The Fate of Two Face

[Nepenthes]

^ well said, particularly about the options with Two-Face

[spiderral]

I'm so confused!!!! I think Dent will be dead because Gordon wouldn't have lied when they had that tribute thingy for Dent. Unless the citizens of Gotham didn't know that Dent had a darker side to him and that they probably meant that the Harvey Dent (the goodness inside of Two-Face) was dead and that only evil lied within Two-Face which meant that they probably had Two-Face locked up in Arkham but having Two-Face back in the 3rd Batman film would really ruin it. I hope that in the 3rd Batman the hunt for Batman is still on and the Riddler appears trying to help the police by sending riddles to Batman's whereabouts in which he gets a reward (a lotta money :D) whilst the Penguin is terrorizing the city where there are only a few police seeing as the rest of them have gone on the hunt for Batman. I don't know what to type after this.

[Bads316]

Loving the idea of the police being so distracted with Batman that they take their eye off the real troubles - freaks, the mob pulling itself back together. Creates an absolute ballache for Gordon too.

[regwec]

The police could be so distracted by Batman that they don't pay any attention to Dent's prostate body.

[JP]

The police could be so distracted by Batman that they don't pay any attention to Dent's prostate body.

obvio!!1 he's teh livez0rs!!

[regwec]

Pseudo-l33t speak and misinterpretation doesn't invalidate the possibility, I'm afraid.

[JP]

Oh, haha. I actually thought you were being sarcastic before. :(

[regwec]

Why would you think that? Because it's "stupid", no doubt. In fact, drawing the cops away from Gordon and Dent it exactly what Batman does at the end of the movie. It is probably incosequencial, but it gives further opportunity to a writer who wanted to bring Two Face back.

[Ace of Knaves]

Why would you think that? Because it's "stupid", no doubt. In fact, drawing the cops away from Gordon and Dent it exactly what Batman does at the end of the movie. It is probably incosequencial, but it gives further opportunity to a writer who wanted to bring Two Face back.


yea reg i've mentioned that somewhere before. with all the cops chasing Batman its very possible that Two-Face could of gained consciousness and skulked off down a alley or something.

[mojo-x]

If 2 face is alive I hope they would reveal it at the end of the next movie to keep it a secret as long as they could. Also if he is locked away in Arkham wouldn’t they try and fix his face some what. They could say he wasn’t sane when he refused skin graphs and sugary before.

[Banquet]

yea reg i've mentioned that somewhere before. with all the cops chasing Batman its very possible that Two-Face could of gained consciousness and skulked off down a alley or something.

That would be the setup if you wanted a horrible third movie.

[David Rice]

This whole thread make me...

:lmao:

He's dead... move on.

[Motown Marvel]

yea reg i've mentioned that somewhere before. with all the cops chasing Batman its very possible that Two-Face could of gained consciousness and skulked off down a alley or something.

because no cops would be sent to the scene of the crime to investigate and gather evidence while others are after batman?

[M.O.Steel]

If 2 face is alive I hope they would reveal it at the end of the next movie to keep it a secret as long as they could. Also if he is locked away in Arkham wouldn’t they try and fix his face some what. They could say he wasn’t sane when he refused skin graphs and sugary before.

i don't think there's anything wrong with trying to fix it. i think he would still have two faces because one side would still be considerable scarred.

[Nepenthes]

The Dark Knight is a great movie in what SHOULD become a great trilogy. But for that to happen Two Face has to stay dead. Screwing it up in the final third would negate the entire point second movie

[Two_Face]

The entire point of TDK was that nearly everyone can be corrupted, the point was never Two-Face had to die and stay dead.

[Spade]

You have things mixed up. The theme of the film is escalation, which leads to things like corruption. The film builds up to the idea behind the title: An event so dramatic that Batman's only recourse is to become the villain Gotham City needs. One leads to the other, but escalation and self-sacrifice are contrasting messages. You negate the latter if you bring him back, and a lot of interesting ideas get cut short for the sake of pleasing a fanbase.

[swapnilgyani]

I think the fate of Two Face is just like the man himself - 50 / 50, and I think it was more a studio decision than anything else.

Judging by the way the story of Dark Knight unfolded, I believe he is actually dead. As long as Nolan is at the helm of Bat movies, we will never see Two Face again - I think we'll never even hear about his state (alive or dead) in the next Bat movie(s) directed by Nolan. However, when Nolan steps down and someone else comes in his place, they might want to use a villian as strong as Two Face without having to reboot the series.

So I think Two Face is dead in Nolanverse, but the ending was left ambiguous as per WB's descretion, and we might see him again when someone else comes to direct Batman.

Come to think of it - which baddie of the Nolanverse is dead for sure?

[Ace of Knaves]

yea i never said that two-face was alive, i'm just saying it is possible. and yea i do think after whats happened in TDK it would be stupid bringing him back, the same as NOT bringing joker back would be stupid IMO. People say they dont want a re-cast but i think they must re-cast him, no diss to heath, but i mean after what happened in TDK joker has to return.

[NEONINJA007]

Two-face dead?

No way, **** that mother****er owes me 20 bucks!

[Two_Face]

People say if he's alive that defeats the purpose of the movie, but they act as if the whole moral of the story was that he had to die, whereas it was that nearly anyone can be corrupted.

[Ace of Knaves]

i thought the moral was "you either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain". so Harvey died the hero whereas Batman lived long enough to see himself become the villain.

[chaseter]

If 2 face is alive I hope they would reveal it at the end of the next movie to keep it a secret as long as they could. Also if he is locked away in Arkham wouldn’t they try and fix his face some what. They could say he wasn’t sane when he refused skin graphs and sugary before.
His name is Two Face...if you want to talk about a character and be taken seriously, do not post things like 'teh Joker, 2 face, Christian Bale Batman, etc...":o

[chaseter]

I think the fate of Two Face is just like the man himself - 50 / 50, and I think it was more a studio decision than anything else.

Judging by the way the story of Dark Knight unfolded, I believe he is actually dead. As long as Nolan is at the helm of Bat movies, we will never see Two Face again - I think we'll never even hear about his state (alive or dead) in the next Bat movie(s) directed by Nolan. However, when Nolan steps down and someone else comes in his place, they might want to use a villian as strong as Two Face without having to reboot the series.

So I think Two Face is dead in Nolanverse, but the ending was left ambiguous as per WB's descretion, and we might see him again when someone else comes to direct Batman.

Come to think of it - which baddie of the Nolanverse is dead for sure?
He is stone cold dead in the shooting script and the entire last scene was shot word for word nearly.

[SuperZer0]

Remember what Harvey Dent said in the restaurant:

"You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

This means that either:

He died as a hero

or

He lived long enough to become the villain in the third movie!!

HAHAHAHA!!!

[Ace of Knaves]

i think its possible while the police were chasing batman, harvey just casually got up dusted himself off and went down to the local battle cruiser and had a quick "half".

[Rincewind]

Remember what Harvey Dent said in the restaurant:

"You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

This means that either:

He died as a hero

or

He lived long enough to become the villain in the third movie!!

No.

It meant that while he died like a villain, he had to be presented to the society as the dead hero, while Batman, who will live a hero, will be thought the villain ergo the point of the "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." line.

[SuperZer0]

If Eckhart knew that Dent is dead (who knows better than the guy who played the character himself, eh?), then why did he say this:

"Aaron Eckhart (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001173/) would reprise his role from The Dark Knight (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/) - because working with Christian Bale (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000288/) is "phenomenal".
Eckhart, who plays District Attorney Harvey Dent in the sequel, confesses he "absolutely" would star in a third Batman film.
He tells WENN, "To work with Christian (Bale) all over again, and the cast, would be phenomenal. I think this movie is a movie of a lifetime."

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0265713/

Source: WENN.com

If Dent was officially DEAD, he wouldn't be saying this, unless the article above is completely false.

I'm not saying he is alive, but I'm not saying he is dead too. 50/50 for me. Just like WB (Emma Thomas) has said.

[Ace of Knaves]

thats very interesting, but maybe hes talking about working with bale again in other movies? i heard aaron was signed on for 2 films anyway?

[SuperZer0]

No.

It meant that while he died like a villain, he had to be presented to the society as the dead hero, while Batman, who will live a hero, will be thought the villain ergo the point of the "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." line.

My mind was just spinning while I was reading what you said. Woof..

[chaseter]

If Eckhart knew that Dent is dead (who knows better than the guy who played the character himself, eh?), then why did he say this:

"Aaron Eckhart (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001173/) would reprise his role from The Dark Knight (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/) - because working with Christian Bale (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000288/) is "phenomenal".
Eckhart, who plays District Attorney Harvey Dent in the sequel, confesses he "absolutely" would star in a third Batman film.
He tells WENN, "To work with Christian (Bale) all over again, and the cast, would be phenomenal. I think this movie is a movie of a lifetime."

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0265713/

Source: WENN.com

If Dent was officially DEAD, he wouldn't be saying this, unless the article above is completely false.

I'm not saying he is alive, but I'm not saying he is dead too. 50/50 for me. Just like WB (Emma Thomas) has said.
Did he write the script? Is he writing the next script? Actors say they would love to be in [insert movie] all the time:o

[Two_Face]

And considering he's received so many good reviews for his role as Dent, I'm sure if Nolan saw so much praise, he'd surely consider a Two-Face return.

[The Englishman]

If Eckhart knew that Dent is dead (who knows better than the guy who played the character himself, eh?), then why did he say this:

"Aaron Eckhart (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001173/) would reprise his role from The Dark Knight (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/) - because working with Christian Bale (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000288/) is "phenomenal".
Eckhart, who plays District Attorney Harvey Dent in the sequel, confesses he "absolutely" would star in a third Batman film.
He tells WENN, "To work with Christian (Bale) all over again, and the cast, would be phenomenal. I think this movie is a movie of a lifetime."

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0265713/

Source: WENN.com

If Dent was officially DEAD, he wouldn't be saying this, unless the article above is completely false.

I'm not saying he is alive, but I'm not saying he is dead too. 50/50 for me. Just like WB (Emma Thomas) has said.
Hes saying that so he does not spoil the movie for anyone who has not seen it yet. Remember when he said this the movie was'nt even out yet.
When did Emma Thomas say this??

[M.O.Steel]

why do people keep refering to the script. the script changes all the time, even during the filming itself. sometimes, they even shoot the movie a little ambiguously even if it says what it says on paper.

[JTStarkiller]

I'm sure this has been mentioned, but I didn't want to search through 82 pages. If Two-Face is alive, wouldn't Gordon have noticed when the body wasn't there? I assumed he was dead.

[regwec]

Gordon and Batman are concerned with keeping alive the lie that Harvey Dent died before he became the murderous Two Face (that is not to say that Dent did not exist for some time as a disfigured innocent). If the prostrate Harvey managed to drag himself to his feet and stagger off, what would Gordon do? Shoot him? Wouldn't that complicate things an awful lot more?

I don't really know what the answer is here, but it is likely enough that Gordon would just have to hope that Two Face would never resurface.

[nogster]

the ending was the symbolic death of harvey dent...
but twoface lives on..

[Crook]

The only symbolism here is "the fall of Harvey Dent". I have no idea where some people are getting this extra "...but Two-Face lives to fight another day!" tidbit, when there are absolutely no indications of such in the film.

[nogster]

The only symbolism here is "the fall of Harvey Dent". I have no idea where some people are getting this extra "...but Two-Face lives to fight another day!" tidbit, when there are absolutely no indications of such in the film.


agreed..
but i just dont see two face being killed off after 1 film, he is a major batman villian, and remember the rumours, years ago, of this being a trilogy of nolan batfilms...where the groundwork was layed out with joker as the 2nd films major villian with the fall of harvey dent a major component, then twoface being the 3rd films major villian..
thats what i see happening..
it would be a fitting finale to the tale being told..

[regwec]

I don't think that there is any indication of that in this film, because a neat "." to Harvey Dent arc within the movie makes for a much stronger ending. But I think their are certain visual cues and hints which suggest that room was left, deliberately, for his re introduction in a new story, in another film.

[captain_jimbo]

I think it's purposely been left open, and I really hope he is alive.

[I Am The Knight]

He's pretty much dead according to the script, sadly.

[M.O.Steel]

I'm sure this has been mentioned, but I didn't want to search through 82 pages. If Two-Face is alive, wouldn't Gordon have noticed when the body wasn't there? I assumed he was dead.

the thoery is, if 2-face is alive, somehow gordon would be involved.

[Wolverine_05]

I guess people are just anxious about what they'll do in the next one. If Heath hadn't have died, then we'd all be ok that Harvey dies at the end of TDK because we still have the Joker. Because of Heath's passing I think people want one of the top villains like Two-Face to be involved in the next one because it's hard to picture a movie in Nolan's universe based on Riddler or Penguin and it's hard to imagine recasting the Joker.

Harvey is dead, he broke his neck and Gordon eulogized him at his funeral. Anything different than that would be a decision made outside of the original vision of the film.

[David Rice]

Did he write the script? Is he writing the next script? Actors say they would love to be in [insert movie] all the time:o

Thank you.

Hes saying that so he does not spoil the movie for anyone who has not seen it yet. Remember when he said this the movie was'nt even out yet.
When did Emma Thomas say this??

Thank you too!

David....

:lmao:

at this thread.

[infection form]

Two-Face is probably still alive, because if he is indeed dead then Batman is the direct killer because he pushed him out of the building.

I also think he's alive because he only fell from about two floors up like Maroni did. Although Two-Face did land on his back.

I hope he's still alive, but if he isn't in the next one I'm okay with that. I wasn't very fond of his scarring either. It was cool at first, but after seeing it 3 times, it just looks ridiculous in my opinion.

[Two_Face]

It looks ridiculous?

Dude, the scarring is the best look of Two-Face from any incarnation. I suppose you like this one better.

http://www.nuvein.com/archived_cinnews_site/neill/twoface.jpg

[infection form]

Oh dude, i agree that it was much better than tommy lee jones' makeup.

I just meant I like it, but I don't love it. Its just a little bit... extreme for being burned. I mean I know it was a movie, but the exposed bone and muscle was a bit much.

If they had done everything the same, but left the jawbone and teeth unexposed it would have been perfect.

[LastSunrise1981]

Oh dude, i agree that it was much better than tommy lee jones' makeup.

I just meant I like it, but I don't love it. Its just a little bit... extreme for being burned. I mean I know it was a movie, but the exposed bone and muscle was a bit much.

If they had done everything the same, but left the jawbone and teeth unexposed it would have been perfect.

Remember his face was wet with gasoline now. So obviously gas mixing with the fire made his disfigurement that much worse. He refused pain medication and skin surgery, which would make his appearance look that much more extreme and disturbing.

[DorkyFresh]

i remember someone pointing out that the novel said Harvey's neck got broken in the fall. i saw the movie thrice (twice in IMAX) and made sure to look for any cues that he'd still be alive and i really couldn't find any. i'm actually upset that we probably won't see him in a third film if one ever gets made, but i'd like to think that Christopher Nolan isn't the type to renig on something that's so seemingly obvious.

imo, Harvey/Two Face is as dead as Ra's Al Ducard.

[Spade]

I don't see what's to be mad about. The entire film was about Dent. Even Two-Face got decent screentime, given the build-up.

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

Exactly.

[chaseter]

why do people keep refering to the script. the script changes all the time, even during the filming itself. sometimes, they even shoot the movie a little ambiguously even if it says what it says on paper.
Why do people keep saying he is alive when they have no proof? The script is proof and that entire last scene was nearly shot word for word.

[chaseter]

agreed..
but i just dont see two face being killed off after 1 film, he is a major batman villian, and remember the rumours, years ago, of this being a trilogy of nolan batfilms...where the groundwork was layed out with joker as the 2nd films major villian with the fall of harvey dent a major component, then twoface being the 3rd films major villian..
thats what i see happening..
it would be a fitting finale to the tale being told..
Yea except they decided to cram 2 movies into 1...read up:cwink:

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

Two-face's narrative arc is dead. The character is dead. There is nothing more he could add to a new film.

[Two_Face]

B.S. There's a lot he could add into the third film if he were added. That's almost like saying the Joker couldn't add anything new, which is simply untrue.

[the gael]

I saw the movie yesterday. I looked closely but harvey didn't seem to breath. Well, in fact he didn't breath at all. I looked at his face. He has a strange expression, something childish, a quietly smile.

For me, it was something like " a tortured soul has finally found his inner peace... in death "

I may be wrong, but I think he is dead, really. Of course, Gordon could have send him in Arkham under the alias " two face " to be sure no one could find the truth, but the lack of breathing and the smile make me think that he is truly dead ( And I think that Ra's is alive )

[Two_Face]

If you think Ra's is alive you're an idiot, plain and simple. He was blown to bits in the train, there's no way he could've escaped, because a fall would've killed him as well. He's dead, he's not coming back in this franchise, and did I mention he's dead? Also, Two-Face was not smiling at the end, there was no smile at all. I've seen it fully twice and he wasn't smiling at all.

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

The third film needs to stand alone. Having a character die, then come back in a sequel is a cheap way to develop a story.

[CaptainClown]

I saw the movie yesterday. I looked closely but harvey didn't seem to breath. Well, in fact he didn't breath at all. I looked at his face. He has a strange expression, something childish, a quietly smile.

For me, it was something like " a tortured soul has finally found his inner peace... in death "

I may be wrong, but I think he is dead, really. Of course, Gordon could have send him in Arkham under the alias " two face " to be sure no one could find the truth, but the lack of breathing and the smile make me think that he is truly dead ( And I think that Ra's is alive )Ya I am with ya two-face is dead. I am just waiting for a new Rahs to appear who is worse the Liam (if we are using the Rahs Al Ghul is an immortal tradition within the league of shadows)

[Seditionary]

You realize that you can get knocked unconscious and stop breathing right? you can be forced to start breathing again.

[DorkyFresh]

i agree with you, the gael, about the slight smile. i also thought he had a smirk when Batman turned his head over to Harvey's side. it's very subtle, but it's there. good observation.

[BatmanEVH]

I just finished the TDK novel today, and it said something along the lines, "...Harvey's body, probably dead."

Still no definitive answer

Read here, Eckhart says he would come back to a third movie

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001173/news#ni0265713

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

If BB3 is a direct sequel to TDK, I know for a fact it won't do as well. It's a cheap plot device if they brought Two-face back from the dead. An original story is needed that is based from the comics.

[David Rice]

If BB3 is a direct sequel to TDK, I know for a fact it won't do as well. It's a cheap plot device if they brought Two-face back from the dead. An original story is needed that is based from the comics.

I'm not really sure what you're tyring to say here. TDK was, in a way, a direct sequel to BB. If we've learned anything from the director of these film it would be that each on will be an original story.

:huh::huh::huh:

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

Do you know what a direct sequel even is? TDK would be a direct sequel if they re-used Ras or the Scarecrow as MAIN villains. People shouldn't have to watch TDK before BB3. Two-face is dead. Next bad guy please.

[David Rice]

Do you know what a direct sequel even is? TDK would be a direct sequel if they re-used Ras or the Scarecrow as MAIN villains. People shouldn't have to watch TDK before BB3. Two-face is dead. Next bad guy please.

Again, I'm not sure if know what the heck you are saying here.

That is your idea of what a direct sequel is. If you ask some people they would say that Batman Forever IS NOT a direct sequel because of how different the film was.

And, yes... he is dead, calm down. :whatever:

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

Star Wars Episode II is a direct sequel to Episode I. Halloween II is a direct sequel to Halloween. The Batman films stand on their own, like the Bond films. (Not counting QOS).

[David Rice]

Star Wars Episode II is a direct sequel to Episode I. Halloween II is a direct sequel to Halloween. The Batman films stand on their own, like the Bond films. (Not counting QOS).

Really? Darth Maul is in Episode II?

News to me.

This direct sequel idea you have is an opinion.

[Crook]

Really? Darth Maul is in Episode II?

News to me.
He kinda....died. Not every character that appears in one film has to appear in another, for it to be considered a direct sequel. The PT and OT especially contain direct sequels. The fact that they're titled as episodes and considered to be sagas should be an indication that the stories play a part in a bigger overall story.

A case of an in-direct sequel would be B89 and BR. There is a distinct beginning and end to both, and there are no big themes and character arcs that extends through them.

[David Rice]

He kinda....died. Not every character that appears in one film has to appear in another, for it to be considered a direct sequel. The PT and OT especially contain direct sequels. The fact that they're titled as episodes and considered to be sagas should be an indication that the stories play a part in a bigger overall story.

A case of an in-direct sequel would be B89 and BR. There is a distinct beginning and end to both, and there are no big themes and character arcs that extends through them.

Yeah, I agree with you Crook. :cwink:

I was trying to get that very point across and kinda be a smart ass at the same time. :woot:

[M.O.Steel]

Why do people keep saying he is alive when they have no proof? The script is proof and that entire last scene was nearly shot word for word.

it's called an opnion man. and the point of this thread is to talk about. there is evidence for and against his death based on your interpretation. The script is proof for the story in the script, but cannot be applied to the actual movie, even if it is word for word.

again, scripts-to-screen changes are made all the time, and it's the details in the way the actors played it, the tone, and everything non-verbal that makes it ambiguous.

if you wanna prove that dent is dead, then you should only use the movie itself, not outside sources, becuase there are a lot of good evidence within the movie to show he's dead...or alive.

[Ace of Knaves]

yea didn't that women from WB say the ending was meant to be ambiguous?

[I Am The Knight]

It looks ridiculous?

Dude, the scarring is the best look of Two-Face from any incarnation. I suppose you like this one better.

http://www.nuvein.com/archived_cinnews_site/neill/twoface.jpg

Was that necessary?

[Ace of Knaves]

have you seen the prototype of tommy lees two face? its similer to the TDK one. someone posted it next to this abomination ages ago

[Bads316]

It looks ridiculous?

Dude, the scarring is the best look of Two-Face from any incarnation. I suppose you like this one better.

http://www.nuvein.com/archived_cinnews_site/neill/twoface.jpg

He looks like a pink version of The Grinch

[Ace of Knaves]

lol and i didn't really like it because it was dead straight down the middle. like asif a burn is bound by the rules of a ruler!!!

[I Am The Knight]

have you seen the prototype of tommy lees two face? its similer to the TDK one. someone posted it next to this abomination ages ago

Do you know where that is? :word:

[Ace of Knaves]

i think its on this thread, many pages back. or it might be in another two-face thread, many pages back! sorry i couldn't help more. i'll have a quick look through and if i find it ill quote it.

[Compi716]

I'd really like to see those prototype shots as well...

[Slipping_Halo]

I disagree that he is dead, and it's not because I desperately want him to return for the sequel, but rather for the following reasons:

First off and most importantly, if he's dead then that means Batman killed him, and that doesn't make sense with the whole "breaking your one rule" thing. The whole point of the movie is that Batman is incorruptible and won't kill. Why would they pull through all that just to have him go back on his principles at the end, and when it's totally unnecessary to do so? There is no way anybody here can tell me that the only way to have stopped Two-Face from shooting the kid is to have thrown him off of the building to his death. Knocking him out would have sufficed. I seriously doubt the "one rule" is so shaky that Batman will just break it when there are a number of other options that don't include breaking it. Batman took the blame for the murders, but that's very different from actually killing someone.

Second, I think the new crew knows better than to kill off the villains. That was a big problem with the old franchise. Ra's Al Ghul "dying" in the first film was ambiguous (anybody notice the way he looked just before the train finally crashed? It's a bit weird.). There was talk of him being immortal, but they played it in a kind of cryptic fashion that kept with the "realistic" thing they were doing, but could still allow for a comeback. "Seemingly" dead and "actually" dead are two different things. How many times do villains come back from the dead in comics and movies? Especially one that is already considered "immortal" by some, I think it's possible. There wasn't any indisputable sign that Harvey was dead in the film (otherwise, why would we be talking about it?). Perhaps it says so in the novelization or the script, but things change during filming and I'm sure that if they'd have wanted Two-Face to be dead then they'd have made it obvious.

Third, Eckhart said he'd come back for a sequel if they wanted him to. I suppose there is the possibility that he was just saying that to keep from giving anything away, but I also think there is a chance that he meant what he said and he could come back. Besides, it'd be really easy to solidify that he never died and was just secretly hauled off to Arkham with the Joker in another movie when we see him again because it was left so incredibly ambiguous at the end of TDK.

Also, the fall wasn't THAT great. People easily survive falls like that (Batman did, and yeah he has armor, but that's still a shock on the body regardless, AND one can say that his armor makes him weigh more than he normally would and therefore would make for a heavier fall). Two-Face may have broken some bones ala Maroni, but he could have very easily lived through that.

Lastly, when Gordon and Batman are talking at the end of the film over Dent's "dead" body, they don't seem very shocked or upset (to me, at least). Furthermore, Batman moves Harvey's face(s) around like he's some cat playing with its food while he's talking about him. It just seems odd and morbid of them, not to mention uncharacteristic, but that could just be me.

[I Am The Knight]

...

The script says he's as dead as Pauley Shore's career.

[Ace of Knaves]

I'd really like to see those prototype shots as well...

sorry lads i can't find them. i had a quick scour through all the two face threads but i aint going through 300 odd pages!! it was similer to the TDK two face we got, with his teeth and cheek tendon exposed. it just looked more organic and real. they are deffinatly somewhere.

[I Am The Knight]

sorry lads i can't find them. i had a quick scour through all the two face threads but i aint going through 300 odd pages!! it was similer to the TDK two face we got, with his teeth and cheek tendon exposed. it just looked more organic and real. they are deffinatly somewhere.

Well, I'm sure someone has them.

[DorkyFresh]

First off and most importantly, if he's dead then that means Batman killed him, and that doesn't make sense with the whole "breaking your one rule" thing. The whole point of the movie is that Batman is incorruptible and won't kill. Why would they pull through all that just to have him go back on his principles at the end, and when it's totally unnecessary to do so? There is no way anybody here can tell me that the only way to have stopped Two-Face from shooting the kid is to have thrown him off of the building to his death. Knocking him out would have sufficed. I seriously doubt the "one rule" is so shaky that Batman will just break it when there are a number of other options that don't include breaking it. Batman took the blame for the murders, but that's very different from actually killing someone.

Batman's one rule applies when there are other options. you may like to think that if you were in that situation, you would be calm enough to just knock him out, but you're forgetting that Harvey was basically on a killing spree and had already shot Batman in the gut. IF Batman was fast enough to only hit Harvey in the head, then the chances of him falling off the ledge were still very great considering that Harvey was standing only a few feet away from the ledge. Batman only had one chance to save Gordon's innocent kid. when facing a no win situation, you have to go with the lesser of the evils and that's exactly what Batman did. hell, even Joker said that if Batman wants to play his game then he's going to have to break his rule......well, Batman wanted to play and he ended up breaking his one rule. however, that doesn't make him corruptible. he did what had to be done.

Lastly, when Gordon and Batman are talking at the end of the film over Dent's "dead" body, they don't seem very shocked or upset (to me, at least). Furthermore, Batman moves Harvey's face(s) around like he's some cat playing with its food while he's talking about him. It just seems odd and morbid of them, not to mention uncharacteristic, but that could just be me.

they seemed pretty upset to me. they sure as hell weren't smiling. as for Batman moving Harvey's head....i think you're exaggerating a lot. all Batman did was put his hand on Harvey's head and move it from the burnt side to the unburnt side to show that he prefers to think of the GOOD version of Harvey. it's not like Batman played around with his nose, eyes or ears.....he simply turned his head. if you think that the simple action of turning a dead person's head from one side to another is odd or morbid, then i have to say that it really is just you.

[SodaPop]

From IGN
But was that the filmmakers' intention? According to two new tie-in books, no. In the movie novelization, author Dennis O'Neil wrote, "Dent was sprawled, neck twisted, the mutilated side of his face exposed, his left eye open and staring sightlessly. He was obviously dead."

And just to hammer the point home further, the script by Jonah and Christopher Nolan -- included in The Dark Knight: Featuring Production Art and Full Shooting Script -- states, "Dent lies at the bottom of the hole, his neck broken. DEAD." The capitalization is their emphasis not ours. And in a later scene, "Gordon stands on a podium at Dent's funeral. Behind him is a large photograph of Dent smiling."

Probably posted earlier, but i just thought i'd bring it back up. He's dead. Dent is dead. That means two face is dead. end of discussion

[Slipping_Halo]

Batman's one rule applies when there are other options. you may like to think that if you were in that situation, you would be calm enough to just knock him out, but you're forgetting that Harvey was basically on a killing spree and had already shot Batman in the gut. IF Batman was fast enough to only hit Harvey in the head, then the chances of him falling off the ledge were still very great considering that Harvey was standing only a few feet away from the ledge. Batman only had one chance to save Gordon's innocent kid. when facing a no win situation, you have to go with the lesser of the evils and that's exactly what Batman did. hell, even Joker said that if Batman wants to play his game then he's going to have to break his rule......well, Batman wanted to play and he ended up breaking his one rule. however, that doesn't make him corruptible. he did what had to be done.


But that's just it--I think there were other options, making it ridiculous for Batman to kill Harvey. He could easily have made a move that wouldn't kill Harvey, but simply immobilize him. I think that with all his training, there was definitely something he could have done, and it's not even that he had to debate and decide whether or not to kill him. I think that it's against Batman's instincts to kill someone. I think he'd have to drive himself pretty damned far and it would take a great deal of effort for him to break through his strong conviction of not killing. It seems to me that his automatic response would be a non-lethal one. I just don't think that killing him was the only option, and as long as there are other options I don't think Batman would kill anyone. Hell, even when there don't seem to be other options, Batman can't kill someone. How many times could/should he have killed the Joker in the comics to prevent the deaths of countless people, but he couldn't do it? That said, how many ways of immobilizing but not killing somebody are there that may have been applicable to the situation they were in at the end of TDK? Quite a few, I think.

And, as for those who don't think that bringing Harvey back would be a good story because his arc "was wrapped up," I beg to differ.

There is still a hell of a lot to do with his character. Any good writer who is familiar with the character will see that he has depth to him and isn't just some gimmicky villain. Bringing him back isn't going to negate the characterization of TDK. On the contrary, it should increase the depth of his character and explore different avenues and aspects about him. Harvey is a complex individual. Remember the interrogation scene where he has one of Joker's goons at gunpoint and Batman stops him? Sure, he wasn't actually going to do anything, but he was quite angry and when Batman walked away after saying he was going to turn himself in, Dent seemed pretty off the wall. There is definitely a dark side to his character that can be explored.

If he's alive and sent to Arkham, there will undoubtedly be therapy. This is a great way to explore the psyche of the character and the fact that his scars are more than skin deep. Also, the trauma of the accident and Rachel's death as well as his guilt over his killing spree at the end of TDK could all by itself cause serious psychological damage to the guy who used to be the White Knight, who stood for justice and foreshadowed his own fate with his cute catch phrase about living long enough to become the villain. You couple that with some exploration into the origins of his temper and you have yourself some great depth of character.

Not only that, but you are setting an incredible precedent (for comic book films, at least) by having a recurring villain that doesn't seem like just a cardboard cut-out of himself from his original appearance.

Besides, it's cool that Batman took the dive and all, but that can't last. Gordon just became commissioner. We can't go without the bat-signal and those great chats on top of the police station forever. We can't have people hating Batman and blaming him for what Two-Face has done forever. It's a great ending to the film and the themes and story are great, but it can't stay that way. Eventually the public will have to find out the truth and realize that for their city to get better, they have to realize how bad it really is and do something about it.

[DorkyFresh]

But that's just it--I think there were other options, making it ridiculous for Batman to kill Harvey.

well, i happen to think that if you're illegally trying to stop one of Gotham's finest that went rogue from possibly killing the son of Gotham's most honorable policeman after you've been shot in the gut, that you don't have time to think calm and collectively the way that you can in front of a computer monitor. it seems like you think that Batman had plenty of time to think about what he was going to do to prevent Gordon's son from being worm food. if he threw a Batarang, he could have knocked both of them off the ledge. if he threw a smoke pellet he could have knocked both of them off the ledge. if he did anything else, but grab the boy, he could have knocked both of them off of the ledge. the way i see it, when you're in a desperate situation, you act first and think later and that's exactly what Batman had to do in order to save Gordon's son.

[Crook]

The "If he ____" scenarios don't hold much merit when ultimately the conclusion is dealt by the screenwriter himself.

Yes, if Batman threw a batarang, he could've missed, Dent notices Batman's move, and shoots Batman and the boy. Or....it could just happen exactly how the writer would plan it, which would most likely be for the batarang to knock the gun out of Dent's hands.

Both sides making excuses for/against Batman's tackle is so pointless. Jonah wrote it this way in order to arrive at the situation in which Dent dies, and Gordon/Batman make a pact to protect Dent's reputation. That's it.

[Two_Face]

He looks like a pink version of The Grinch

The Grinch design was badass...can't say the same for the Tommy Lee Jones Two-Face.

http://tjsdoubleplay.com/images/grinch.jpg

[I Am The Knight]

...Bwahahahahahaha!!

[DorkyFresh]

The "If he ____" scenarios don't hold much merit when ultimately the conclusion is dealt by the screenwriter himself.

Yes, if Batman threw a batarang, he could've missed, Dent notices Batman's move, and shoots Batman and the boy. Or....it could just happen exactly how the writer would plan it, which would most likely be for the batarang to knock the gun out of Dent's hands.

Both sides making excuses for/against Batman's tackle is so pointless. Jonah wrote it this way in order to arrive at the situation in which Dent dies, and Gordon/Batman make a pact to protect Dent's reputation. That's it.

i totally agree with you on this one Crook. the only reason i used "if" scenarios was to show that the argument can swing both ways. you just explained it better than i did...hehe

[MiniBond]

can someone hook me up with a link where Thomas said that the end and two faces' fate was meant to be ambiguous ????:cwink:

[Rezzo]

can someone hook me up with a link where Thomas said that the end and two faces' fate was meant to be ambiguous ????:cwink:

Here you go, Two-Face: Dead or Alive? (http://movies.ign.com/articles/898/898426p1.html).

[MiniBond]

thx !

[Two_Face]

I'd love to see Two-Face team up with the Riddler because with Nolan at the helm, we'd all know it'd actually be good this time.

[Spoonman]

have you seen the prototype of tommy lees two face? its similer to the TDK one. someone posted it next to this abomination ages ago

I'd love to see that one too, never imagined Schumacher was planning on a scarier look for Two-Face. Is the prototype some sort of drawing or is Tommy with that look?

[Slushy]

Two-Face is dead. Let's face that fact. He's not moving, not blinking, not breathing at the end of that. No one tests his pulse, no one tries to revive him, no nothing. I mean, he's dead.

The thing with Two-Face in this movie - yes, he obviously had a dark side. But when he went homicidal, it wasn't just because his face got ****ed up, the woman he loved was killed, and dirty cops- whom he TOLD Gordon about - were involved. Everyone he killed was in revenge for everthing he lost. Once that was done, as Harvey said himself "There is no escape!" I think, if he had finished, he either would have killed himself or turned himself over to the police. So there would have been nowhere to go if they used him in the next movie.

Beside, what would we do with him in the following sequel? The way he was built up, Harvey Dent couldn't support a third movie. He was never meant to be evil; vengeful, yes (And, perhaps, rightfully so). But the character can't support another movie. I think someone already pointed out that he couldn't survive walking around like that for long without succumbing to a horrifying infection. And what is he going to do, try and kill Gordon again? We've already seen him try to hurt Gordon in the worst possible way imaginable; what more can he do? Deep down, he's not a true criminal, so using the mobster approach doesn't work. He just wants revenge for him and Rachel, and that was the way to end it.

And I'll say again, it destroys the ending of this movie. He's meant to be the beacon of hope after Gotham has been through its worst. Batman and Gordon are going to keep his secret, and Batman is going to bear his burden along with his own. If Harvey comes back, it destroys all this.

[SuperZer0]

Two-Face is dead. Let's face that fact. He's not moving, not blinking, not breathing at the end of that. No one tests his pulse, no one tries to revive him, no nothing. I mean, he's dead.

The thing with Two-Face in this movie - yes, he obviously had a dark side. But when he went homicidal, it wasn't just because his face got ****ed up, the woman he loved was killed, and dirty cops- whom he TOLD Gordon about - were involved. Everyone he killed was in revenge for everthing he lost. Once that was done, as Harvey said himself "There is no escape!" I think, if he had finished, he either would have killed himself or turned himself over to the police. So there would have been nowhere to go if they used him in the next movie.

Beside, what would we do with him in the following sequel? The way he was built up, Harvey Dent couldn't support a third movie. He was never meant to be evil; vengeful, yes (And, perhaps, rightfully so). But the character can't support another movie. I think someone already pointed out that he couldn't survive walking around like that for long without succumbing to a horrifying infection. And what is he going to do, try and kill Gordon again? We've already seen him try to hurt Gordon in the worst possible way imaginable; what more can he do? Deep down, he's not a true criminal, so using the mobster approach doesn't work. He just wants revenge for him and Rachel, and that was the way to end it.

And I'll say again, it destroys the ending of this movie. He's meant to be the beacon of hope after Gotham has been through its worst. Batman and Gordon are going to keep his secret, and Batman is going to bear his burden along with his own. If Harvey comes back, it destroys all this.

Well said. :up:

[slevinkelevra]

people just dont get it!!!

[Two_Face]

Don't get what? The fact that there's a 50/50 chance of both? With Nolan, you never know what you're going to get, and he could easily bring back Two-Face if he wanted to. Besides that, I always thought Two-Face was too big of a villain to kill off so quickly.

[Slipping_Halo]

Two-Face is dead. Let's face that fact. He's not moving, not blinking, not breathing at the end of that. No one tests his pulse, no one tries to revive him, no nothing. I mean, he's dead.

The thing with Two-Face in this movie - yes, he obviously had a dark side. But when he went homicidal, it wasn't just because his face got ****ed up, the woman he loved was killed, and dirty cops- whom he TOLD Gordon about - were involved. Everyone he killed was in revenge for everthing he lost. Once that was done, as Harvey said himself "There is no escape!" I think, if he had finished, he either would have killed himself or turned himself over to the police. So there would have been nowhere to go if they used him in the next movie.

Beside, what would we do with him in the following sequel? The way he was built up, Harvey Dent couldn't support a third movie. He was never meant to be evil; vengeful, yes (And, perhaps, rightfully so). But the character can't support another movie. I think someone already pointed out that he couldn't survive walking around like that for long without succumbing to a horrifying infection. And what is he going to do, try and kill Gordon again? We've already seen him try to hurt Gordon in the worst possible way imaginable; what more can he do? Deep down, he's not a true criminal, so using the mobster approach doesn't work. He just wants revenge for him and Rachel, and that was the way to end it.

And I'll say again, it destroys the ending of this movie. He's meant to be the beacon of hope after Gotham has been through its worst. Batman and Gordon are going to keep his secret, and Batman is going to bear his burden along with his own. If Harvey comes back, it destroys all this.

I think the fact that nobody checks his pulse or anything is an argument AGAINST the idea that he's dead! Doesn't it seem weird how completely ambivalent both Batman and Gordon seem to be about Dent's dead body lying on the ground? It's just weird to me. Here's a guy they all cared about and believed in and needed, and here he is dead. Batman just KILLED him. Killed. He just broke the rule. He doesn't seem too devastated about that. If I killed someone by accident, even if it were in self-defense, I'd be pretty friggin' distraught. I imagine somebody who actually bases his reality on the idea of not killing someone would be just as shaken if not more so by that than I would. As for him walking around that long with those scars, well, if he gets hauled off to Arkham he'll definitely be treated for that and it'll develop scar tissue and all that jazz. As for the rest (his level of involvement/importance in a sequel), I tackled that in a previous post and I think I made a good point there.

well, i happen to think that if you're illegally trying to stop one of Gotham's finest that went rogue from possibly killing the son of Gotham's most honorable policeman after you've been shot in the gut, that you don't have time to think calm and collectively the way that you can in front of a computer monitor. it seems like you think that Batman had plenty of time to think about what he was going to do to prevent Gordon's son from being worm food. if he threw a Batarang, he could have knocked both of them off the ledge. if he threw a smoke pellet he could have knocked both of them off the ledge. if he did anything else, but grab the boy, he could have knocked both of them off of the ledge. the way i see it, when you're in a desperate situation, you act first and think later and that's exactly what Batman had to do in order to save Gordon's son.

I think that the exact opposite way of thinking you're suggesting would have to apply for Batman to kill someone. I think that his immediate, automatic, thoughtless reaction would be a non-lethal one. For him to break that one rule he so desperately clings to, he'd have to go through quite a bit of thought and struggle in his mind and heart to do so.

And, let's just say that he did kill him. If that's the case then he definitely, absolutely doesn't seem to care as much as I think he should/would about breaking this incredibly heavy, powerful, and all-important rule that separates him from the rest of them and was the cornerstone of his entire philosophy and what he's doing since the beginning. He went nuts and ended up burning down Ra's Al Ghul's place on top of the mountain because he refused to kill someone who was a GUILTY murderer. This is a guy that blames himself for his parents' murder. He definitely does not act like somebody who just shattered the foundation of his entire moral code here, even if he did kill Harvey by accident. I think that rule is way too fundamental and weighty to have been tossed aside the way it was, which is why I think it wasn't.

And I still think that there were tons of other ways to handle that without getting Harvey killed. If there's anyone who can think on his feet and under pressure, it's this guy right here: :brucebat:

[regwec]

The thread has become slightly redundant in the sense that the poll and the variance of opinion here clearly shows that the end of the film can be interpreted in more than one way.

Personally, I think that the Nolans fudged the issue so that closure was offered tidily for this film, but the book was not shut on the furtherment of the intellectual property of Two Face in the movie world.

[Soender]

To quote the first comment I read after reading the IGN article on Harvey's fate.

Let's everyone just take a chill pill.....

In both examples, novelization and script extras, it states that Dent is dead. Seems pretty clear to me.

When do you ever remember Two-Face calling himself Dent?

Dent can be dead.......BUT TWO-FACE CAN LIVE...

[SuperZer0]

I think the fact that nobody checks his pulse or anything is an argument AGAINST the idea that he's dead! Doesn't it seem weird how completely ambivalent both Batman and Gordon seem to be about Dent's dead body lying on the ground? It's just weird to me. Here's a guy they all cared about and believed in and needed, and here he is dead. Batman just KILLED him. Killed. He just broke the rule. He doesn't seem too devastated about that. If I killed someone by accident, even if it were in self-defense, I'd be pretty friggin' distraught. I imagine somebody who actually bases his reality on the idea of not killing someone would be just as shaken if not more so by that than I would. As for him walking around that long with those scars, well, if he gets hauled off to Arkham he'll definitely be treated for that and it'll develop scar tissue and all that jazz. As for the rest (his level of involvement/importance in a sequel), I tackled that in a previous post and I think I made a good point there.



I think that the exact opposite way of thinking you're suggesting would have to apply for Batman to kill someone. I think that his immediate, automatic, thoughtless reaction would be a non-lethal one. For him to break that one rule he so desperately clings to, he'd have to go through quite a bit of thought and struggle in his mind and heart to do so.

And, let's just say that he did kill him. If that's the case then he definitely, absolutely doesn't seem to care as much as I think he should/would about breaking this incredibly heavy, powerful, and all-important rule that separates him from the rest of them and was the cornerstone of his entire philosophy and what he's doing since the beginning. He went nuts and ended up burning down Ra's Al Ghul's place on top of the mountain because he refused to kill someone who was a GUILTY murderer. This is a guy that blames himself for his parents' murder. He definitely does not act like somebody who just shattered the foundation of his entire moral code here, even if he did kill Harvey by accident. I think that rule is way too fundamental and weighty to have been tossed aside the way it was, which is why I think it wasn't.

And I still think that there were tons of other ways to handle that without getting Harvey killed. If there's anyone who can think on his feet and under pressure, it's this guy right here: :brucebat:

Good point. :up:

[Sal Maroni]

Two-Face is alive, he's too great to die the way he did anyway.

[Spade]

Yeah. He's alive. He got some plastic surgery and he's living in Miami with Tupac. :rolleyes:

[Sal Maroni]

Oh please, it's entirely possible for him to come back.

[Spade]

No, seriously. He's sipping a pina colada with Venom in that secret underground bunker for the Not Dead characters.

[regwec]

People all over the world like narrow moral certitude and dogma.

"OMG 2 Fase is theh dead because he's ttly dead!!"

Yeah. As a seasoned member of these boards, I know that the weeks immediately before and immediately after the release of a movie are the most unrewarding for debate here. Casual enthusiasts for the new movie flood the forums and grace us all with their valuable, cerebral insight. Lamentably, they will disappear just as soon.

[Spade]

It doesn't require a lot of time spent on an Internet forum to figure out that Nolan's not bringing him back. Oh, and I've been posting around here since before the Joker pic came out.

[Sal Maroni]

I think that he could easily be brought back, but if he is dead then I wouldn't mind because then they can bring in other villains.

[Quoink]

well then, taken from the movie script that was finally released (see link posted here in the spoiler section):

page 163:

"Dent lies at the bottom of the hole, his neck broken. DEAD"

page 164:

"Batman and Gordon stare down at Dent's Body. Grave."

page 165:

"INSERT CUT: Gordon stands at a podium at Dent's funeral."


as I mentioned in a post of mine here earlier, there would have been no point in Batman turning harvey dent's head after such a fall if he wasn't dead. only if he wanted to break his neck. but as u can read now, his neck WAS already broken. and gordon and batman talking and leaving an injured dent lying on the ground in the meantime wouldn't have made any more sense either!

I think ppl just WANT to see him in the next movie and therefore hope he's not dead! besides, there had been this rumor going on all the time before the movie was released that dent would only become two face in the end of the film and be set up for a third installment.
I think these two things are the reasons why ppl so much think that he was alive although, in my opinion, if u watch the final scene, it is just logical and obvious that he is dead! I don't know where any logical hints could be for him to be alive in this scene except for fans wanting him to be. lol
but that's just my opinion.

luckily the script finally makes it clear to those of you crazy optimists! ;-)
(no offense)

[regwec]

But we've been over this so many times. It is fairly clear that the intent of Dent's fall at the end of the film is to draw a line underneath his arc, there and then, and then to spring another story from that. The script clearly reflects that. But there is much in the finished film which seems intended to allow a reversal of this outcome, and which would allow for a new arc altogether.

This really boils down to the absurdity of asking whether a literary character in a (hopefully) ongoing franchise is alive or dead, or actual or figurative. It's all up to the writers, and I suspect they haven't decided, and won't for years to come.

[itsthebatman]

Personally, Reg, I reckon he's dead as a dodo. I think his death brings an end to Harvey Dent's story, and his resurrection (return) in BB3 would lessen the impact of the end of TDK (IMO). It would have to be very well written to be convincing, and not undermine Gordon and Batman any frurther.
Well, if anyone could write that story, it'd be the Nolan boys.:cwink:

[BubbaGump]

If Two-Face is alive, Batman and Gordon making epic speeches around Dent's limp body while his neck is freakin' broken and requires immediate medical attention would not only lessen the impact, as itsthebatman mentioned, but would make that totally awesome scene in TDK be one of the most retarded moments in motion picture history.

It would garner immediate parodying (hell, I already have a gag-comic swimming in my head right now) and would make the controversial ending in TDK seem like a cheap Jeph Loeb twist.

-------

Night, outside 250502 street. Gordon finishes his monologue as the silhouette of Batman running fades into nothingness.

GORDON:
A watchful protector...a Dark Knight.
Come on, let's go, son.

Gordon and son walk off. They run into Mrs. Gordon.

BARBARA:
You're just gonna leave him there?

Gordon raises an eyebrow

GORDON:
Well he did try to kill you.

Commish G. turns toward the camera, seemingly looking at the audience, stressing certain words.

GORDON [contd]:
And he IS dead. His GRAVE body lies in the rubble. Neck BROKEN. We'll have a FUNERAL for him next week. Because he's DEAD. Like a DOORNAIL.

PAN to Harvey Dent's body, his neck twisted at an incredibly awkward angle.

The camera zooms in on his face. The EYES snap OPEN.

DENT:
Wait'll they get a load of THIS doornail.

CUT TO TITLES:

BATMAN III

:wow:

[Carmine Falcone]

Best one-liner ever man. Kudos.

[infection form]

The main thing with me is that is Dent is dead, then Batman broke his one rule, basically a slap to the face to the fans.

Although it was an artfully done slap to the face.

I cried a little. On the inside. It just stung so bad. :(

[regwec]

Personally, Reg, I reckon he's dead as a dodo. I think his death brings an end to Harvey Dent's story, and his resurrection (return) in BB3 would lessen the impact of the end of TDK (IMO). It would have to be very well written to be convincing, and not undermine Gordon and Batman any frurther.
Well, if anyone could write that story, it'd be the Nolan boys.:cwink:
It doesn't have to occur in BB3, or at all, really. The important thing is that the Nolans have laid plenty of obvious groundwork for an easy twist at some point in the future. I can most easily envision it occuring in a "Knightfall" or "Hush" type of storyline, where rogues are drafted and used by a supreme antagonist to toy with Batman's mind. Dent's return from the dead, and his confrontation of an exhausted, demoralised Batman could be quite effective.

[FlawlessVictory]

If Two-Face is alive, Batman and Gordon making epic speeches around Dent's limp body while his neck is freakin' broken and requires immediate medical attention would not only lessen the impact, as itsthebatman mentioned, but would make that totally awesome scene in TDK be one of the most retarded moments in motion picture history.

It would garner immediate parodying (hell, I already have a gag-comic swimming in my head right now) and would make the controversial ending in TDK seem like a cheap Jeph Loeb twist.

-------

Night, outside 250502 street. Gordon finishes his monologue as the silhouette of Batman running fades into nothingness.

GORDON:
A watchful protector...a Dark Knight.
Come on, let's go, son.

Gordon and son walk off. They run into Mrs. Gordon.

BARBARA:
You're just gonna leave him there?

Gordon raises an eyebrow

GORDON:
Well he did try to kill you.

Commish G. turns toward the camera, seemingly looking at the audience, stressing certain words.

GORDON [contd]:
And he IS dead. His GRAVE body lies in the rubble. Neck BROKEN. We'll have a FUNERAL for him next week. Because he's DEAD. Like a DOORNAIL.

PAN to Harvey Dent's body, his neck twisted at an incredibly awkward angle.

The camera zooms in on his face. The EYES snap OPEN.

DENT:
Wait'll they get a load of THIS doornail.

CUT TO TITLES:

BATMAN III

:wow:


:up::up::up::up::up:

LMAO. That was great. I don't even see how their can be a debate about this.

And just to hammer the point home further, the script by Jonah and Christopher Nolan -- included in The Dark Knight: Featuring Production Art and Full Shooting Script -- states, "Dent lies at the bottom of the hole, his neck broken. DEAD." The capitalization is their emphasis not ours. And in a later scene, "Gordon stands on a podium at Dent's funeral. Behind him is a large photograph of Dent smiling."

http://movies.ign.com/articles/898/898426p1.html


I'm starting to think that Dent's body could have went through a sawmill and people would still claim alive he is alive and will be returning for another movie.

[regwec]

Are you reading many of the posts in this thread, or have you set everyone of the opposing view to ignore?

[SuperZer0]

I say Nolan will flip a coin to decide Dent's fate. :funny:

[FlawlessVictory]

Are you reading many of the posts in this thread, or have you set everyone of the opposing view to ignore?

The shooting script states his character is dead. So discussing any impact on Batman and on a possible future storyline seems pretty pointless to me. This happens nearly everytime a villain dies in a superhero film, people still claim that he is alive and will be returning. So I can't say I'm surprised in that aspect. But I am surprised that some people still seem unsure even after being presented the excerpt from the shooting script.

Also, as pointed out, if Two-Face were to return, it would render TDK's ending to be completely empty and moronic, IMO.

[Crook]

Also, as pointed out, if Two-Face were to return, it would render TDK's ending to be completely empty and moronic, IMO.
How? All it does is change the ending and final speech from being literal, to figurative.

[Sonic1002]

The shooting script states his character is dead. So discussing any impact on Batman and on a possible future storyline seems pretty pointless to me.
I was just about to come in here to say that
It clearly says he lands, neck snapped, DEAD.

The. End.

[FlawlessVictory]

How? All it does is change the ending and final speech from being literal, to figurative.

To me, the ending would lose its impact if its realized that Dent did not die. It was such a tragic downfall for Dent that went from White Knight to villain to his eventual death. And I love Dent's line of "Do you think I want to escape from this?" He knew he was at the end, one way or another, and to have that actually realized makes it all the more tragic.

[Crook]

Again, literal to figurative. Everything you just mentioned still has symbolic meaning whether he's dead or not.

- The tragedy of Dent is his spiral to madness and downfall as a law-abiding crimefighter.
- "Do you think I want to escape from this?" is realized by his turn to villainy and complete disregard for moral consequence by instead placing everything in fate's hands. This can be further explored in the sequel with Bruce not giving up on Harvey, but realizing the scarred side will always win out in the end.

[FlawlessVictory]

Again, literal to figurative. Everything you just mentioned still has symbolic meaning whether he's dead or not.

- The tragedy of Dent is his spiral to madness and downfall as a law-abiding crimefighter.
- "Do you think I want to escape from this?" is realized by his turn to villainy and complete disregard for moral consequence by instead placing everything in fate's hands. This can be further explored in the sequel with Bruce not giving up on Harvey, but realizing the scarred side will always win out in the end.

I still find it more tragic that his character actually dies. So that is the way I prefer.

[Crook]

Fair enough. I find it more tragic to see himself live as the "bad guy" because everything he stood for betrayed him.

His line about dying as a hero, and living long enough to become the villain also fits better, imo. Harvey's good side ultimately "dies", and a new evil persona rises in Two-Face.

[FlawlessVictory]

Fair enough. I find it more tragic to see himself live as the "bad guy" because everything he stood for betrayed him.

His line about dying as a hero, and living long enough to become the villain also fits better, imo. Harvey's good side ultimately "dies", and a new evil persona rises in Two-Face.

I would imagine that one of the reasons why Nolan wrote in the script that the character is dead is because of the difficulty in keeping the character (in his condition) around because of how "realistically" he is dealing with him. How long would he be able to actually survive with half a face like that before it gets infected and he dies? Plus, he has the suit naturally half scarred as well, which was done well. If he lived on, I would think he would change clothes eventually. How then would he achieve his half suit different colors look? It might get a little over the top and silly.

[Crook]

I would imagine that one of the reasons why Nolan wrote in the script that the character is dead is because of the difficulty in keeping the character (in his condition) around because of how "realistically" he is dealing with him. How long would he be able to actually survive with half a face like that before it gets infected and he dies?
Then he should not be handling the character if he's worried about something so insignificant as that. Especially when no one but nitpickers actually think it's an issue. I'd be very disappointed if that his actual reason for killing the character off.

Plus, he has the suit naturally half scarred as well, which was done well. If he lived on, I would think he would change clothes eventually. How then would he achieve his half suit different colors look? It might get a little over the top and silly.
As it stood in TDK, it was merely a nod to the split suit of the comics. He didn't really have a split personality there, just a new one that manifested itself. However, if he were to return with dual personalities, then the look has a purpose. Think of it as a compulsion from a deranged mind to represent his psyche.

[Slipping_Halo]

The shooting script states his character is dead. So discussing any impact on Batman and on a possible future storyline seems pretty pointless to me. This happens nearly everytime a villain dies in a superhero film, people still claim that he is alive and will be returning. So I can't say I'm surprised in that aspect. But I am surprised that some people still seem unsure even after being presented the excerpt from the shooting script.

Also, as pointed out, if Two-Face were to return, it would render TDK's ending to be completely empty and moronic, IMO.

I disagree on both counts. Shooting scripts are merely a blueprint, and many things change after the fact. I think that perhaps they wrote him to die but reconsidered when filming. I think that if they really wanted to absolutely, positively make him DEAD, then they'd have done something CONCRETE to illustrate it. Seeing him lying there, he could just be knocked out. The "funeral" outside of city hall could also be construed as a "memorial" because (from what I've seen) there isn't anything that absolutely suggests a funeral without a doubt, ie. a coffin. I think it's purposely ambiguous.

As for the ending, I think that having him be dead screws up more things than if he were still alive and just knocked out. I've posted it above in more detail, but just to sum it up:

If he's dead then that means Batman killed him, which makes no sense given his "one rule" thing that he holds on to VERY strictly (there are two whole movies, with the exception of this possible murder, to illustrate this strong conviction NOT to kill). This is especially valid, I think, because the situation wasn't one where it was clear that there was absolutely NO OTHER OPTION.

The way they are acting over his body (to me, yes, I know it's just my opinion, but it's one backed up with reasons) is more like someone they have knocked out/immobilized rather than someone that has been killed (especially if it would be the first time the guy who swore never to take a life ends up doing so...I dunno about you, but I think that Batman would have acted quite differently if he finally crossed that line and was then standing over the result of his crossing it). Nobody checks his pulse, nobody seems to really worry about him being hurt, dead, whatever. It's like Batman punched him in the face and he's on the ground and not talking. They know it was a punch in the face so they don't need to check vitals.

Anyway, I think it's perfectly plausible for him to still be alive. Nothing IN THE FINAL VERSION OF THE FILM immediately disproves the idea that he is alive, so even if they did intend him to be dead they can still turn it around with relative ease due to the ambiguity in which the idea was presented.

Thank you, I'll be here all week.

[batman11]

^ Yes, I do agree that shooting script's can often change, however, I would like to think that Dent's death was an important story point that was thought about long and hard while being written into the script, and not something that was merely "changed" while filming.

[LastSunrise1981]

Producer Emma Thomas said that Dent's last scene was ambiguous enough to suggest that perhaps he was still alive.

[obiTokenobi]

I would imagine that one of the reasons why Nolan wrote in the script that the character is dead is because of the difficulty in keeping the character (in his condition) around because of how "realistically" he is dealing with him. How long would he be able to actually survive with half a face like that before it gets infected and he dies? Plus, he has the suit naturally half scarred as well, which was done well. If he lived on, I would think he would change clothes eventually. How then would he achieve his half suit different colors look? It might get a little over the top and silly.

I agree with your bit about the suit, but even more-so with your first point. I really like that as an explanation for why Nolan didnt keep Dent around.

[Ziggyman]

Why would Eckhart want to come back for a third...If he knew that Dent was dead...He obviously read through the script...If Dent was actually dead...Eckhart wouldn't of said anything...right?!?!?

[JoKeRhahaha]

i personally think he was dead.. i mean like some of you said it would be silly to keep him as the villian because nolans look on batman is a realistic vision of it. for the third if there is one i think would be with the joker corrupting someone else in wherever he is being held to be the next villian..

[Hello Beautiful]

I think he's dead.

[regwec]

Also, as pointed out, if Two-Face were to return, it would render TDK's ending to be completely empty and moronic, IMO.
Until Nolan decides to do it, at which point you will praise the decision as inspired, and accuse everyone who disagrees of whining.

[plod]

Dead, he was suicidal anyway. I often note how the writers set up a character to be killed by the hero. Look at Wuertz, drinking while Gotham burns. He was asking to be killed as was Maroni. Dent said it the best when he said "You think I want to escape?! There is no escape from this-" One way ticket to death. I often wondered what would happen to Dent because he hadn't received treatment for his wounds. Assuming that the burns were third degree they would leave him open to infection without treatment. I think he was on the way out anyway.

PS Do we need spoiler tags anymore? I assume everyone has seen the film. :huh:

[FlawlessVictory]

Why would Eckhart want to come back for a third...If he knew that Dent was dead...He obviously read through the script...If Dent was actually dead...Eckhart wouldn't of said anything...right?!?!?

Because if IIRC, he was asked this question before the movie was released or at the time of its release. He has no choice but to answer in that manner otherwise he would spoil the movie!

Btw, did you read the article awhile back where Ken Watanabe mentioned that he would love to come back for another Batman film. Does that mean his character survived also? No. These actors always say they want to come back, more so to do with how much they enjoyed the experience of making the movie then what actually happened with their character in the film.

[FlawlessVictory]

Dead, he was suicidal anyway. I often note how the writers set up a character to be killed by the hero. Look at Wuertz, drinking while Gotham burns. He was asking to be killed as was Maroni. Dent said it the best when he said "You think I want to escape?! There is no escape from this-" One way ticket to death. I often wondered what would happen to Dent because he hadn't received treatment for his wounds. Assuming that the burns were third degree they would leave him open to infection without treatment. I think he was on the way out anyway.

PS Do we need spoiler tags anymore? I assume everyone has seen the film. :huh:

Agreed. I find it funny though that when he was deciding the fate of the three of them, that he chose to go second. Fitting he would decide his fate second, but what if the coin would have landed scarred side up? He would have had to kill myself without getting a chance to decide the fate of Gordon! :hehe:

[LastSunrise1981]

I already posted what Emma Thomas said about the fate of Dent. She said they left it ambigious enough to suggest a return of Two-Face. As for bringing him back would be silly? Now say if he shot himself in the head and came back then it would be over the top.

As realistic as Nolan's Batman is, it's still not realistic. What's realistic about a man dressing up as a Bat who doesn't get shot in the face on his first night out? What's realistic about any comic book film or comic book in general? What's realistic about Two-Face not dying in the hospital while refusing to accept pain medication and skin surgery in general?

Bottom line is you can keep Two-Face in a realistic setting and not include the two half colored suits. You can still have him in a regular suit while maintaining the disfigurement.

[LastSunrise1981]

Because if IIRC, he was asked this question before the movie was released or at the time of its release. He has no choice but to answer in that manner otherwise he would spoil the movie!

Btw, did you read the article awhile back where Ken Watanabe mentioned that he would love to come back for another Batman film. Does that mean his character survived also? No. These actors always say they want to come back, more so to do with how much they enjoyed the experience of making the movie then what actually happened with their character in the film.

Difference is EVERYONE knew Ken Watanabe wasn't the real Ra's and wouldn't have a big role.

[Slipping_Halo]

^ Yes, I do agree that shooting script's can often change, however, I would like to think that Dent's death was an important story point that was thought about long and hard while being written into the script, and not something that was merely "changed" while filming.

If that's true, and it's an important story point, then why would they make it so ambiguous? I think it was purposely ambiguous in order to have the option of bringing Two-Face back.

I think that after the last franchise, these guys know better than to keep killing off villains.

[Coleman Reese]

2 Face is deader than a doornail. Its in the novelization and the script reads "DEAD" in big capital letters.

Not to mention that if he survives it disqualifies the whole message of TDK which was Batman sacrificing himself to keep Dent's reputation intact. He's not being a hero, he's being something more as echoed by Alfred.

How dense are some of you guys? I mean seriously.

[FlawlessVictory]

Difference is EVERYONE knew Ken Watanabe wasn't the real Ra's and wouldn't have a big role.

I went back and re-read Ken's comment. He actually claims his character didn't die, so he would like to return in another Batman film. LOL. And he said this in an article that was dated 12/29/06.

Would you like your character in the Batman film to make a return?

Yes, my character didn't die.

No talks yet?

No.

http://www.popentertainment.com/watanabe.htm

[Kaizer]

2 Face is deader than a doornail. Its in the novelization and the script reads "DEAD" in big capital letters.

Not to mention that if he survives it disqualifies the whole message of TDK which was Batman sacrificing himself to keep Dent's reputation intact. He's not being a hero, he's being something more as echoed by Alfred.

How dense are some of you guys? I mean seriously.

"You either DIE a hero, or you LIVE long enough to see yourself become the villain"

This is the whole message of the movies ending, Harvey Dent DIED a hero, but Batman LIVED long enough to see himself become the villain. The End.

[regwec]

2 Face is deader than a doornail. Its in the novelization and the script reads "DEAD" in big capital letters.

Not to mention that if he survives it disqualifies the whole message of TDK which was Batman sacrificing himself to keep Dent's reputation intact. He's not being a hero, he's being something more as echoed by Alfred.

How dense are some of you guys? I mean seriously.
Slightly less dense than someone who fails to understand that their obvious and unoriginal points have already been discussed ad nauseum.

[LastSunrise1981]

I went back and re-read Ken's comment. He actually claims his character didn't die, so he would like to return in another Batman film. LOL. And he said this in an article that was dated 12/29/06.



http://www.popentertainment.com/watanabe.htm

Technically he was right. Ra's DIDN'T die since we never see him die in the end.

[I Am The Knight]

Slightly less dense than someone who fails to understand that their obvious and unoriginal points have already been discussed ad nauseum.

Well, you don't expect him to read, do you?

[Coleman Reese]

Slightly less dense than someone who fails to understand that their obvious and unoriginal points have already been discussed ad nauseum.

These have been discussed already and you still don't get it?

He's dead. Even if you can't grasp this from seeing it on screen, ask yourself how can he continue to be alive and not disqualify/cheapen the entire theme of Batman assuming the sins of Dent to save his reputation?

Then again if you can't grasp the former I definitely don't expect you to grasp the latter.

[WebSlingerSlick]

I listened to an interview with Jonathan Nolan and he confirmed Two Face died.....just what I heard.

[regwec]

Grasped the issue several dozen pages ago, discussed it at length with posters more intellectually dexterous than yourself, and kept an open mind.

[Coleman Reese]

Grasped the issue several dozen pages ago, discussed it at length with posters more intellectually dexterous than yourself, and kept an open mind.

lol you're funny.

[DA Dent]

"Where is Harvey Dent? Is he safe? Is he all right?

It seems in Harvey’s anger, Batman... killed him.

Batman… Batman couldn't have! He was alive! I felt it!

NOOOOOOOO!”


:P Anyways, I really hope he’s alive. He was too cool to not return.

[Slipping_Halo]

These have been discussed already and you still don't get it?

He's dead. Even if you can't grasp this from seeing it on screen, ask yourself how can he continue to be alive and not disqualify/cheapen the entire theme of Batman assuming the sins of Dent to save his reputation?

Then again if you can't grasp the former I definitely don't expect you to grasp the latter.

I think it cheapens the theme to have had Batman kill him. This incorruptible force that refuses to cross that line because it is what distinguishes him from the people he is trying to stop, suddenly and rashly breaks that conviction without necessity or thought? That's crazy to me. If his "one rule" was so fickle, he would have just killed the Joker by throwing him off that building as well. It just doesn't make sense to me.

And, once again, you act as though it's indisputably obvious that he is dead in the movie and it just isn't. He MAY be dead, but he also MAY be alive. There is nothing on screen to absolutely show it either way, so for you to act as though it's ridiculous to suspect he is alive is unfair.

The shooting script says one thing, but many times during filming the script gets tweaked and in editing final decisions are made about the film. I'm sure that if Nolan truly wanted to illustrate that he died, he would have done so pretty easily (showing a casket, having someone SAY it, etc.), but he didn't, and that leads me to believe there is a chance he may be alive.

As for it negating the sacrifice Batman made, I just don't see the logic in that. If Harvey is dead, Batman takes the rap for his murders and the people of Gotham vilify him, the cops have to try to catch him (for real this time), and Harvey is seen as a martyr and a symbol of hope. If Harvey is still alive but hidden away and declared dead to the public, Batman takes the rap for his murders and the people of Gotham vilify him, the cops have to try to catch him (for real this time), and Harvey is seen as a Martyr and a symbol of hope. Where does the discrepancy come in?

Nobody is listening to each other and that is why this thread is getting redundant and stupid. "He's dead!" "No he's not dead!" blah blah blah blah. Listen to the reasons and I think you'll see that there are valid points (at least I think mine are) to consider when thinking if Two-Face is dead or alive. Let's tackle each other's logic instead of hurling our opinions at each other without listening.

[Ratatat]

I think it cheapens the theme to have had Batman kill him. This incorruptible force that refuses to cross that line because it is what distinguishes him from the people he is trying to stop, suddenly and rashly breaks that conviction without necessity or thought? That's crazy to me. If his "one rule" was so fickle, he would have just killed the Joker by throwing him off that building as well. It just doesn't make sense to me.

And, once again, you act as though it's indisputably obvious that he is dead in the movie and it just isn't. He MAY be dead, but he also MAY be alive. There is nothing on screen to absolutely show it either way, so for you to act as though it's ridiculous to suspect he is alive is unfair.

The shooting script says one thing, but many times during filming the script gets tweaked and in editing final decisions are made about the film. I'm sure that if Nolan truly wanted to illustrate that he died, he would have done so pretty easily (showing a casket, having someone SAY it, etc.), but he didn't, and that leads me to believe there is a chance he may be alive.

As for it negating the sacrifice Batman made, I just don't see the logic in that. If Harvey is dead, Batman takes the rap for his murders and the people of Gotham vilify him, the cops have to try to catch him (for real this time), and Harvey is seen as a martyr and a symbol of hope. If Harvey is still alive but hidden away and declared dead to the public, Batman takes the rap for his murders and the people of Gotham vilify him, the cops have to try to catch him (for real this time), and Harvey is seen as a Martyr and a symbol of hope. Where does the discrepancy come in?

Nobody is listening to each other and that is why this thread is getting redundant and stupid. "He's dead!" "No he's not dead!" blah blah blah blah. Listen to the reasons and I think you'll see that there are valid points (at least I think mine are) to consider when thinking if Two-Face is dead or alive. Let's tackle each other's logic instead of hurling our opinions at each other without listening.

Excellent post. Well done.

[itsthebatman]

-------

Night, outside 250502 street. Gordon finishes his monologue as the silhouette of Batman running fades into nothingness.

GORDON:
A watchful protector...a Dark Knight.
Come on, let's go, son.

Gordon and son walk off. They run into Mrs. Gordon.

BARBARA:
You're just gonna leave him there?

Gordon raises an eyebrow

GORDON:
Well he did try to kill you.

Commish G. turns toward the camera, seemingly looking at the audience, stressing certain words.

GORDON [contd]:
And he IS dead. His GRAVE body lies in the rubble. Neck BROKEN. We'll have a FUNERAL for him next week. Because he's DEAD. Like a DOORNAIL.

PAN to Harvey Dent's body, his neck twisted at an incredibly awkward angle.

The camera zooms in on his face. The EYES snap OPEN.

DENT:
Wait'll they get a load of THIS doornail.

CUT TO TITLES:

BATMAN III


:wow:

Night, outside 250502 street. Gordon finishes his monologue as the silhouette of Batman running fades into nothingness.

GORDON:
A watchful protector...a Dark Knight.
Come on, let's go, son.


JAMES JR:
Did you hear something, Dad?

GORDON:
Nope. Not a thing.

JAMES JR:
I did. From over there, from the body.

GORDON (sternly):
He's DEAD, son. Dead, dead, dead, dead.

DENT (whispering)
Help. I'm quite badly hurt, my neck
really hurts. But swift medical attention
may save my life.

GORDON:
Nope, it's all quiet round here.

JAMES JR:
But, DAD!

GORDON:
Shut it.

[P.F. Geraci]

From Page #163 of the actual Dark Knight script:

"Dent lies at the bottom of the hole, his neck broken. DEAD."

[donk70]

From Page #163 of the actual Dark Knight script:

"Dent lies at the bottom of the hole, his neck broken. DEAD."
To play devil's advocate, we don't know how legit that script is

[I Am The Knight]

To play devil's advocate, we don't know how legit that script is

Isn't that the one the studio released for sale? It should be legit :dry:

[donk70]

Isn't that the one the studio released for sale? It should be legit :dry:
Haven't seen that one. Only one I've saw is the one with circulating in .pdf format

[I Am The Knight]

Well, that seems legit to me, as well. Or maybe we can ask Jett. Who volunteers? :whatever:

[donk70]

Well, that seems legit to me, as well. Or maybe we can ask Jett. Who volunteers? :whatever:
I'll pass

[I Am The Knight]

Good man.

[regwec]

From Page #163 of the actual Dark Knight script:

"Dent lies at the bottom of the hole, his neck broken. DEAD."
I can understand why some people are too lazy to read through an entire thread before posting in it; but refusing even to glance up the last page is rather extreme.

[P.F. Geraci]

I can understand why some people are too lazy to read through an entire thread before posting in it; but refusing even to glance up the last page is rather extreme.

The hell are you talking about? I read the past two pages, where was this profound truth I should have noticed glowing right in my face? I think calling someone lazy because they didn't read pages of MESSAGE BOARD is "extreme".

[Crook]

If you read the past two pages, then surely you would have noticed that people were already talking about that passage in the script.

[Coleman Reese]

I think it cheapens the theme to have had Batman kill him. This incorruptible force that refuses to cross that line because it is what distinguishes him from the people he is trying to stop, suddenly and rashly breaks that conviction without necessity or thought? That's crazy to me. If his "one rule" was so fickle, he would have just killed the Joker by throwing him off that building as well. It just doesn't make sense to me.

And, once again, you act as though it's indisputably obvious that he is dead in the movie and it just isn't. He MAY be dead, but he also MAY be alive. There is nothing on screen to absolutely show it either way, so for you to act as though it's ridiculous to suspect he is alive is unfair.

The shooting script says one thing, but many times during filming the script gets tweaked and in editing final decisions are made about the film. I'm sure that if Nolan truly wanted to illustrate that he died, he would have done so pretty easily (showing a casket, having someone SAY it, etc.), but he didn't, and that leads me to believe there is a chance he may be alive.

As for it negating the sacrifice Batman made, I just don't see the logic in that. If Harvey is dead, Batman takes the rap for his murders and the people of Gotham vilify him, the cops have to try to catch him (for real this time), and Harvey is seen as a martyr and a symbol of hope. If Harvey is still alive but hidden away and declared dead to the public, Batman takes the rap for his murders and the people of Gotham vilify him, the cops have to try to catch him (for real this time), and Harvey is seen as a Martyr and a symbol of hope. Where does the discrepancy come in?

Nobody is listening to each other and that is why this thread is getting redundant and stupid. "He's dead!" "No he's not dead!" blah blah blah blah. Listen to the reasons and I think you'll see that there are valid points (at least I think mine are) to consider when thinking if Two-Face is dead or alive. Let's tackle each other's logic instead of hurling our opinions at each other without listening.

Blah blah blah. Batman's rule only has value to him not anyone else. It actually works to his favor to make everyone think he will kill especially now that "they're wise to your act" as Maroni put it and the cops are hunting him. m

He's dead. I'm gonna wait till Batman 3 comes out and then find all these "Dent's not dead" replies and repost them. You'll see I'll show ya.

[P.F. Geraci]

If you read the past two pages, then surely you would have noticed that people were already talking about that passage in the script.

Sorry I must have missed it. It must have been mixed in with the ten thousand posts of regwec using every page of his thesaurus to sound like the ultimate authority (masking the fact that all he's doing is just looking at the opinions of others and just telling them they're wrong).

[regwec]

No need to be jealous, lazybones. ;)

[8wid]

He turned into James Bond.
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/8338/piercebrosnanjamesbond0qx8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/8338/piercebrosnanjamesbond0qx8.519862608c.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=527&i=piercebrosnanjamesbond0qx8.jpg)

[ismahawk]

i think hes alive, it never showed a body being placed anywhere, i think the cops told the public he was killed by joker and then sent him off to arkham

[Slipping_Halo]

Blah blah blah. Batman's rule only has value to him not anyone else. It actually works to his favor to make everyone think he will kill especially now that "they're wise to your act" as Maroni put it and the cops are hunting him. m

He's dead. I'm gonna wait till Batman 3 comes out and then find all these "Dent's not dead" replies and repost them. You'll see I'll show ya.

Ok, first off, just saying "blah blah blah" to all the points I brought up shows that you're in no mood for any kind of rational argument and you just want to be right. I'm not interested in being right, but being a fan of the characters and the film, I'm looking at it objectively and saying that there isn't a definitive sign that he's dead and therefore he MAY be alive. The fact that you glossed over my points that way is insulting.

Secondly, I'm not talking about the public knowing that Batman is now a murderer; I am talking about Batman BECOMING a murderer--especially when it wasn't necessary (I just don't see it in the situation in which he allegedly did so). I think that if his rule had ANY value to him at all, he wouldn't have broken it so rashly; and if he did, he definitely would have been WAY more upset about having to have done it than he acted in that final scene.

If the third film comes out and he turns out to be dead, fine. I'm not telling you that I'm right. I'm just saying I have reason to believe that it's possible and that I think it's much better that way. I don't really need for them to bring Dent back in part 3, I'd just rather he didn't die so they have the option of bringing him back and developing him, which is something that this new franchise should do instead of killing off these great characters after one film.

[Banquet]

I'm not interested in being right, but being a fan of the characters and the film, I'm looking at it objectively and saying that there isn't a definitive sign that he's dead and therefore he MAY be alive.

I can't believe this argument is still going on. He's d-e-d! Read the script if you want a "definitive" answer. He broke his neck in the fall. The end.

[Slipping_Halo]

I can't believe this argument is still going on. He's d-e-d! Read the script if you want a "definitive" answer. He broke his neck in the fall. The end.

Read my response to that point..."""shooting scripts are a blueprint and MANY times, things are changed around during filming and post production. If Nolan really wanted to make him D-E-A-D without a doubt, he'd have edited the film in such a way that it would be D-E-A-D obvious (a casket, somebody saying "he's dead," Batman giving a **** about having KILLED someone...)"""

Now think about that, get off your high horse, then get off the pedestal, and then pull your head out of your butt and listen to what people are saying.

[CaptainClown]

Script =/= the final product

[Banquet]

Read my response to that point..."""shooting scripts are a blueprint and MANY times, things are changed around during filming and post production. If Nolan really wanted to make him D-E-A-D without a doubt, he'd have edited the film in such a way that it would be D-E-A-D obvious (a casket, somebody saying "he's dead," Batman giving a **** about having KILLED someone...)"""

Now think about that, get off your high horse, then get off the pedestal, and then pull your head out of your butt and listen to what people are saying.

If you haven't noticed, Nolan never films anything in such a way as to be obvious, let alone dead obvious. If you need an absolutely unrefutable sign that he is dead to believe it, yet you're fine with making assumptions based on the possiblity of changes to a major plot point during the filming and post production, then I'm inclined to see it as a personal preference, not an objective view of the facts. The "fact" we have is the script, which says he is dead, and the speech that Gordon gives with a banner of Dent behind him, implying a funeral.

Sure, a third film can come up with some explaination for bringing him back, like a lot of comic books do, but I seriously doubt Nolan is going to go for that. As far as TDK goes, Harvey Dent is gone.

[MBonez12]

there is a reason this thread was created and has not been deleted yet, and that is that this is a perfectly legitimate questions, regardless of the script. seeing as none of the cast or crew has agreed on the next film (including the writers, director, or actor playing two face), the next film can go either way.

[Banquet]

Script =/= the final product

considering the nolan kids say they didn't change a whole lot from the script besides re-arranging a few scenes, I don't think they would have Harvey Dent not dead when he was written as dead. That's more than just a line cut here or there.

[Banquet]

When in doubt, google.

"I don’t believe it is unnecessary to do away with the character. I don’t think he needed to have his own free reign as a major villain in some other film. I’m fine with utilizing Dent as a device to carry across the themes of this film and moving on. But not in the last 30 ****ing minutes of the flick; not cramming one of the most unique and complex Bat villains into a screen time that really pillages the potential."

-Christopher Nolan

This thread is going to go on for the next three years, isn't it?

[blueharvest]

As much as I would love it if Two-Face survived "The Dark Knight" and he was the major villain in the next film, I have to believe that he is dead.

I mean, Two-Face's only motivation in this film, really, was to get revenge for Rachael's death. And with that death avenged, more or less, I don't think he could or should come back.

Also, he looked pretty lifeless at the end of the film, what with falling 20 or 30 feet, or whatever the distance was, to the ground. He broke his neck; it's pretty hard to bounce back from an injury like that.

So, in my opinion, Two-Face is dead.

He's deader than a 75 year old man's penis. :woot:

[itsthebatman]

When in doubt, google.

"I don’t believe it is unnecessary to do away with the character. I don’t think he needed to have his own free reign as a major villain in some other film. I’m fine with utilizing Dent as a device to carry across the themes of this film and moving on. But not in the last 30 ****ing minutes of the flick; not cramming one of the most unique and complex Bat villains into a screen time that really pillages the potential."

-Christopher Nolan

This thread is going to go on for the next three years, isn't it?
Christopher Nolan didn't say that -it's the blog writer's opinion.

[Coleman Reese]

Christopher Nolan didn't say that -it's the blog writer's opinion.

haha pwned

[Coleman Reese]

Ok, first off, just saying "blah blah blah" to all the points I brought up shows that you're in no mood for any kind of rational argument and you just want to be right. I'm not interested in being right, but being a fan of the characters and the film, I'm looking at it objectively and saying that there isn't a definitive sign that he's dead and therefore he MAY be alive. The fact that you glossed over my points that way is insulting.

Secondly, I'm not talking about the public knowing that Batman is now a murderer; I am talking about Batman BECOMING a murderer--especially when it wasn't necessary (I just don't see it in the situation in which he allegedly did so). I think that if his rule had ANY value to him at all, he wouldn't have broken it so rashly; and if he did, he definitely would have been WAY more upset about having to have done it than he acted in that final scene.

If the third film comes out and he turns out to be dead, fine. I'm not telling you that I'm right. I'm just saying I have reason to believe that it's possible and that I think it's much better that way. I don't really need for them to bring Dent back in part 3, I'd just rather he didn't die so they have the option of bringing him back and developing him, which is something that this new franchise should do instead of killing off these great characters after one film.

blah blah blah. He's dead brah.

[Slipping_Halo]

blah blah blah. He's dead brah.

Ok, logical discussion with you is impossible. You are the weakest link...goodbye.

If you haven't noticed, Nolan never films anything in such a way as to be obvious, let alone dead obvious. If you need an absolutely unrefutable sign that he is dead to believe it, yet you're fine with making assumptions based on the possiblity of changes to a major plot point during the filming and post production, then I'm inclined to see it as a personal preference, not an objective view of the facts. The "fact" we have is the script, which says he is dead, and the speech that Gordon gives with a banner of Dent behind him, implying a funeral.

Sure, a third film can come up with some explaination for bringing him back, like a lot of comic books do, but I seriously doubt Nolan is going to go for that. As far as TDK goes, Harvey Dent is gone.

As for the script, we've already heard people from the crew talk about it being purposely ambiguous--which means it was made to go either way. This came straight from the horse's mouth. If that's what they did then it means that they decided to change things a bit from the script because, as you say, it clearly states that he is dead. The film, however, does not clearly state he is dead. Everything in the film implying his death can also be seen to imply a cover-up. The "funeral" that is implied could easily be a "memorial" service for the missing/dead Harvey Dent while Two-Face is kept hidden from the public in order to carry out Batman and Gordon's plan. It's not preference. I'm taking what I'm seeing and I'm just saying there are grounds to suspect either option.

If they did decide to bring him back for a sequel, it wouldn't be difficult at all because of how ambiguous it was left at the end of TDK. I'm not even saying I want him back in another movie; I'm just saying I would like the possibility and I'd be happy to see that the best Batman villains aren't being killed off after they show up in a movie.

[SKSpawn]

To be fair, this is as stupid as the discussions that Ra's survived that train crashing and exploding (yeah, sure, he jumped. From that height. And lived. Sure).

Sure, I kinda saw Two-Face take a breath when we first see him on the ground, but I seriously doubt that Batman and Gordon would have had that talk or the public funeral if Harvey was still alive. Locking him away makes them both look really, really bad, if you ask me. Harvey dying was a great way to put an end to his tragic downfall.

[Coleman Reese]

To be fair, this is as stupid as the discussions that Ra's survived that train crashing and exploding (yeah, sure, he jumped. From that height. And lived. Sure).

Sure, I kinda saw Two-Face take a breath when we first see him on the ground, but I seriously doubt that Batman and Gordon would have had that talk or the public funeral if Harvey was still alive. Locking him away makes them both look really, really bad, if you ask me. Harvey dying was a great way to put an end to his tragic downfall.

A voice of reason.

What you're seeing here is 3 groups. The first are us who use reason to conclude that Dent is dead based on the script, novel, his character's motivation, and the entire theme of TDK.

The second group are those who believe he's alive just out of sheer stupidity.

The third and final group are the contrarians. These guys engage in a form of mental masturbation by claiming Dent may not be dead so they can set forth their pseudo intellectualism and claim to be "open minded." Their modus operandi is transparent b/c they engage in the same behavior in all the other threads.

[Ace of Knaves]

i was with harvey two face just last night, we was just up the red lion. it was my round so i offered to buy him a pint of stella, he replied "half". so yes folks harvey is alive and well and is looking forward to his return to nolans bat-verse.

[tekken]

i'm in the second group!

[Slipping_Halo]

A voice of reason.

What you're seeing here is 3 groups. The first are us who use reason to conclude that Dent is dead based on the script, novel, his character's motivation, and the entire theme of TDK.

The second group are those who believe he's alive just out of sheer stupidity.

The third and final group are the contrarians. These guys engage in a form of mental masturbation by claiming Dent may not be dead so they can set forth their pseudo intellectualism and claim to be "open minded." Their modus operandi is transparent b/c they engage in the same behavior in all the other threads.

This isn't very reasonable or open-minded at all. Which group do you suppose I fall under? I have reasons for why I don't think he is definitely dead, but you refuse to acknowledge them. I think that the arguments I have put forth make at least SOME sense, and I think that they do illustrate the ambiguity of the situation.

So, let's try this just one more time:

Scripts can change, even Nolan's. Novel adaptations of films do have a tendency to differ from their sources. ADD TO THAT THE FACT THAT "
TDK producer Emma Thomas fueled doubts about Dent's demise when IGN asked her about it following a press screening in late May. She told us that Dent's fate was somewhat ambivalent, and that fans could interpret it either way they'd like." The article mentions the script and the novelization, and like I've been saying, it is absolutely possible that Dent is dead, but it isn't DEFINITE.

The character's motivation is only revenge on the surface. Something much deeper has happened here as a result of what happened to him and to Rachel. He no longer has faith in justice or right and wrong and now flips a coin to decide things. His character is deep and very interesting and I think it'd be really stupid to sell him short and make him a two-dimensional "revenge" villain. I have way more faith in the Nolans than that.

The theme of TDK is escalation. Things got worse than they were before and Batman has to question his validity in this world. Dent was corrupted and driven insane by what happened to him. Whether or not he dies in the end has no bearing on the fact that Batman takes the rap for his murders in order to preserve his image (something that can't last no matter what actually happened to Dent) and give the city hope. Batman becomes the hero the city deserves by being the scapegoat. None of this changes if Harvey is still alive. The fall of a good man doesn't mean he needs to die; corruption is enough.

[Mangelo]

Slipping Halo, I share the same views as you do on the fate of Two-Face. This board cracks me up sometimes with people not accepting the opinions of others. This thread can go on another 20,000 pages, and we'll still be right where we are - split down the middle like Harvey Dent's face.

[Closerframe]

Two-Face's motivation was revenge there was nothing deeper, he didn't go after a select few of mob bosses across Gotham he went for everyone who had a connection with his accident and Rachel's death. His fate was determined for me when he said "You think I want to escape from this!" the entire film is about Harvey Dent, so the character isn't sold short or killed off just because the Nolan wanted too. There are no hints that the character has multiple personality disorder or schizophrenia, he seemed to be bi-polar. The coin he used was something that he always believed in before he even became Two-Face, it became the object for his final judgment and his final connection with Rachel.

People assume that you have to see a body of a character every time they die, Ras is dead anyone who thinks he survived the fall, or the massive explosion after wards are suffering from stupidity, same with Two-Face. There is proof from the script, novel, and Jonathan Nolan himself confirming it, this discussion of him being alive is pure speculation because of some fans demand of wanting him in a sequel. But lets take into account the possibilities of why this can't happen.

1. There was a funeral in his honor, people claimer over why wasn't a coffin shown. If their was one shown it would only further prove he was dead and I doubt it would be an open casket since his face was terribly deformed.

2. If he did survive where would he go? Gordan and his back-up were there Harvey didn't just simply get up and walk away from the scene. Another thing is people are saying he could have been hidden with Arkham, this would cause massive talk since the doctors would know of his identity and most of his fellow inmates. The word would get out thus exposing Dent and not Batman as the true murderer. Breaking Gotham's spirit and making The Dark Knight's ending completely unimportant.

3. What would be the character's motivation in the sequel? He attempted to get revenge and failed. The coin decided Batman would die, he shot Batman I doubt he would continue to flip again until he has to shot Batman again. For Gordan he wanted to hurt his son not Gordan, he wanted Gordan to feel what it felt like to lose someone close to you. The coin would have allowed Gordan's son to live, than what would have Harvey done than turn himself in? It would be more likely that he would have wanted to kill himself, since he obviously had no further purpose to live.

[Goodfellas]

Its bad enough we cant have The Joker come back... So bring back Two Face ..Aaron Eckhardt was a damn good Two Face he should come back as one of the villans.. i feel eckhardt was over shawdowed by heath ledgers performance( which i dont blame people because it was damn good)

[Toxin72]

I thought Jonathan Nolan already confirmed in an interview that dent was dead. This kind of discussion seems to happen after most comic movies these days. Give it a rest he's dead.

[Two-Face]

I thought Jonathan Nolan already confirmed in an interview that dent was dead. This kind of discussion seems to happen after most comic movies these days. Give it a rest he's dead.

That's not what Emma Thomas said though....

[Toxin72]

That's not what Emma Thomas said though....

But wouldn't jonathan have more knowledge of how things are supposed to go than she does?

[Charlie The Red]

If they seriously tried to lock up/hide Harvey Dent in some sort of cover up, I'd imagine he would be pretty pissed off/vengeful in the third film. I mean, they just tried to sweep what he did under the rug and lock him up without any trial.

[Two-Face]

But wouldn't jonathan have more knowledge of how things are supposed to go than she does?

I know he wrote the screenplay but Thomas is the producer of the film as well, to me he's dead but part of me wants him return in Batman 3.:csad:

[8wid]

Couldn't it be said that he's dead, I mean after all, TDK's novelization says he's dead, so thus he's dead. Case closed.

[Banquet]

Christopher Nolan didn't say that -it's the blog writer's opinion.

yeah, I figured that out. I did ask google, after all.

also coleman reese, you forgot the 4th group... the ones who don't give two shakes and avoid this thread all together.

[swapnilgyani]

I believe he's dead for Nolanverse. But the ending has been intentionally left open, so that a popular villain like Two Face can be used in a future non-Nolan Batman movie without having to reboot the series.

[Ratatat]

Eckhart signed on for two movies. They can go either way with it based off the ending of DK. You can't sit here and say that he is permanently dead because Nolan intentionally wanted us to wonder what really happened. I don't care what the script says, that script could have been changed before shooting, and likely was.

[chaseter]

Eckhart signed on for two movies. They can go either way with it based off the ending of DK. You can't sit here and say that he is permanently dead because Nolan intentionally wanted us to wonder what really happened. I don't care what the script says, that script could have been changed before shooting, and likely was.
Read the script...that scene plays out like in the movie. They didn't change anything.

[Brian Braddock]

So what we have here is an actor signed for 2 movies who says he'd jump at the chance to return to the role and a producer who's said the death was deliberately made ambiguous and open to interpretation in order to accommodate the possiblity of a return.

Offset agaisnt a script and novelisation that says the character is dead - any possability that the death was figurative and not literall?

[Smit84]

I'll admit that it's possible that Two-Face could return for a third film but for all intents and purposes he is dead for the time being. The story only works if he is dead. If he survives then, as Gordon and Batman put it, everything Dent achieved will be undone. Since there wasn't a line saying "he's dead" or anything, it is possible in the third film it could be a cover-up but in my opinion that would be cheap unless it's handled extremely delicately. I mean it would be no different than Sandman turning out to be Uncle Ben's killer in Spider-man 3. You didn't SEE the burglar kill Ben Parker in the original so the filmmakers took that liberty to alter the continuity. The only difference is people WANT Two-Face to be alive (which would change the story) just because they want their favorite villain to still be alive.

I read the script last night and the scene plays out on film exactly as written. They didn't remove any dialogue specifically saying he was dead; the screen direction just describes Dent as dead.

[Sparta*]

I think Two-Face will return, and when he does I think he will be even more insane from almost dying. DK seemed to be about Harvey a lot, but only an intro to Two-Face. I think his 'death' will be used as a setup to explain how he goes even further to the 'darkside' if you will, for the next movie.

[Kapital]

I think that is possible the return of Two Faces because in this movie he is not a real enemy to Batman. He don´t want to kill Batman. Maybe in the next movie he will increase his hate to the hero.

[CaptainClown]

Ya I actually want to see a type of redemption of Harvey Dent.

[Ratatat]

Read the script...that scene plays out like in the movie. They didn't change anything.

I have. He fell like in the script. But they failed to mention in the MOVIE that his neck was broken... and that he was dead. Intentional by Nolan of course. That's why we love him.

See how changes work?

[DieSmiling]

It's clearly implied that he is dead.

[CaptainClown]

It's clearly implied that he is dead.
89 pages of debating would disagree with you

[Ratatat]

If you guys read the Revenge of the Sith novel then you know that Anakin pretty much takes Shaak-Ti's head off during the Jedi Temple raid. But in the movie's story she actually escapes to Felucia and doesn't die and actually survives the Jedi purge it is told.

What I'm trying to say here is what happens in the book or some old script doesn't mean crap! The filmmakers make a movie for a reason and their version of the story goes. Nolan doesn't pronounce/make clear without question that Dent is DEAD. If he truly was dead I'm sure by now the actors and filmmakers would have said A TON on the matter, but that didn't happen now did it. Oh and why would Aaron Eckhart have signed on for TWO films if he wasn't going to survive the first....

We all know the door has been left open on Two-Face, some people just choose not to understand that.

[regwec]

but in the movie he is ded end of storey he is LIEYING ON THE|GROUND didn;t you watch the movie lol also th script says hes dead rofl end of thred close

Etc.

[Ratatat]

but in the movie he is ded end of storey he is LIEYING ON THE|GROUND didn;t you watch the movie lol also th script says hes dead rofl end of thred close

Etc.

http://hooked-on-phonics.com/

Good luck with that.

[regwec]

I'm absolutely sure that you must be double-bluffing the naked sarcasm of my former post...

[Ratatat]

I'm absolutely sure that you must be double-bluffing the naked sarcasm of my former post...

Haha I thought you were trying to be a role model for some of these guys.
:hehe:

[alexdunn]

Hmmm...I could see it going either way. Most likely he's dead but you never know. His eye was closed so he could just be knocked out. If his eye was open he'd be definatly dead. I could see a flash bac in Batman 3 of Gordon and Batman covering it up.

[Brooklyn Zoo]

Maybe we see him return like Ra's returned at the end of Begins.

Some random lady: "Have you met Two-Face?"

Bruce Wayne: "You're not Two-Face, I watched him die."

Two-Face: "But is Two-Face immortal? Is his face supernatural?"

Bruce Wayne: "Or cheap parlor-tricks to disguise the other side of your face, Harvey!"

[alexdunn]

Maybe we see him return like Ra's returned at the end of Begins.

Some random lady: "Have you met Two-Face?"

Bruce Wayne: "You're not Two-Face, I watched him die."

Two-Face: "But is Two-Face immortal? Is his face supernatural?"

Bruce Wayne: "Or cheap parlor-tricks to disguise the other side of your face, Harvey!"


Hahaha. That made me laugh. I always wonder what tha lady must be wondering at that part. "What the hell is Bruce talking about? Lay off the sauce man or you'll ruin your party or burn your house down."

I hate that part for that.

[Carmine Falcone]

I always wonder what tha lady must be wondering at that part. "What the hell is Bruce talking about? Lay off the sauce man or you'll ruin your party or burn your house down."

I hate that part for that.

And then she walks off with the fake Ra's, to the broom closet probably. :wow:

[itsthebatman]

And then she walks off with the fake Ra's, to the broom closet probably. :wow:
Yeah, I always found that... odd.
'I'll introduce you to this guy, Bruce, and then I'm just gonna head off without seeing what happens. Cheerio!'
Does someone have a link to where it's definite that Eckhart is signed on for two films, or is this one of those Chinese whispers again?

[regwec]

Maybe the fake Ra's was really boring, so she introduced him to Bruce just so she could get away?

[itsthebatman]

Maybe the fake Ra's was really boring, so she introduced him to Bruce just so she could get away?
'Keep this guy entertained, Bruce, I'm off to the free bar again.'

[I Am The Knight]

And then she walks off with the fake Ra's, to the broom closet probably. :wow:

Eww.

'Keep this guy entertained, Bruce, I'm off to the free bar again.'

Ha :grin:

[Coleman Reese]

Just checked. Yep, still deader than a door nail.

[Carmine Falcone]

Maybe the fake Ra's was really boring, so she introduced him to Bruce just so she could get away?

He may have been a excellent conversationalist... maybe there are deleted scenes, the movie should be re-released with those included in the movie... Scratch that, they should make a spin-off. God, the possibilities! :wow:

[regwec]

I could see fake Ra's returning as Nostro the mystic from BTAS.








Heh.

[That-Guy]

Read the script...that scene plays out like in the movie. They didn't change anything.

Has it occurred to anyone that the script may have intentionally been written to imply that he's dead simply because they want to surprise people by including him in the third movie? Do any of you remember what happened with Batman Begins and the ending being leaked on the internet a year before the movie came out?

[Spider-Fan]

Discussion over. Look on the main page. Eckhart says he is dead, and that Nolan told Eckhart he was dead.

DEAD! End of discussion.

[superadam87]

It's too bad that they didn't let Two-Face have a 2 film arc considering what happened with Heath. I think it could've been an opportunity to let Harvey carry over to a 3rd film and expand is story so it would have been more than getting revenge over Rachel's death.

[Mister J]

Discussion over. Look on the main page. Eckhart says he is dead, and that Nolan told Eckhart he was dead.

DEAD! End of discussion.
If only this community were that receptive to reason and logic.

This is were the truly resilient and stubborn arguments are made. Strangely enough, I have a morbid curiosity to see how it progresses.

[Ziggyman]

He's alive....He's ALIVE! Muahahahahaa!

[alexdunn]

Ehhhh If he was alive (which he's not) he doesn't really have much of a motive anymore. There's really nothing left for them to do with him.

[Ziggyman]

That ****ing sucks, man, at least we got him in TDK.

So, it's official, Batman broke his one rule.

...Not exactly...And don't bring that up...Ever again...You'll see why!

[BlueLightning]

I´m very sad of that news. but I have faith in Nolan, so I respect the desition he made. Though one can hope.

[alexdunn]

That ****ing sucks, man, at least we got him in TDK.

So, it's official, Batman broke his one rule.

Nah nah. He just chose not to save him.:cwink:

[Boba_Fett_123]

It's too bad that they didn't let Two-Face have a 2 film arc considering what happened with Heath. I think it could've been an opportunity to let Harvey carry over to a 3rd film and expand is story so it would have been more than getting revenge over Rachel's death.

What motivation does Harvey have to become some crazed supervillain, though? Once he gets revenge for Rachel, what's left? Continuing with the character would take away from the serious approach we saw in TDK. I'm quite pleased that this is settled and he's not coming back, because the way Nolan dealt with his arc was beautiful.

[Ziggyman]

Bring what up? That Batman broke his one rule?

No, don't bring that subject up again...

You'll introduce a whole new other argument that has like two other threads about it...

[zeptron]

I'm a little sad by this. I mean there was a lot of Harvey Dent but not enough Two-Face.

Oh well.

[thejon93]

Wow, reading comments on the front-page in the interview with Eckhart... lame. What the hell were you guys expecting? Two-Face to return as a ghost or something?! Was he playing dead the whole time, like Jigsaw from 'Saw'?!... Rediculous, man. Happens with every comic-book villain I've heard of that was great on-screen. I hear people calling Two-Face: "Venom('Spider-Man 3')". Bull$#!&! You mean to tell me Two-Face was poorly featured in 'The Dark Knight'?!... Bull$#!&, they did a great job with the character, and Eckhart added so much more, I don't even know how people can be crying like that, rediculous.

[thejon93]

It's spelled "ridiculous" with an i, not an e. And it's not crying, it's people who want a character to return. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I blame that mistake on my past teachers, I never knew that until now. Well, the fact is that it's pretty sad when some of them are so mad that they're relating the character to "Venom" because Two-Face himself was only in the movie for a minor time-period and, to top it off, they did the character justice, I don't know why they're complaining/crying/whatever.

[Anita18]

Discussion over. Look on the main page. Eckhart says he is dead, and that Nolan told Eckhart he was dead.

DEAD! End of discussion.
I find the conversation between AICN's Mr. Beaks and Aaron :lmao:, and that Eckhart knew exactly what he was getting at before he got through the entire question.

Beaks: And now the obligatory question: can you conceive of any way in which you might be back in--

Aaron Eckhart: (Laughs) No.

Beaks: Not a chance?

Eckhart: No. I'm dead. I couldn't even get the words out of my mouth. "Hey, Chris, am I--?" "No. You're dead. You're dead."

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38179

[Ziggyman]

Anita!!! Yes!

He says he's dead...Yet he would love and wants to come back for a third...Interesting...

[Spider-Fan]

If only this community were that receptive to reason and logic.

This is were the truly resilient and stubborn arguments are made. Strangely enough, I have a morbid curiosity to see how it progresses.

This time is different. The star actually said he is dead, and he says Nolan told him that. I think now people will listen to reason.

[I Am The Knight]

He thinks Jolie should play Catwoman? :down:

[Ziggyman]

How interesting? Elaborate, Ziggy.

Now he states that he's flat out dead...Yet awhile back he said that he would love to come back for a third...Why would he say that if he knew he was dead...And why is Eckhart saying this only now...When he's been interviewed so many times...

[Spider-Fan]

Now he states that he's flat out dead...Yet awhile back he said that he would love to come back for a third...Why would he say that if he knew he was dead...And why is Eckhart saying this only now...When he's been interviewed so many times...

Cause now the movie has been out WW for weeks. Before, it wasn't out in some countries. Didn't want to spoil the ending, probably.

[Ziggyman]

Cause now the movie has been out WW for weeks. Before, it wasn't out in some countries. Didn't want to spoil the ending, probably.

I guess...But if your an avid Batman fan...And the movie is already out in some countries...I think you would have already spoiled yourself quite a bit...But that's a possibility...