.

[Grommers]

Yeah and the bat pod doesn't come out of the tumbler.:rolleyes:



ANYTHING is possible.

[Closerframe]

IMO, It was apparent to me that Two-Face wasn't even schizophrenic it was just him being labeled by Gordan's men. I saw no indications by Eckhart that he had multiple personality disorder or any mental illness of that sort besides bi-polar. And that would be the dumbest excuse, Harvey Dent died that night, but Two-Face lived on. I mean really? If he is indeed schizophrenic than if the body dies so would both personalities. Two-Face/Harvey is dead. IMO

[Tojo]

Nolan doesn't actually have any right to kill such an important character off imo. Ok, so he's not a strong enough character to carry a whole movie, but really, apart from the Joker who is? i think Nolan has left it open. Yeah he looked dead but that fall could also have put someone in a coma. and it's a movie. Marone will probably still be alive.

[Laderlappen]

II definetly think Two-face is a strong enough villian to be the major villian.

[SuBe]

Why is it that we, as a fan community, do this with practically every death? :dry:

Doc Ock, Venom, Ra's, now Two Face. I'm near certain that if I had have been around shortly after Spider-Man, people would have been claiming the Green Goblin was still alive.

When Gordon was speaking at a function, surrounded by police officers and (what looked to be) city officials, with two big ass pictures of Harvey in the shot and said "He was the hero Gotham needed, but didn't deserve", is it me or was that supposed to be a funeral?

I get the 'hidden agenda' stretch people are claiming could lead to Two Face just being locked up in Arkham, but how does that work? There was a battalion of GCPD around the perimeter of that locale. Wouldn't someone say "where's the body"? The cops had that place surrounded and were fastly closing in (even though they didn't know Dent was there). How much time would Gordon have to hide the body, quarter off that section to keep people from looking there, ran back upstairs and tell Barbara and the kids not to mention anything about Harvey being there and whatever else it would take to pull this ruse off? Did Two Face just eventually get up and run off on his own? How does this 'he's still alive' argument work? :huh:
Doesn't everyone think that Dent died in the hospital explosion?

[returntovoid]

*Edit Double Post*

[returntovoid]

30 minutes of TDK was cut for length purposes. Maybe, in that 30 minutes they show Two-Face being alive.

[itsthebatman]

Nolan doesn't actually have any right to kill such an important character off imo. Ok, so he's not a strong enough character to carry a whole movie, but really, apart from the Joker who is? i think Nolan has left it open. Yeah he looked dead but that fall could also have put someone in a coma. and it's a movie. Marone will probably still be alive.
What does this mean? Of course he has the right to do what he wants, you may just disagree with it. I, for one, am disappointed if Harvey is dead and won't be back for part III, but I loved his portrayal in this film, and his death and the subsequent cover-up bring the themes of TDK to their logical conclusion and make for a much more powerful ending than if Dent lived.

[deathfromabove]

the script and the novelization say he is dead with a broken neck.

sorry guys.

[Two-Face]

the script and the novelization say he is dead with a broken neck.

sorry guys.



And that's been said over 75 pages.

A lot can change in scripts....

[The Guard]

The Riddler's just not enough of a threat for the third movie. I think we need to see rogues, period, and an escalation of crime and freaks, with The Penguin, Catwoman, The Riddler at the center of it all, and maybe even some more familiar faces playing a role. But if there's a main villain in the third movie, I really think it should be someone who hasn't been seen in a Batman film yet. Hugo Strange, perhaps.

[Seditionary]

im tellen you. that conversation gordon has with the mayor.."how long can you keep it quiet" thats an important part.

[Ratatat]

im tellen you. that conversation gordon has with the mayor.."how long can you keep it quiet" thats an important part.

Exactly!

[Andrizzle]

30 minutes of TDK was cut for length purposes. Maybe, in that 30 minutes they show Two-Face being alive.

http://media.libsyn.com/media/creativescreenwritingmag/TheDarkKnightQandA.mp3

Not only are there no deleted scenes, the screenwriter says he is dead.

[batman11]

Nolan doesn't actually have any right to kill such an important character off imo.

:dry:

What does he have the right to do then? He's the director is he not? He helped pen the script didn't he? But nah, why should he be given the right to kill Two-Face?

Seriously dude, how can you say that? I know it's your opinion, but how can you say that the man behind the story and the film doesn't have the right to do something? Wow.

[Mangelo]

You want proof that Two-Face lived? At the very end of TDK, when Gordon is speaking at the "memorial" for Harvey Dent, look at the left side of the screen. Two-Face is there incognito. You can see his right shoulder in frame as Gordon gives his speech. It's him, no doubt.

[Mangelo]

And by the way, Andrizzle, there are deleted scenes.

[Vile]

I quite like that idea, But surely Gordon doesn't actually want to catch Batman? Isn't he sort of playing kiss-chase against an ugly girl?

Of course not, but lets not forget...Gordon has a duty to the people first and foremost. Batman is a 'murderer', so he MUST go down...and if Gordon always seems to be 10 minutes behind...I'm sure the Powers That Be in Gotham would have no qualms replacing him.

I would very much like to see the theme of Batman 3 be consequences.

A freak-run Gotham (I'd love Black Mask and him taking the mafia corperate, going after Bruce Wayne) and Croc (taking over the 'street-tuff' gang of the Chechen and Gambol). Not to mention Lucious doubting Wayne and perhaps even beginning to force him out - Not out of malice but fear. Lets not forget...Bruce Wayne didnt order the creation of a device that could spy on 30 million people...Batman did. Like Lucious said, "at what cost?" He can't let Batman hijack the company like that.

[returntovoid]

And by the way, Andrizzle, there are deleted scenes.

Lau's death scene was deleted from the film.

[Tojo]

:dry:

What does he have the right to do then? He's the director is he not? He helped pen the script didn't he? But nah, why should he be given the right to kill Two-Face?

Seriously dude, how can you say that? I know it's your opinion, but how can you say that the man behind the story and the film doesn't have the right to do something? Wow.

Normally i'd agree with you. I was one of the guys saying that Nolan could have the Joker just put on makeup and not be 'teh permawhite' because it's his goddamn film and his goddamn vision. But this, to me, is different. Harvey Dent didn't die in the comics after being scarred for a day, because he still had a little bit of story to tell. I undertsand nolans story of Dent has been told, and could just finish there, but if, and it's a very plausible if, Nolan doesn't make a third film, then he should be respectful and leave the character open for another director and writer to use. And i think that is what he has done. Ok, at the end of TDK Dent looked deader than dead, but he could be written into the next film.

This is a problem i had with Burton's and Shumachers films. All the villains died!! The point is that they never do die, because Batman is always fighting his neverending battle against crime. It never stops because he won't just kill them.

[Bester]

You want proof that Two-Face lived? At the very end of TDK, when Gordon is speaking at the "memorial" for Harvey Dent, look at the left side of the screen. Two-Face is there incognito. You can see his right shoulder in frame as Gordon gives his speech. It's him, no doubt.

It's a shoulder. What makes you think it belongs to Two Face? He's dead.

But on the other hand, if Batman did kill Two Face he broke his golden rule, making his last discussion with the Joker completely meaningless.

I dunno what to think.:huh:

[Simon Phoenix]

This came from an article that someone posted in the "Deleted Scenes" thread about the novel adaptation of the movie. Don't know if someone posted it here.

"Oh, and for those of you who still cling onto the hope that Gordon has Harvey Dent hidden in Arkham for the third movie, hoping that somehow nobody figures out that Dent is alive and well? Dent’s dead. Neck twisted. Even in the shooting script that they now sell it’s crystal clear. Deal with it, hombres."




http://www.4thletter.net/2008/08/the...eleted-scenes/

[magus]

What the script says and even what the crew say to a certain extent in regards to Dent's death is almost meaningless. They told us a few things before TDK came out that were just flat-out lies:

Eckhart said Two-Face was scarred with acid (referring to the movie), when he obviously got burned.

All of the crew told us the Batpod didn't come out of the Tumbler when many of us stated that it would.

All the script says is that, in the context of THIS film, Dent is to be regarded as dead so that if they decide not to use him again there is a sense of closure. In no way does a written description, unseen by audiences, prevent the filmmakers from using the character again should they desire to.

Two-Face is supposed to be thought of as dead. That doesn't mean that he could never come back, no matter how unlikely it may be.

Those that are saying he is definitively alive/dead are both completely unjustified. It is obviously ambiguous enough that it wouldn't be a huge challenge to portray the character as dead or alive in the next film.

[Simon Phoenix]

this isn't word of mouth from the key grip, its the final shooting script they are SELLING with the official novel adaptation that came out the day the movie did so no spoilers were revealed before the movie came out. I'm not saying they won't somehow bring back Two-Face..but until they say he's back or we see he's back...then he is dead.

[Beanjuice]

Dudes dead and thats all there is to it

[Charlie The Red]

Interesting thing about Two-Face in this movie...

When Dent becomes Two-Face, he shows more signs of a dissociative fugue than dissociative identity disorder or "multiple personality disorder." In many psychology circles, true blue DID/MPD is not usually what it seems, and is in fact just an off-shoot of any dissociative state, or even histrionic behavior (fabricated). This makes that diagnosis very controversial for many.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_disorder

Check this out:

As the person experiencing a Dissociative fugue may have recently suffered the reappearance of an event or person representing an earlier life trauma, the emergence of an armoring or defensive personality seems to be for some, a logical apprehension of the situation.

Therefore, the terminology fugue state may carry a slight linguistic distinction from Dissociative Fugue, the former implying a greater degree of motion. For the purposes of this article then, a fugue state would occur while one is acting out a Dissociative Fugue.

The DSM-IV defines [1] as:

* sudden, unexpected travel away from home or one's customary place of work, with inability to recall one's past,
* confusion about personal identity, or the assumption of a new identity, or
* significant distress or impairment.

So you see, Dent isn't really a schizophrenic or have MPD all along, but instead, transitioned into a dissociative fugue as a result of severe personal trauma.

In other words, Rachel's death and his scarring pushed him over the edge, causing him to create a new personality that goes against his beliefs as a defense mechanism because in his mind the old personality failed.

Just as the Joker said, all it takes is a little push. Going into a fugue state has been well-documented for people who suffered from real trauma, and is in a sense more realistic than MPD/DID.

While his mental symptoms don't really fit schizophrenia, unfortunately for Dent, the new personality he has created just happens to be a sociopath.

Criteria for a sociopath (three or more required):
1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; <---bingo
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead; <---bingo
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults; <---bingo
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others; <---bingo
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another. <---bingo

So, the character of Dent as portrayed in Nolan's world is not a schizophrenic at all, nor does he have multiple personality disorder (Two-Face's major psychological trait in the comics). Instead, he is a normal man who, as a result from intense personal trauma, has transitioned via fugue state into a sociopathological criminal.

[Charlie The Red]

Oh, and in case anyone is wondering, there is a difference between a sociopath (antisocial personality disorder) and a psychopath.

The Joker in this movie is a true blue psychopath:

Symptoms

Common characteristics of those with psychopathy are:

* Grandiose sense of self-worth
* Superficial charm
* Criminal versatility
* Reckless disregard for the safety of self or others
* Impulse control problems
* Irresponsibility
* Inability to tolerate boredom
* Pathological narcissism
* Pathological lying
* Shallow affect
* Deceitfulness/manipulativeness
* Aggressive or violent tendencies, repeated physical fights or assaults on others
* Lack of empathy
* Lack of remorse, indifferent to or rationalizes having hurt or mistreated others
* A sense of extreme entitlement
* Lack of or diminished levels of anxiety/nervousness and other emotions
* Promiscuous sexual behavior, sexually deviant lifestyle
* Poor judgment, failure to learn from experience
* Lack of personal insight
* Failure to follow any life plan
* Abuse of drugs including alcohol

Almost all of those apply to the Joker except for maybe drug abuse. While in the comics the Joker is considered to have some level of "supersanity," in this film they played it straight and kept the characters grounded in psychological realities.

Good to see Nolan, Ledger, and Eckhart kept their DSM-IV's handy...a great tool to have for any actor.

[Simon Phoenix]

interesting stuff...nice research

[Charlie The Red]

That History Channel documentary made me realize just how three dimensional and real the characters in Batman's world are.

If you haven't seen it yet, check it out. They only scratch the surface on just how deep these characters go.

[Charlie The Red]

Oh, and I have a weird feeling that maybe we'll see Dent come back. I know the script says he's dead, but the script for Empire Strikes Back didn't say that Darth Vader was Luke's father, either.

I'd love to see him come back for vengeance against Batman.

[Simon Phoenix]

I'd love to see him back as well...but for right now..I'm just going to stick with him being dead until there is confirmation that he's back.

[Shane Diesel]

http://media.libsyn.com/media/creativescreenwritingmag/TheDarkKnightQandA.mp3

Not only are there no deleted scenes, the screenwriter says he is dead.

Yeah. Two Face as intended is killed in this film. There's a separate issue of whether two face will come back for the third. But the creators clearly intended him to die in DK. Its in the script and Jonah Nolan confirmed it.

[aroundthefur33]

i hope he is alive, but in nolans real world, after a few days he might have just died of infection

[I Am The Knight]

Interesting thing about Two-Face in this movie...

When Dent becomes Two-Face, he shows more signs of a dissociative fugue than dissociative identity disorder or "multiple personality disorder." In many psychology circles, true blue DID/MPD is not usually what it seems, and is in fact just an off-shoot of any dissociative state, or even histrionic behavior (fabricated). This makes that diagnosis very controversial for many.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_disorder

Check this out:

As the person experiencing a Dissociative fugue may have recently suffered the reappearance of an event or person representing an earlier life trauma, the emergence of an armoring or defensive personality seems to be for some, a logical apprehension of the situation.

Therefore, the terminology fugue state may carry a slight linguistic distinction from Dissociative Fugue, the former implying a greater degree of motion. For the purposes of this article then, a fugue state would occur while one is acting out a Dissociative Fugue.

The DSM-IV defines [1] as:

* sudden, unexpected travel away from home or one's customary place of work, with inability to recall one's past,
* confusion about personal identity, or the assumption of a new identity, or
* significant distress or impairment.

So you see, Dent isn't really a schizophrenic or have MPD all along, but instead, transitioned into a dissociative fugue as a result of severe personal trauma.

In other words, Rachel's death and his scarring pushed him over the edge, causing him to create a new personality that goes against his beliefs as a defense mechanism because in his mind the old personality failed.

Just as the Joker said, all it takes is a little push. Going into a fugue state has been well-documented for people who suffered from real trauma, and is in a sense more realistic than MPD/DID.

While his mental symptoms don't really fit schizophrenia, unfortunately for Dent, the new personality he has created just happens to be a sociopath.

Criteria for a sociopath (three or more required):
1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; <---bingo
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead; <---bingo
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults; <---bingo
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others; <---bingo
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another. <---bingo

So, the character of Dent as portrayed in Nolan's world is not a schizophrenic at all, nor does he have multiple personality disorder (Two-Face's major psychological trait in the comics). Instead, he is a normal man who, as a result from intense personal trauma, has transitioned via fugue state into a sociopathological criminal.

Oh, and in case anyone is wondering, there is a difference between a sociopath (antisocial personality disorder) and a psychopath.

The Joker in this movie is a true blue psychopath:

Symptoms

Common characteristics of those with psychopathy are:

* Grandiose sense of self-worth
* Superficial charm
* Criminal versatility
* Reckless disregard for the safety of self or others
* Impulse control problems
* Irresponsibility
* Inability to tolerate boredom
* Pathological narcissism
* Pathological lying
* Shallow affect
* Deceitfulness/manipulativeness
* Aggressive or violent tendencies, repeated physical fights or assaults on others
* Lack of empathy
* Lack of remorse, indifferent to or rationalizes having hurt or mistreated others
* A sense of extreme entitlement
* Lack of or diminished levels of anxiety/nervousness and other emotions
* Promiscuous sexual behavior, sexually deviant lifestyle
* Poor judgment, failure to learn from experience
* Lack of personal insight
* Failure to follow any life plan
* Abuse of drugs including alcohol

Almost all of those apply to the Joker except for maybe drug abuse. While in the comics the Joker is considered to have some level of "supersanity," in this film they played it straight and kept the characters grounded in psychological realities.

Good to see Nolan, Ledger, and Eckhart kept their DSM-IV's handy...a great tool to have for any actor.

Great posts Charlie. Very informative :cwink:

[tekken]

even if two face is officially dead, i'm still going to interpret it as him still being alive. it doesn't make sense to me for batman to break his one rule, and lose against the joker after all he accomplished. brave and bold, but batman don't kill in my book.

batman said he'd become whatever gotham needs him to be. when he says that, i think he means that he'll still do whatever he has to do despite the criticism and false accusations.

OH! and one other thing. two face's coin flipped on the good side; foreshadowing hope maybe? ah whatever. i don't care what anyone says, two face is alive. hahahaha.

[ct joker]

well the script book says that he falls breaks his neck and is lying there DEAD =( he wouldve been good in another film..but hell its their movie they can change it still too lol

[Brian Braddock]

It may say that in the scrpit but Producer Emma Thomas said that Two-Face's fall at the hands of Batman was ambiguous enough to suggest that he may still be alive.

I for one, hope that Two-Face returns. I went into the movie with the expectation that Ledger's Joker would be the highlight of the movie; and while he was indeed excellent, it was Eckhart's performance as Harvey which enthralled me the most.

Eckhart himself has said that if given the chance, he "absolutely" would return to the role in the sequel - so I hope it happens.

[Charlie The Red]

If there's enough demand from us, I think they'll bring him back...and make it a convincing story too.

But who knows...there was a lot of demand for Gambit and we all know how that turned out.

[Indrid Cold]

Harvey just needs to stay dead.

[Beanjuice]

Harvey just needs to stay dead.


better change your avy, thats a ban right there

[Brian Braddock]

Yeah, having been banned for the same kinda thing - my advice would be to change that avvy, BbJ.

[Spider-Fan]

even if two face is officially dead, i'm still going to interpret it as him still being alive. it doesn't make sense to me for batman to break his one rule, and lose against the joker after all he accomplished. brave and bold, but batman don't kill in my book.

batman said he'd become whatever gotham needs him to be. when he says that, i think he means that he'll still do whatever he has to do despite the criticism and false accusations.

OH! and one other thing. two face's coin flipped on the good side; foreshadowing hope maybe? ah whatever. i don't care what anyone says, two face is alive. hahahaha.

The flip was for Gordon's son (not Dent)...this has been gone over many times.

[batman11]

Harvey Dent didn't die in the comics after being scarred for a day,

And in the comics, Ra's Al Ghul didn't die in a train crash in Gotham...but that was Nolan's vision. In your opinion, did Nolan have the right to do that?

[acsinaogopod]

People that do not think Two Face died didn't get the message of the movie.

Two face and batman fall, one dies one lives. Two face kept flipping the coin to see who lived out of two people and one died and one lived. and it was actually two face who died, STRANGE
:wow::wow::wow:

[Mastodon123]

Those who say theres no way Two-Face is coming back in the 3rd film can STFU now.Likewise, the ending of TDK seemed to suggest that Harvey Dent/Two-Face was dead, although producer Emma Thomas told IGN after an early press screening that Dent's last scene was ambiguous enough to suggest that perhaps he was still alive.http://movies.ign.com/articles/892/892656p1.htmlThere you have it, someone who worked on the film and also Nolan's husband saying Two-Face could be still alive.

[M.O.Steel]

i hope he is alive, but in nolans real world, after a few days he might have just died of infection

:funny::funny:

[Andrizzle]

And by the way, Andrizzle, there are deleted scenes.

Tell it to Jonah Nolan. The screenwriter says there are not any:

http://media.libsyn.com/media/creativescreenwritingmag/TheDarkKnightQandA.mp3

[Andrizzle]

Those who say theres no way Two-Face is coming back in the 3rd film can STFU now.http://movies.ign.com/articles/892/892656p1.htmlThere you have it, someone who worked on the film and also Nolan's husband saying Two-Face could be still alive.

Yes, but I don't think than invalidates what the screenwriter said.

They killed Two-Face, without a doubt. Nolan said they did. He also said that for purely aesthetic reasons, they decided not to make it explicit.

However thanks to this opening, there is the possibility that they can change their minds before the next film.

So right now, this minute, Two-Face is dead. But, maybe the Nolans will change their minds.

[Spider-Fan]

Those who say theres no way Two-Face is coming back in the 3rd film can STFU now.http://movies.ign.com/articles/892/892656p1.htmlThere you have it, someone who worked on the film and also Nolan's husband saying Two-Face could be still alive.

I didn't know Nolan was gay :wow::oldrazz:

But seriously, she is a producer, not a creative person involved. She may be Nolan's wife, but her job isn't to speak for Nolan. It is to speak for WB. That is what she is PAID to do, and of course the suits won't rule him out (since Ledger died). However, just cause they want to leave it open doesn't mean Nolan did. Her saying it is ambiguous has no merit as far as what Nolan says or intended for the scene.

I don't know why just cause she is his wife people think it is different than any producer talking. This is a business, and you leave family out of the business.

[Esquercrou]

I don't know if this had been discussed this way, but I think Two Face isn't dead, but Harvey Dent is. And at the funeral they didn't have the body, just a photo of Dent.

Another thing is that I think the part where they show Batman with Maroni and he said that from the point they were he will not die, is a clue for us. Because the distance from where Two face fell is basically the same from where Maroni fell.

["V"]

I believe in Harvey Dent's death.

[Spider-Fan]

I don't know if this had been discussed this way, but I think Two Face isn't dead, but Harvey Dent is. And at the funeral they didn't have the body, just a photo of Dent.

Another thing is that I think the part where they show Batman with Maroni and he said that from the point they were he will not die, is a clue for us. Because the distance from where Two face fell is basically the same from where Maroni fell.

*Bangs head on desk*

Maroni fell on his legs. Dent either landed on his back or neck (due to the angle in which he was falling).

Completely different cases.

[M.O.Steel]

Nolan doesn't actually have any right to kill such an important character off imo. Ok, so he's not a strong enough character to carry a whole movie, but really, apart from the Joker who is? i think Nolan has left it open. Yeah he looked dead but that fall could also have put someone in a coma. and it's a movie. Marone will probably still be alive.

i definitely disagree with this. Two-face is an amazing villian just as two-face alone, and then adding an entire movie introduction to dent, makes him much stronger than ras or the joker.

IMO, It was apparent to me that Two-Face wasn't even schizophrenic it was just him being labeled by Gordan's men. I saw no indications by Eckhart that he had multiple personality disorder or any mental illness of that sort besides bi-polar. And that would be the dumbest excuse, Harvey Dent died that night, but Two-Face lived on. I mean really? If he is indeed schizophrenic than if the body dies so would both personalities. Two-Face/Harvey is dead. IMO

i think it's meant ot be symbolic, not literal. the point of two-face is that half of him is dent.

I actaully didn't like that either, how they didn't even acknowledge dent's split personality prior to the accident. they should have explored that more.

[Esquercrou]

*Bangs head on desk*

Maroni fell on his legs. Dent either landed on his back or neck (due to the angle in which he was falling).

Completely different cases.

We only Batman tackle him, but we don't see exactly how he fell. In one scene you got batman tackle him and in another you see him in the ground. I think is ambiguous, they can change what the script says.

[CaptainClown]

I think what would be awesome is if the next movie it starts with a scene like an ambulance bagging up Harvey. Then cut to Gordon in his office and he gets a call then cut to Gordon arriving at the ambulance on fire with the back door open and Harvey is missing.

[Spider-Fan]

We only Batman tackle him, but we don't see exactly how he fell. In one scene you got batman tackle him and in another you see him in the ground. I think is ambiguous, they can change what the script says.

Ok, test this. Act like you are being tackled off your roof and see if you land on your legs. When you get tackled off a building, you land one of two ways. Your back/stomach, or neck. You don't land on your feet unless you were falling off a really high building in a spinning position.

Maroni was falling in a standing position. Dent was not. Thus, the two are in no way comporable, and that is basic physics.

[Dr. Crane]

this is gonna go on for a while... it can be argued either way... for the simple reason that batman and gordon didn't just say it...

he's dead... in the context of this movie... he is dead.. they have done it in the comics before (killing characters) and have had them in other stories.. same can be said here. just like "the dark knight returns".. the joker died.. but he's still in other stories..

i don't think you'll see him in Nolan's films again... but there's always the fourth batman movie.. you wanna see more Two-Face?.. go watch DK again... they did a great job with the character.. we should appreciate that they did it right.. and Aaron was awesome...

[Spider-Fan]

this is gonna go on for a while... it can be argued either way... for the simple reason that batman and gordon didn't just say it...

he's dead... in the context of this movie... he is dead.. they have done it in the comics before (killing characters) and have had them in other stories.. same can be said here. just like "the dark knight returns".. the joker died.. but he's still in other stories..

i don't think you'll see him in Nolan's films again... but there's always the fourth batman movie.. you wanna see more Two-Face?.. go watch DK again... they did a great job with the character.. we should appreciate that they did it right.. and Aaron was awesome...

*Sniff*

This post's excellence has me in tears :csad:

Right on man :up:

[Arrow157]

He had survired the fall.Batman was able to survire. A fall like that wouldn't kill a person.the person just be seriously injuried.

[Dr. Crane]

so maybe we should have heard him moaning in pain... coughing up blood from the impact.. ok no blood (pg-13).. and i'm sure that Gordon just threw two-face over his shoulder to hide him from all of the police that were on their way to the scene...

of coarse he would have to wait till he was done with his speech to his son...

i understand they didn't say one way or another... and everyone will see it different.. but that's what i love about it.. not many directors would do that.. they would be worried that movie-goers would not like the idea of not knowing for sure... they may not like the film because of that very reason.. Nolan's got balls... and he is simply a brilliant director..
does he have to give us the answer?.. no..
will he?.. time will tell... IMO.... dead...

[jackshea]

he's dead, I saw a book in borders, it was the production design and the script, the script said quote: "dent lies on the floor DEAD, his neck broken."

[M.O.Steel]

i don't think you'll see him in Nolan's films again... but there's always the fourth batman movie.. you wanna see more Two-Face?.. go watch DK again... they did a great job with the character.. we should appreciate that they did it right.. and Aaron was awesome...

humbly disagree. he did a real good job with dent, but if that's all we see of two-face, then he did a pretty ****ty job with two-face.

[jackshea]

its not that they were setting up a villain or doing it like the comics, but to show Harvey's fall from grace, which only works if he were dead.

[Spider-Fan]

its not that they were setting up a villain or doing it like the comics, but to show Harvey's fall from grace, which only works if he were dead.

EXACTLY! Dent's arc in the movie is not about the rise of Two-Face (for the sequel), it is about the faLL of Harvey Dent. Watching a great man become a monster right before our eyes.

Batman's sacrifice at the end is only meaningful if Dent is dead. If he is not, then there was absolutely no point in taking the fall for Dent (since that would last a whole two minutes).

[Crook]

its not that they were setting up a villain or doing it like the comics, but to show Harvey's fall from grace, which only works if he were dead.That's absolutely moronic. I don't even know how to respond to that.

[MovieGeekFreak]

That's absolutely moronic. I don't even know how to respond to that.


i agree

[digu rui]

is this even debatable? hes DEAD

[MovieGeekFreak]

its back and forth for me

[Mangelo]

Dent is breathing at the end. Whether it's a mistake on Eckhart's part or not, he's breathing at the end, and it has nothing to do with the camera movement. Bottom Line: Emma Thomas was brilliant to say it's ambiguous.

Digu rui, it isn't debatable. He's alive. Cause if he's not, they have to recast the Joker.

[GregComicFan]

I doubt 100% Harvey Dent will be in Batman 3 (though his character WILL most certainly be mentioned numerous times)........

But I DO think Nolan left it opened so it could swing numerous ways.

My thoughts:

NO... Harvey Two Face cannot sustain a whole film on his own...

YES... Harvey Two-Face could be a VERY interesting addition to Batman 3, say for instance, if Two-Face did go underground, and Batman continued to fight to keep Harvey's reputation intact, even though Two-Face is continuing to be a vigilante and seek revenge (Perhaps Two-Face kills corrupt cops, judges, lawyers, etc.)....also.... If Nolan truly wants to continue his running theme of "mob versus freaks" it only makes sense to have lots of freaks running around (Scarecrow, Two-Face, and the new villains Batman 3 introduces).

BUT... with Heath Ledger's passing, maybe that idea will be scrapped because if I was Nolan I wouldn't recast Joker, and without the Joker as the "head" of the freaks.... what's the point?

As always.... you know who knows whether or not Harvey Dent is alive?

Aaron Eckhart.

Did he sign on for multiple films? If not, Harvey is dead.

[jackshea]

He"s Dead! Its In The Script!

[CaptainClown]

He"s Dead! Its In The Script!
http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x250/captain_ClownhaHa/ceaff22377d680_full.gif

[spideymouse]

I actaully didn't like that either, how they didn't even acknowledge dent's split personality prior to the accident. they should have explored that more.yeah... all they said was that some of Gordon's MCU cops used to call him "Two-Face" for some unknown reason. Maybe it was because they were upset that he was investigating corruption in the GPD.

[MovieGeekFreak]

He"s Dead! Its In The Script!


yes it does say that, but doesn't mean its true.....

[Freedom77]

I can't believe people are so deluded in thinking he is alive. It really is desperate. He is DEAD, simple as that. Batman survived because of his suit and the pieces of wood that broke his fall... and he barely survived at that!
Harvey Two Face had nothing and probably fell on his neck. On top of that, you can see in the last scene he is not breathing.

As far as this movie goes, Two Face is DEAD. Deal with it.

Could they bring him back? Absolutely, because it's a film they can do what they like. But if they were to do that they would kill the story and it would feel silly. If they wanted him in a 3rd film they wouldn't have killed him.

I will now officially bet all my possessions that Two Face is dead and will not appear in another Nolan film.

[regwec]

There is ambiguity. Deal with it.

Frankly, I think everybody agrees that Dent is effectively dead, at the end of the movie, in the contexts of the movie. The Nolan bros said they wanted this movie to be a "stand alone" in the context of the franchise. But that isn't to say that he couldn't be alive in the context of another movie. The reason Dent was shown to have died at the end of TDK is because it offers a neat and poignant end to the film, and completes its themes and structure. That needn't be an influence on his treatment in other movies.

If he is re-introduced by a malicous Riddler of a vengeful Ra's al Ghul in order to screw with Batman's head, then that will have no effect on the impact of Dent's apparent death on other characters in TDK, or the themes therein.

Generally speaking, Dent is probably intended to be dead until a filmaker decides to bring him back. But the same is effectively true of every other character.

[I Am The Knight]

I've seen the movie twice in theaters and about seven times overall.

:huh: Bootlegger, bastard!!

[M.O.Steel]

yeah... all they said was that some of Gordon's MCU cops used to call him "Two-Face" for some unknown reason. Maybe it was because they were upset that he was investigating corruption in the GPD.

yeah i think it was because of that. he used the name two-face in a different context which was interesting. it's because DA is a law enforcer taking down the police.

[Mangelo]

I Am The Knight, I never said I "bootlegged" it. And I've already given plenty of my hard-earned cash toward TDK-related items and movie tickets, and will probably see it at least once more in Imax.

[I Am The Knight]

I Am The Knight, I never said I "bootlegged" it. And I've already given plenty of my hard-earned cash toward TDK-related items and movie tickets, and will probably see it at least once more in Imax.

Well, I was joking, you know... :hehe:

[jackshea]

batman held on, he just knocked harvey off. and you can break your neck from almost any height if you land wrong. its also a morality issue seeing as the coin landed heads up, batman didn't have to knock him off.

[XxShenanigans]

Nolan could really go either way with Harvey Dent.
Assuming there will be a third installment I can't believe that they would kill off a villian that just began to develop in TDK.

One thing I did notice is that Nolan uses tons of forshadowing in this movie.

Example:
Dent: Your Alfred right?
Alfred: Yessir
Dent: You've know Rachel her whole life right?
Alfred: Not yet sir.

Now one reason I believe Two-Face is alive is the Maroni scene where Batman is holding him over the street and Maroni says," from this height a fall wouldn't kill me." Now if you notice the distance he falls is almost the exact height Dent fell and would have to land one very akward way to kill yourself from that fall.

Secondly I just don't think that we really saw Two-Face until the end of the movie. Now I know alot of people say that after he got burned he became Two-Face or after The Joker talked to him in the hospital is when it happened. I don't think a transformation happens just like that. At first after he escapes its all about killing the people that scared him and killed Rachel. To me that doesn't make him Two-Face that just makes him a scared man out for revenge. However at the end of the movie its no longer about revenge its about whats fair when he sets to kill Gordon's son thats the true transformation into Two-Face and when Batman knocks him off thats the death of Dent and birth of Two-Face.

Now one last string to tie: But Shenanigans he had a funeral!
Ok first Gordon is now the commish, I someone think he would have had a pretty easy time covering it up + at the Funeral you don't see Dent, you don't see a coffin.... hmmmm.....

Batman at the end turns Dent's head and says," the people can never know what he's become." Not "what he became" as in past tense, as in dead. Instead he says," he's become" present tense.

Anyway thats all I got

Agree?
Disagree?
Think I'm an Idiot?

Feel free to dispute arguement but the truth is none of will truly know until Nolan blesses us with another Batman Sequel

[ronny]

If Dent fell and didn't kill himself he could have just been knocked out. Remember that he refused pain medication which meant that he was in constant agony. The fall could have just been too much for him to handle.

[LexCorp]

As much as i want him to live I would rather not tarnish the end of tdk by bringing him back.

[regwec]

Nolan could really go either way with Harvey Dent.
Assuming there will be a third installment I can't believe that they would kill off a villian that just began to develop in TDK.

One thing I did notice is that Nolan uses tons of forshadowing in this movie.

Example:
Dent: Your Alfred right?
Alfred: Yessir
Dent: You've know Rachel her whole life right?
Alfred: Not yet sir.

Now one reason I believe Two-Face is alive is the Maroni scene where Batman is holding him over the street and Maroni says," from this height a fall wouldn't kill me." Now if you notice the distance he falls is almost the exact height Dent fell and would have to land one very akward way to kill yourself from that fall.

Secondly I just don't think that we really saw Two-Face until the end of the movie. Now I know alot of people say that after he got burned he became Two-Face or after The Joker talked to him in the hospital is when it happened. I don't think a transformation happens just like that. At first after he escapes its all about killing the people that scared him and killed Rachel. To me that doesn't make him Two-Face that just makes him a scared man out for revenge. However at the end of the movie its no longer about revenge its about whats fair when he sets to kill Gordon's son thats the true transformation into Two-Face and when Batman knocks him off thats the death of Dent and birth of Two-Face.

Now one last string to tie: But Shenanigans he had a funeral!
Ok first Gordon is now the commish, I someone think he would have had a pretty easy time covering it up + at the Funeral you don't see Dent, you don't see a coffin.... hmmmm.....

Batman at the end turns Dent's head and says," the people can never know what he's become." Not "what he became" as in past tense, as in dead. Instead he says," he's become" present tense.

Anyway thats all I got

Agree?
Disagree?
Think I'm an Idiot?

Feel free to dispute arguement but the truth is none of will truly know until Nolan blesses us with another Batman Sequel

Very interesting thoughts, and well done on contributing thoughtfully to a thread that rests so heavily on dogma.

[LexCorp]

indeed the fall did not seem that fatal.

[XxShenanigans]

Very interesting thoughts, and well done on contributing thoughtfully to a thread that rests so heavily on dogma.

Thanks I try:whatever:

[Magic Griffin]

i dont think dent is dead either... i reckon he may appear briefly in a comatose stae in a hospital, to later be locked up in arkham and maybe awaken and escape.. they've not done enough with a great character...

[LexCorp]

Well its open ended thats for sure.

[regwec]

Why the :whatever: ? I meant what I said!

[XxShenanigans]

Thats my fault meant to click:woot:

[combusticator]

Nolan could really go either way with Harvey Dent.
Assuming there will be a third installment I can't believe that they would kill off a villian that just began to develop in TDK.

One thing I did notice is that Nolan uses tons of forshadowing in this movie.

Example:
Dent: Your Alfred right?
Alfred: Yessir
Dent: You've know Rachel her whole life right?
Alfred: Not yet sir.

Now one reason I believe Two-Face is alive is the Maroni scene where Batman is holding him over the street and Maroni says," from this height a fall wouldn't kill me." Now if you notice the distance he falls is almost the exact height Dent fell and would have to land one very akward way to kill yourself from that fall.

Secondly I just don't think that we really saw Two-Face until the end of the movie. Now I know alot of people say that after he got burned he became Two-Face or after The Joker talked to him in the hospital is when it happened. I don't think a transformation happens just like that. At first after he escapes its all about killing the people that scared him and killed Rachel. To me that doesn't make him Two-Face that just makes him a scared man out for revenge. However at the end of the movie its no longer about revenge its about whats fair when he sets to kill Gordon's son thats the true transformation into Two-Face and when Batman knocks him off thats the death of Dent and birth of Two-Face.

Now one last string to tie: But Shenanigans he had a funeral!
Ok first Gordon is now the commish, I someone think he would have had a pretty easy time covering it up + at the Funeral you don't see Dent, you don't see a coffin.... hmmmm.....

Batman at the end turns Dent's head and says," the people can never know what he's become." Not "what he became" as in past tense, as in dead. Instead he says," he's become" present tense.

Anyway thats all I got

Agree?
Disagree?
Think I'm an Idiot?

Feel free to dispute arguement but the truth is none of will truly know until Nolan blesses us with another Batman Sequel

Like it! Couple more thoughts I'd like to add in addition for the idea that he's maybe still alive:

1) It's not completely out of context of a major THEME in TDK that he MAY still be alive...LIES to cover up truths to award people's faith (Alfred burning the note, Wayne not telling Dent that he THINKS Dawes liked him, Batman taking the fall). Some say it's JUST the fact of him dying as A HERO that's the lie...but it WOULDN'T be out of context that saying he DIED could be a LIE TOO!

2) A lot of people argue that it's pointless to bring him back, because his story arc was completed and he'd be just another thug if he was back. I'm not convinced he IS alive, but to say that there couldn't be ANOTHER excellent story arc about one of the best and most complex villains in the Batman universe is ridiculous (ESPECIALLY if Nolan had at it again). IF Harvey were in fact locked away secretly in Arkham and busts out, he could become a man still bent on revenge, dealing his idea of what is "fair" by his flip of the coin. THIS could, in turn, provide a chance for Batman and Gordon to try to "save" their old friend Harvey. Nolan likes motifs (i.e. Memento = Memory, Begins = Fear), why not have a 3rd be about redemption (this could work with Batman redeeming his own name too)

...just some thoughts

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

D.E.D.

Dead!

[I Am The Knight]

Nolan could really go either way with Harvey Dent.
Assuming there will be a third installment I can't believe that they would kill off a villian that just began to develop in TDK.

One thing I did notice is that Nolan uses tons of forshadowing in this movie.

Example:
Dent: Your Alfred right?
Alfred: Yessir
Dent: You've know Rachel her whole life right?
Alfred: Not yet sir.

Now one reason I believe Two-Face is alive is the Maroni scene where Batman is holding him over the street and Maroni says," from this height a fall wouldn't kill me." Now if you notice the distance he falls is almost the exact height Dent fell and would have to land one very akward way to kill yourself from that fall.

Secondly I just don't think that we really saw Two-Face until the end of the movie. Now I know alot of people say that after he got burned he became Two-Face or after The Joker talked to him in the hospital is when it happened. I don't think a transformation happens just like that. At first after he escapes its all about killing the people that scared him and killed Rachel. To me that doesn't make him Two-Face that just makes him a scared man out for revenge. However at the end of the movie its no longer about revenge its about whats fair when he sets to kill Gordon's son thats the true transformation into Two-Face and when Batman knocks him off thats the death of Dent and birth of Two-Face.

Now one last string to tie: But Shenanigans he had a funeral!
Ok first Gordon is now the commish, I someone think he would have had a pretty easy time covering it up + at the Funeral you don't see Dent, you don't see a coffin.... hmmmm.....

Batman at the end turns Dent's head and says," the people can never know what he's become." Not "what he became" as in past tense, as in dead. Instead he says," he's become" present tense.

Anyway thats all I got

Agree?
Disagree?
Think I'm an Idiot?

Feel free to dispute arguement but the truth is none of will truly know until Nolan blesses us with another Batman Sequel

I'm not sure about the bolded part. Are you positive he said "become" and not "became" ?

[combusticator]

D.E.D.

Dead!

Very interesting thoughts, and well done on contributing thoughtfully to a thread that rests so heavily on dogma.

That's classic!!!! LOL!!!

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

Too bad Spawn the movie is God-awful.

[shadowman2]

I chose "Ambiguous (writers could swing either way): I think he's still alive" Thats my opinion obviously.

[Rorschach II]

Just saw it again, and Harvey is definitely alive. There are clues in Batman and Gordon's dialogue (use of present-tense, throwing in words like "reputation").

[regwec]

Secondly I just don't think that we really saw Two-Face until the end of the movie. Now I know alot of people say that after he got burned he became Two-Face or after The Joker talked to him in the hospital is when it happened. I don't think a transformation happens just like that. At first after he escapes its all about killing the people that scared him and killed Rachel. To me that doesn't make him Two-Face that just makes him a scared man out for revenge. However at the end of the movie its no longer about revenge its about whats fair when he sets to kill Gordon's son thats the true transformation into Two-Face and when Batman knocks him off thats the death of Dent and birth of Two-Face.

As a development of this point, I think it interesting that the Nolans clearly demonstrated that Harvey has only one persona throughout the film.

In the final scene, when Dent is putting everyone assembled to trial by coin, he turns the gun on himself. Having flipped the coin once to determine his survival, he moves on.

Now, comic geeks such as myself would naturally expect the Two Face of the comics to test both sides of his face and his persona. I feel that it this moment may have provided some sort of hint that Harvey's mental deteriation is not yet that advanced.

[Marden]

Well, right now I'm for the fact he's dead, which makes me kind of sad, because Eckhart did such a great job. Many people say how the Joker stole the entire movie, but Two Face was as awesome for me. If they bring him back I'll be happy because I have doubts the fall killed him. And they could give him a good story in the third story.

And it's funny I didn't read yet something where they say he's dead. Just that Batman stops him, falls...

[MBonez12]

first off, a lot of things can change from one movie to the next. the producers can acknowledge how much interest there is in two face and force the writers to write him into the script for the third movie; new writers/directors can be hired and take the film in a new direction where he could be alive or dead, etc. so while i would like to think that two face is alive and will play a big part in the third movie, im fairly certain that since tdk didnt come out and say whether he is alive or dead, that there is no certainty at this point.
and i agree that if he did land on his neck, he probably would be dead, but since the movie didnt show that either, i thought i would point this out, which some of you may remember as the most awesome-while-being-truly-terrifying accident ever: in x-games 13 (ironically, a year ago yesterday), a skateboarder named jake brown freefell 40 feet (more than 3 stories) and walked away. if a skateboarder can do it, i think two face could. for those who havent seen it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Xo5F-LniE

[I Am The Knight]

Wouldn't it have made more sense for Two-Face to decide James' fate before his own? I mean, if the coin had landed on it's scarred side he would have had to kill himself, and no judgment would have been made possible for Gordon's son.

[jtfaria]

As a development of this point, I think it interesting that the Nolans clearly demonstrated that Harvey has only one persona throughout the film.

In the final scene, when Dent is putting everyone assembled to trial by coin, he turns the gun on himself. Having flipped the coin once to determine his survival, he moves on.

Now, comic geeks such as myself would naturally expect the Two Face of the comics to test both sides of his face and his persona. I feel that it this moment may have provided some sort of hint that Harvey's mental deteriation is not yet that advanced.

I think Harvey's only half dead.

[magus]

Wouldn't it have made more sense for Two-Face to decide James' fate before his own? I mean, if the coin had landed on it's scarred side he would have had to kill himself, and no judgment would have been made possible for Gordon's son.

Maybe he previously flipped the coin to determine the order....yeah, just kidding. Obviously it is for dramatic effect but it really makes no practical sense. Maybe he still had enough of a conscience for it to effect his choice without him knowing; to give Jimmy an extra little chance of surviving.

[I Am The Knight]

Maybe he previously flipped the coin to determine the order....yeah, just kidding. Obviously it is for dramatic effect but it really makes no practical sense. Maybe he still had enough of a conscience for it to effect his choice without him knowing; to give Jimmy an extra little chance of surviving.

Yeah, it was probably done for dramatic purposes only. It kinda bugged me (ironically enough) on my 2nd viewing of the film.

[jackshea]

his flipping it for himself was to show how he still had a little humanity left, that maybe he was supposed to die and james wasnt, which happened anyway.

[thejon93]

One of these days, I'd like to see this in a 'Batman' film(allow we got a pretty close-call to this during the finale of 'The Dark Knight'):
http://starsmedia.ign.com/stars/image/article/879/879644/two-face-dc-comics-20080605024401346_640w.jpg (http://stars.ign.com/dor/objects/924177/two-face-dc-comics/images/two-face-dc-comics-20080605024401346.html?page=mediaFull)

[BatJeff7786]

Didn't it say in the shooting script that he's dead?

[regwec]

Apparently, but that doesn't really have any bearing on future movies. It is a direction to the actor to act as if dead.

[Two-Face]

I say he's dead, Nolan saved Two-Face from that BF crap. Two-Face should stay dead in TDK no need to bring him back unless Nolans come out with teriffic storyline for Batman 3 other wise just let him stay dead.

[The Chris]

I say he's dead, Nolan saved Two-Face from that BF crap. Two-Face should stay dead in TDK no need to bring him back unless Nolans come out with teriffic storyline for Batman 3 other wise just let him stay dead.

Yeah, just like with Joker and Scarecrow. If they have a terrific storyline for them, then okay, but all of their endings feel fine to me.

[Toxin72]

I have a question about two face. I don't know much about the comics at all but does two-face have two personalities in the comics? If so what do fans think about the fact that he doesn't in this film?

On another note I think he's dead and I think he was amazing while he was there.

[daywalker966]

Upon 2nd viewing I am voting that he's dead 100%.

He wasn't breathing/moving.
Batman said something to the effect of "his reputation dies with him".
When Gordan is talking at the stand everyone is wearing black.
And the fact that the whole movie is based on "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain".

Nolan has suspended nearly all "supernatural" aspects in the two Batman flicks (No one has real super human powers, Nolan said Ras is dead and not immortal, everything is explained to the audience and shown to have an easy explanation (the Bat-sonar is able to map Gotham from cell phones), etc. I highly doubt Nolan would announce in the third film that a man is somehow able to fight infection from the open wounds he has, and is able to be secretly tucked away into Arkham without anyone knowing him and spreading the word he is alive to show Gotham that Gordan covered it all up.

[Yr Blues]

The coin lands heads-up in the end. That was for Gordon's son, which would have survived, although we don't know how it would land in his hand. But it kind of foreshadow Harvey's fate, which could mean that he survived.

[daywalker966]

The coin lands heads-up in the end. That was for Gordon's son, which would have survived, although we don't know how it would land in his hand. But it kind of foreshadow Harvey's fate, which could mean that he survived.

Or it could mean the good side wins; no one finds out about bad side.

[Yr Blues]

Or it could mean the good side wins; no one finds out about bad side.

That's another way to look at it.

[8wid]

I could see him coming back in a clouded state where he believes Gotham City needs to be cleansed of supposed corruption in GPD. Gordon and Batman will be at the top of his list. It wouldn't surprise me if he organized a few gangs together and helped the police hunt down Batman in ways he saw fit. I would like to see Dent put the Dark Knight on trial in someway.

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

Aaron Eckhart’s character is dead. Batman has an entire array of villains at his disposal in the rouges gallery, and not to take advantage of that would be a disgrace to the fans. Just from a creative standpoint, I think Nolan should quit while he's ahead. In all actuality there isn't anything more he could do with the character that he did in the first two. WB will drag Nolan back with a hefty paycheck, but the next film will suffer. IMO.

As far as new villains? I would be more concerned with the narrative progression of Batman before who the next baddie will be. Two-face served his purpose, what’s next for the dark knight?

[Vile]

what’s next for the dark knight?

Black Mask! =)

[FoJacob]

As far as new villains? I would be more concerned with the narrative progression of Batman before who the next baddie will be. Two-face served his purpose, what’s next for the dark knight?

Exactly. This is the argument I try to make to anyone who wants to see the Joker come back in a third film (unsuccessfully, I might add - some people are very stubborn! :oldrazz:) If there is indeed a third film, the focus is going to return to Batman. In this film the focus kind of deviated from him, which it's naturally going to do when you have a villain as dynamic as the Joker. But for a third and final film the focus, to make sense as a narrative, must return to Batman. A lot of people have said that Nolan should have held off and had the Joker and Two-Face in the last film, but if you think about it it actually works quite well this way. First film: Bruce becomes Batman. Second film: Major villains upset everything Batman believes and has accomplished. Third film: Batman gets his groove back, so to speak.

Of course there will be villains in the third film, but I think they will be less "important" ones than Harvey or Joker, ones who take a backseat to Batman.

[jackshea]

i hope its riddler and black mask, w/ catwoman, i think they would blend very well.

[regwec]

If neither Two Face or The Joker are able to return, then the two strongest agitants in the Batman mythos have been used up, and it is time for a reboot with a different director. Only Catwoman could really add a new dimension with her sexual allure and her potential ability to be the single adversary who is able to go some way to corrupting or compromising Batman.

Black Mask has some parallels with Bruce Wayne. Fair enough. His villainous side likes to torture people and shoot people with guns. Seen it. The Riddler is fun, but can't really be a profound threat to life and limb if the character is to remain intact. A fairly relaxing, pretty conventional challenge for Batman after Dent and The Joker.

[The_Raganork]

Black Mask! =)


absolutley!


Black Mask and Catwoman! They have a relationship in the comics and both fit well into this series.


Dent is Dead, There's no proof within the film he's alive.

The shooting Script says he's dead.

[The_Raganork]

If neither Two Face or The Joker are able to return, then the two strongest agitants in the Batman mythos have been used up, and it is time for a reboot with a different director. Only Catwoman could really add a new dimension with her sexual allure and her potential ability to be the single adversary who is able to go some way to corrupting or compromising Batman.

Black Mask has some parallels with Bruce Wayne. Fair enough. His villainous side likes to torture people and shoot people with guns. Seen it. The Riddler is fun, but can't really be a profound threat to life and limb if the character is to remain intact. A fairly relaxing, pretty conventional challenge for Batman after Dent and The Joker.

Yes but the difference in Black Mask is that he doesn't care about Batman; he wants Wayne; which adds a new parallel to the films.

[Seditionary]

according to the poll most people think its ambiguous and think hes still alive. It's fair to say that thats the most common idea people got from the movie. No one knows til the next movie either way.

[MBonez12]

and once again, for everyone who is claiming that the script is the truth, now and forever, the next script has every right to go either way. the fact is, neither the same writers, same director, or same actors have been hired for the next movie yet, so anything can happen. imo, id love to see two face alive again.

[I Am The Knight]

If neither Two Face or The Joker are able to return, then the two strongest agitants in the Batman mythos have been used up, and it is time for a reboot with a different director. Only Catwoman could really add a new dimension with her sexual allure and her potential ability to be the single adversary who is able to go some way to corrupting or compromising Batman.

Black Mask has some parallels with Bruce Wayne. Fair enough. His villainous side likes to torture people and shoot people with guns. Seen it. The Riddler is fun, but can't really be a profound threat to life and limb if the character is to remain intact. A fairly relaxing, pretty conventional challenge for Batman after Dent and The Joker.

OK. And this reboot would feature The Joker in the first movie and Two-Face in the second? And then reboot again? I mean... :dry:

[knifeedgedave]

Two face can't survive with that hole in his face for long. It would get infected and he would die anyway.

[Rincewind]

OK. And this reboot would feature The Joker in the first movie and Two-Face in the second? And then reboot again? I mean... :dry:

QFT

Two-Face and Joker are the biggest in the Rogue Gallery, that's true, but nobody should limit himself only with them when he makes Batman films.

Besides, if you want to have other big time villains in the future, you can start building them for it by featuring them in the movies. Otherwise you'll pretty much find yourself in a magic circle when you can use only Joker and Two-Face over and over again.

If there is a third movie, at least three villains can be considered for it.
- Catwoman, for a strong and (finally) sexy female presence after Rachel's death.
- Riddler, for a pure mind-to-mind competitor to Batman (in BB Ra's was more of physical and emotional opponent, and Scarecrow wasn't much of a challenge anyway, while in TDK Joker was balanced between physical and cerebral enemy, and Two-Face was purely emotional one; with Riddler we can have the chance for a completely cerebral and mind-screwing villain, which can also amplify even more Batman's detective and cunning side)
- Black Mask can be presented like the evil side of Bruce Wayne, aka. "What would have happened with Bruce if he was just a bit of different person". He can be a good reason for returning to the theme of the dead parents, as well.
Bane can be considered as well, tho I would prefer any of the other three, because they will make for a more interesting and unique story. A Bane movie would feel repetitive to TDK's storyline with Joker, IMO - "A deadly dangerous freak arrives in Gotham and tries to destroy Batman", when you cut it down to the bone.
And if the Nolanverse wasn't so submerged in "realism" and "explanations for everything", the list would have been longer, with guys like Freeze and Ivy.

My point is, that at this moment a reboot is not needed. There are villains that can be used and there is a need for a closure of the story after the ending of TDK. Now, after the eventual third movie, we can think of reboot, I think, because I doubt that Nolan would want to go on with Batman after that and without him much of the cast would leave as well, probably.

[MovieGeekFreak]

everyone is still arguing over this?

[tekken]

reboot? no need for a reboot. perhaps a random batman movie. much like when batman forever came out. i'd personally love to see batman beyond get made. how amazingly cool will that be? combine the flashyness of ironman, and depth of dark knight, we could get an awesome batman beyond movie.

but i think nolan still has some things up his sleeve. depp as riddler sounds fun.

["V"]

Why would you reboot a brilliant film that's broken box office records? Superman Returns - now there's a film that would need a reboot.

Personally, I'm not too bothered whether we get another Nolan Batman film or not. I'd be happy to see him move on to other work as we've had two brilliant films - but I wouldn't want them continuing the 'franchise' without him.

There are plenty of Batman characters left to use for a sequel. I mean, when people heard that Ras and Scarecrow were going to be the main villains in Begins that they probably weren't enthused, but look how well it turned out!

These films don't need Two-Face to be successful. I'd like to have seen more of him, but he was handled brilliantly, and bringing him back would seem so cheesey and predictable.

[CptSparrow18]

i agree cheesy and predicable. but it would be nice to have a continuing story for the entire run of the movies.

we need to see some killer croc!!!!

[Beanjuice]

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/4192/myparentsaredeeaaaaaadvl5.th.jpg (http://img293.imageshack.us/my.php?image=myparentsaredeeaaaaaadvl5.jpg)

[Two_Face]

I'd like for him to return, and it's set up in a way that he can return if Nolan wants him to. Or, he could actually be dead. I'm hoping he's not and he returns, he's a great a villain and would deserve to be in at least one more movie of the franchise.

[YTG]

The only reason i could see that i could see that two face is still alive, is that when he flips the coin to decide his own fate. While the coin is in mid air, batman tackles him, two face appears to be dead. Camera then focuses on good side of coin. It either means in a way, it foreshadows that two-face could be alive. Or it just symbolises Batman could of avoided becoming a murderer.

[Dr. Crane]

^ sorry.. but ya have it a bit wrong with the coin flips....

the coin flip for himself came before, and it was seen to be good heads. the coin flip that was interrupted by batman was for the life of gordon's son...

[LightningFlash]

D

E

A

D

.


Plus...why are people calling Batman a murderer? It's not his fault Harvey Dent is dead. If you could only do one thing to stop Harvey from shooting James Gordon, Jr. in the head, tackling him is the only answer. And Batman could also only save one person, save the life of Harvey Dent, which has been corrupted because of Rachel's death and because of Joker, or save Gordon's son? I wouldn't call Batman a murderer at all; he did what he had to do. He even risked HIS life for Gordon's son; Batman didn't know if he could've survived that fall because he tried to grab the ledge when he was slipping.

[thcapedcrusader]

Is he dead or Alive?

I have read opinions on this in a few post and thought I would start it's own thread.


I feel he is still alive and has been secretly put into Arkham Asylum. It would be the perfect way to clear Batman's name in the next film. I mean you just see him lying there as Gorden and Bats talk about the importance of what he stood for. Fake his death Blame it on Batman and his message lives on. Allow people to know he is alive, what he looks like, and what he has become and Gothem falls.

Other opinions?

i agree 100% with OP

[LightningFlash]

Two face can't survive with that hole in his face for long. It would get infected and he would die anyway.


If you think about it, that is true. The whole side of his face would have gotten infected in no time, just because Dent didn't want medication or anything.

[M.O.Steel]

some of things i've been hearing about...

1. the coin flip...yeah i knwo they emphasized it, but if you really think about it, the flip is utterly pointless because he woudl keep flipping the coin until it's what he wants. so yeah it landed on the good side then, but eventually, he would flip again.

2. about the face and the infection thing...there's an issue about realism and fantasy. the injury itself is NOT realistic, so you can't use realistic consequences of it. Trust me when i say this, no one could really survive if they look like the way dent presented in the movie. you could basically see his eyeball and a large part of the jaw. Nolan decided to use a fantastical approach to the injury but making him survive, going around the bar and getting into a severe car accident and still surviving, so that should have fantasy consequences (so the infection thing shouldn't really matter). if he went with the realism, then it would have been a surface burn with it mostly being black, not have his face melt away literally.

[kevin2323]

Two face can't survive with that hole in his face for long. It would get infected and he would die anyway.


It's a comic book movie buddy try again.

[Seditionary]

I don't see why there needs to be a third movie. Without the joker in it...I feel like it would no come anywhere close to as great as this movie was. And with two face it falls even shorter.

[Two_Face]

It doesn't have to be greater than this because attempting such a feat would mean Nolan and crew would try too hard and fail. Nolan knows what he's doing so it's in his hands.

[ronny]

1. the coin flip...yeah i knwo they emphasized it, but if you really think about it, the flip is utterly pointless because he woudl keep flipping the coin until it's what he wants. so yeah it landed on the good side then, but eventually, he would flip again.

Wait, what? I don't think that Two-Face would keep flipping the coin after he got a result he didn't like. Hence why hee let The Joker live.

[Two_Face]

He may flip the coin once more if he doesn't get a result but with Two-Face there's no such thing as the side he wants because he's using the coin to decide because it's fair. If he didn't think the coin was fair and 50/50, he wouldn't use it at all.

[M.O.Steel]

Wait, what? I don't think that Two-Face would keep flipping the coin after he got a result he didn't like. Hence why hee let The Joker live.

you have a point with the joker. but he flipped the coin twice with the falconi #2 guy, and for some reason i remember him doing something like that in the cartoons and the comics also.

He may flip the coin once more if he doesn't get a result but with Two-Face there's no such thing as the side he wants because he's using the coin to decide because it's fair. If he didn't think the coin was fair and 50/50, he wouldn't use it at all.

yeah i think this is more accurate. its really whatever he feels like.

[ronny]

But if he keeps flipping the coin he is not respecting it's outcome and that's something he'd never do. He may find ways to bend his system but he never breaks it.
Eckhart shows this clearly with his performance, the vacant look on his face is absolutely chilling. How did I put it? The Joker is an Agent of Chaos but Dent becomes a Zombie of Chance.

[Crook]

you have a point with the joker. but he flipped the coin twice with the falconi #2 guy
He was bluffing. Both sides were heads, so it was always gonna come up "lucky" for the guy. Dent knew this, and was intimidating the guy so he'd be afraid his luck would run out eventually after multiple coin tosses.

[Figs]

you have a point with the joker. but he flipped the coin twice with the falconi #2 guy, and for some reason i remember him doing something like that in the cartoons and the comics also.



yeah i think this is more accurate. its really whatever he feels like.


Not sure who you mean by Falconi #2 guy.

If your talking about the crazy guy that he had in the alley, he was just messing with him since he knew it would always come up heads.

As for the other option that I could think of right now, if your talking about when he was with Maroni. He flipped it the second time for Maroni's driver, not Maroni again.

[M.O.Steel]

Not sure who you mean by Falconi #2 guy.

If your talking about the crazy guy that he had in the alley, he was just messing with him since he knew it would always come up heads.

As for the other option that I could think of right now, if your talking about when he was with Maroni. He flipped it the second time for Maroni's driver, not Maroni again.

yeah i meant maroni as falconi guy #2.

interesting, i didn't pick that up.

[M.O.Steel]

Not sure who you mean by Falconi #2 guy.

If your talking about the crazy guy that he had in the alley, he was just messing with him since he knew it would always come up heads.

As for the other option that I could think of right now, if your talking about when he was with Maroni. He flipped it the second time for Maroni's driver, not Maroni again.

yeah i meant maroni as falconi guy #2.

interesting, i didn't pick that up. fair enough.

[Spade]

Posted this in a copy thread, so in case that's deleted:

Everything in this movie develops in a captivating way. Rachel's death at The Joker's hands shows the rise of the supervillain in Batman's world, and makes Two-Face a logical step in Harvey's story. In turn, Batman taking the blame is equally logical. The city believed in what Harvey symbolized, and in a time where it was being victimized by the chaotic Joker he represented a constant. By taking the blame, Batman is making Dent the martyr and giving the city something to be driven about.

Bringing back Harvey bastardizes this logic entirely, in the same way that a sequel to Watchmen or MGS4 might do to those properties. If Batman thought Dent survived, for one, he wouldn't have been so willing to allow this ongoing hunt. The other issue is that there really isn't much else for Two-Face to do. If you make him continue the Joker's mission, then you end up with a second-rate agent. If he does his own thing, then the conflict stops before it starts because most of the wrongdoing leading up to Rachel's death has been dealt with. If you have him become a second-rate Batman, you bring the issue back to the same problem it had with the Joker and his shtick. No matter how you go about it, Two-Face's story starts to become less personal and he becomes a filler for either Batman's role or the Joker's if you resurrect him. Thus, the only logical decision is to have Batman's conflict move on with new sources of conflict (Catwoman? The Falcone family?).

That's my peace on the subject.