The Dark Knight Rises Eckhart on Dent returning: "I could not possibly say."

[El Payaso]

The body in which both Harvey Dent and Two-Face and whatever other personalities might be born / have been born, died in the movie.

 

[RustyCage]

The body in which both Harvey Dent and Two-Face and whatever other personalities might be born / have been born, died in the movie.

That remains unproven.

And also doesn't address anything I said in reply to you before.

 

[liov]

He already did.

Dent died when Rachel died. This isn't the Two-Face from the comics, he doesn't have a split personality gimmick. (Although he could certainly develop one.)

Part of Dent died, just like when part of Dent died in the comics when acid was thrown in his face. It's the same concept, we're just splitting hairs. It's similar to people claiming that the Joker wasn't the full-on Joker because he wasn't permawhite. The idea is the same and the character is there.

He has his duality, he uses the coin to make his decisions. Just because he doesn't make any "I'm of two minds" puns doesn't mean he's not split right down the middle. It's altered, yes, but it's Harvey/Two-Face.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Part of Dent died, just like when part of Dent died in the comics when acid was thrown in his face. It's the same concept, we're just splitting hairs. It's similar to people claiming that the Joker wasn't the full-on Joker because he wasn't permawhite. The idea is the same and the character is there.

He has his duality, he uses the coin to make his decisions. Just because he doesn't make any "I'm of two minds" puns doesn't mean he's not split right down the middle. It's altered, yes, but it's Harvey/Two-Face.

Well no...the whole thing about duality is that the good part of Dent didn't completely die. That's where the duality comes in, because there still is the good Harvey in there. That's where the battle of Two-Face exists, because his good side isn't completely dead.

He wouldn't have a dual nature if Harvey Dent had completely died and Two-Face was all that's left. He would just be one scarred and evil individual. But part of the pain for Two-Face is that his good side isn't completely gone, and this is manifested in the coin flip. There's still a 50/50 chance the outcome might be good.

TDK's Two-Face really didn't delve into the duality aspect that thoroughly, but there wasn't really time to do that either.

Again, which brings me back to the point, the biggest reason I think this is pure Eckhart just having fun, is because three big time villains in this film would be a LOT to handle. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's really pushing it.

 

[TigerBlood]

I personally disagree that Two-Face didn't suffer in TDK. Harvey Dent was done beautifully, Two-Face was good, but he had much more potential.

However, I certainly hope we don't have the number of villains in the film that you've mentioned. I'm sorry, but that's just too many villains to do in one film if you expect them to get good character development and a good arc. You've said that no character's arc suffers in a Nolan film? Well, I'd agree that he usually treats his characters well, but sometimes his characters don't really have arcs, because they're side characters. Maroni, The Chechen, Scarecrow, Zsaz, etc. Small characters that don't really evolve much as characters, because they're not the main focus, and because there isn't TIME.

You're talking about having multiple MAIN villains in one film. Two is doable, but three is pushing it, and any more then that I'd say is getting foolish, because just out of necessity of time, someone is going to get the short end of the stick.

I mean how did Two Face suffer then? (not being dickish at all just curious) What more would you of done with Two Face in TDK's story? Nolan used all of the essence of the character and included some of his most popular story arc parts, would you have had him take over the mob? Him and the Joker took out the whole mob basically. If they are going to surprise everyone with a Harvey Two Face appearance in TDKR then there was no way they could of showed him getting ghosted in some jail cell somewhere, that would of ruined it. Sure we only got the scarred Dent for like 25 minutes or whatever but they fit a lot of his history into that film. I mean he took the Gordon's hostage in the final showdown, what else could you ask for?

The multiple villains things is always a tough one to argue bc of movies like Spiderman 3 and Batman and Robin ect. But Christopher Nolan didn't make those films. Look at Batman Begins. Ras, Ubu, Scarecrow, Falcone, Flass, Mr. Earle, Mr. Zsaz, and Joe Chill. Thats 8 villainous characters all got their moments, all had the essence of the character, all had as much screen time as the depth of the character allowed there to be. Everyone wishes that Scarecrow had more time on screen but to be honest he had some of the best bits of the film, what more could you ask for?

Then theres The Dark Knight. The Joker, Harvey Two Face, Maroni, Scarecrow, the different clown thugs in the prologue, the featured mob members (Gamble, Chechen, & Lau), the moles (Wurtz and Ramirez), & Mr. Reese. Thats 14 villains that had decent screen time each and we got to know a much as anyone would need to know about all of them. The Joker's complete character was there, already went over Two Face, the Scarecrow had his moment to shine in BB but had a nice cameo for continuity, all the mob members had their moments, Maroni was funny and what more could you of wanted from that character?

It's tough to say NO characters suffer in a Nolan film but no one goes hungry thats for sure. We as fans get greedy bc we get a Batman film every 3 or 4 years and we want all 3 hours to be the Joker gassing people and dressing up in different costumes and quoting himself from the comic books but thats just not going to happen. Nolan gets it and does every character justice. We're lucky to have him on this franchise and he's actually excited to finish it up. I know this is the Two Face thread but I really wanted to get that out.

Anyone disagree?

 

[liov]

Well no...the whole thing about duality is that the good part of Dent didn't completely die. That's where the duality comes in, because there still is the good Harvey in there. That's where the battle of Two-Face exists, because his good side isn't completely dead.

He wouldn't have a dual nature if Harvey Dent had completely died and Two-Face was all that's left. He would just be one scarred and evil individual. But part of the pain for Two-Face is that his good side isn't completely gone, and this is manifested in the coin flip. There's still a 50/50 chance the outcome might be good.

TDK's Two-Face really didn't delve into the duality aspect that thoroughly, but there wasn't really time to do that either.

Again, which brings me back to the point, the biggest reason I think this is pure Eckhart just having fun, is because three big time villains in this film would be a LOT to handle. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's really pushing it.

Well...yeah. That's what I was saying. We're on the same side of the argument.
I agree, TDK didn't address the dual nature thoroughly, which gives people an in to say that since "Harvey" is dead that "Two-Face" must still be alive.

 

[RustyCage]

Part of Dent died, just like when part of Dent died in the comics when acid was thrown in his face. It's the same concept, we're just splitting hairs. It's similar to people claiming that the Joker wasn't the full-on Joker because he wasn't permawhite. The idea is the same and the character is there.

No, the same character isn't there. He becomes Two-Face after being Dent prior. There is no demonstrated split personality, ever. But, like I said, TDKR could provide opportunity for that to develop. Maybe Batman coaxes the good in him to surface and that causes the duality.

But yeah, he doesn't have a split personality in TDK. He's just a man that's been pushed too far too fast, and is exercising relentless extremist ideals because of it.

He has his duality, he uses the coin to make his decisions.

No to the first, yes to the second. This Two-Face doesn't flip the coin because his two opposing minds won't let him choose (because that aspect of the character doesn't exist in TDK), he flips it because he considers the 50/50 chance to be what's truly and utterly fair.

Just because he doesn't make any "I'm of two minds" puns doesn't mean he's not split right down the middle. It's altered, yes, but it's Harvey/Two-Face.

I wasn't referring to puns.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I mean how did Two Face suffer then? (not being dickish at all just curious) What more would you of done with Two Face in TDK's story? Nolan used all of the essence of the character and included some of his most popular story arc parts, would you have had him take over the mob? Him and the Joker took out the whole mob basically. If they are going to surprise everyone with a Harvey Two Face appearance in TDKR then there was no way they could of showed him getting ghosted in some jail cell somewhere, that would of ruined it. Sure we only got the scarred Dent for like 25 minutes or whatever but they fit a lot of his history into that film. I mean he took the Gordon's hostage in the final showdown, what else could you ask for?

The multiple villains things is always a tough one to argue bc of movies like Spiderman 3 and Batman and Robin ect. But Christopher Nolan didn't make those films. Look at Batman Begins. Ras, Ubu, Scarecrow, Falcone, Flass, Mr. Earle, Mr. Zsaz, and Joe Chill. Thats 8 villainous characters all got their moments, all had the essence of the character, all had as much screen time as the depth of the character allowed there to be. Everyone wishes that Scarecrow had more time on screen but to be honest he had some of the best bits of the film, what more could you ask for?

Then theres The Dark Knight. The Joker, Harvey Two Face, Maroni, Scarecrow, the different clown thugs in the prologue, the featured mob members (Gamble, Chechen, & Lau), the moles (Wurtz and Ramirez), & Mr. Reese. Thats 14 villains that had decent screen time each and we got to know a much as anyone would need to know about all of them. The Joker's complete character was there, already went over Two Face, the Scarecrow had his moment to shine in BB but had a nice cameo for continuity, all the mob members had their moments, Maroni was funny and what more could you of wanted from that character?

It's tough to say NO characters suffer in a Nolan film but no one goes hungry thats for sure. We as fans get greedy bc we get a Batman film every 3 or 4 years and we want all 3 hours to be the Joker gassing people and dressing up in different costumes and quoting himself from the comic books but thats just not going to happen. Nolan gets it and does every character justice. We're lucky to have him on this franchise and he's actually excited to finish it up. I know this is the Two Face thread but I really wanted to get that out.

Anyone disagree?

I've outlined fairly extensively earlier in this thread as to what I would do with Two-Face. But as to him in TDK, I wouldn't have done more with him. I would have done less if anything, I would have most likely saved him for the next film, with his reveal as Two-Face being a cliff hanger.

And again, notice that I said three MAIN villains. Of the villains you listed, the ones like Flass, Falcone, Maroni, the Chechen, Scarecrow, Zsaz, Gamble, Lau, etc. They didn't have a character arc. And there's nothing wrong with that. They're side characters, but they weren't well developed.

None of Nolan's films have had three MAIN villains in them. Big villains that require character development and a full arc. TDK was the closest with Two, Joker and Two-Face, and even then, I would argue that Harvey Dent was done beautifully while Two-Face was done well, but did not reach his full potential. And that's with a character like the Joker where you didn't need to explain his origins.

If you want Two-Face, Catwoman, and Bane, and are okay with one of those characters getting the same kind of screen-time and character development one of the third-tier villains like Flass or Maroni did, that's fine. But I personally don't want to see any of Batman's A-list villains suffer because they were shoving too many characters in.

 

[regwec]

I want Two Face back, in a suit stitched together from halves of pinstripe and rough tweed, flipping his coin, smoking a thing cigar from the bad side of his mouth, and shooting mobsters with a two-shot derringer.

Come on Nolan, baby, you straight-laced vest-wearing bore!

 

[RustyCage]

I've outlined fairly extensively earlier in this thread as to what I would do with Two-Face. But as to him in TDK, I wouldn't have done more with him. I would have done less if anything, I would have most likely saved him for the next film, with his reveal as Two-Face being a cliff hanger.

In before someone replies 'Venom' to this and cries a little.

 

[sly]

It's funny how you people think this means Two-Face is alive. LOL @ u.

It has always been pretty obvious Two Face is dead, so I'm there with you. If he comes back it's going to be in flashback form (or the Harvey Dent commercial idea was a pretty good one). I think it's an exciting potential for Two Face's story to not quite be done... but he's still DEAD.

Bane, Catwoman, Talia, Strange, Holiday Killer, and maybe Two Face. Bring it!

(and throw in a locked up in Arkham Joker and Scarecrow cameo)

 

[batman11]

"Dent returning would entirely ruin the ending of TDK."

Not in my eyes.

I assume that you were answering with the thought that the original poster meant 'ending' in terms of Bats' decision to take the fall and coverup Harvey's wrong doings. If so, I'd like to ask how you feel about Harvey's arc in TDK being affected by a return in Rises. Seeing as you've been one of the more vocal (and openly excited) people regarding a return, I'm curious.

 

[liov]

No, the same character isn't there. He becomes Two-Face after being Dent prior. There is no demonstrated split personality, ever. But, like I said, TDKR could provide opportunity for that to develop. Maybe Batman coaxes the good in him to surface and that causes the duality.

I think the lack of duality is due to the poor representation of the character in the film, not the fact that it doesn't exist. This is a gray area that we can't discuss for certain since it's all in the mind of a fictional character that wasn't given enough screen time. You can't say he didn't feel a compulsion to flip to make his decisions for sure just like I can't say he did for sure.

I like to think he did, since that's how the character is supposed to operate, and I would like to think that in exchange for screen time, Nolan just fell back on us already knowing how Two-Face worked.

He had his duality before he was burned, he showed it when he nearly killed one of Joker's goons. It was desperate, but so was Big Bad Harv from the animated series. His dark side comes to him when he needs something to push him forward.

 

[RustyCage]

You can't say he didn't feel a compulsion to flip to make his decisions for sure just like I can't say he did for sure.

We're not debating that. We're debating the reasoning behind him flipping the coin. You say it's a result of his dual personalities conflicting (which is never expressed or suggested once), I say it's because he thinks the open chance is true fairness and that's the ideal driving his vendetta. My viewpoint happens to be supported by things Harvey actually says.

I like to think he did, since that's how the character is supposed to operate ...

It's called an interpretation. The character operates how the interpreter decides to have him operate.

All of the characters in Nolan's films have stark differences from their typical comic depictions.

... and I would like to think that in exchange for screen time, Nolan just fell back on us already knowing how Two-Face worked.

That's just making an explanation up with no supporting evidence.

He had his duality before he was burned, he showed it when he nearly killed one of Joker's goons.

You missed a huge part of that scene, then. His coin was double sided, and not scarred on one side. He was never even CLOSE to 'nearly killing' that guy. It was an act. Hence him saying 'Not exactly' when Batman asks him 'You'd really leave a man's life to chance?'

It was desperate, but so was Big Bad Harv from the animated series. His dark side comes to him when he needs something to push him forward.

It wasn't dark at all if you pay attention. Harvey's coin would have always landed on heads, and he knew it.

 

[RustyCage]

I'd like to ask how you feel about Harvey's arc in TDK being affected by a return in Rises.

In what context exactly?

 

[batman11]

In what context exactly?

To save myself the time of rewriting my post again, I'll quote what I wrote from a few pages back (which you may or may not have seen). It's just my take on why I personally wouldn't want to see Harvey revealed to be alive (there are a couple other minor, more superficial reasons, which I'll get into if necessary, but this is the bulk of it). It has less to do with the common 'complaint' of invalidating Bats' sacrifice, and more to do with Harvey's characterization itself. Perhaps my question (or rather, the context of it) will be clearer after you read through my personal rationale.

Spoiler

My only real beef with the commonly proposed notion of Harvey being alive and hidden isn't so much that it takes away from Batman's heroics, but that it no longer makes Harvey the traditional "Shakespearean tragic hero" who dies at the end of the play. Brought down by his own tragic flaw of relentlessly pursuing justice (after the scarring, things shifted in the realm of 'personal' justice), Harvey fits the archetype and the plot-based trajectory of Shakespeare's classic characters. I really loved that, and I was quite surprised to see Nolan and co. bring that to Harvey. By keeping him alive, it (partially) invalidates that aspect of the story (yes, the tragic fall is still there, but it removes a well-known staple of this type of character's arc), and I would hate to see that go; it was certainly one of my favorite things about the film.

I find it strange actually, that whenever the notion of Harvey still being alive is brought up, most people tend to focus on the story ramifications of Bats taking the fall, and Harvey's arc itself seems to be a slight afterthought. I've always thought that, with a bit of clever tweaking, the emotional impact of Bats' choice would remain had Harvey lived, but the pure tragedy element of his story would take a blow that I'm not sure I'd like to see happen. I suppose that it's simply a case of loving the story and the themes so much that, regardless of really liking the character, I want his arc to remain as it is, with him dead.

Like you, I don't really expect Nolan and co. to bring him back in the flesh (in the event that it happened, it would take some time for me to come to terms with it, but as always, I trust the men behind the story), considering we've had many clarifications of the fact that he is d-e-a-d. But, Eckhart's change of tone certainly suggests that he's either an awesome troll (which I still suspect), or that he'll be doing something in some capacity. Either way, it's fun to discuss. One idea that I thought was really interesting was the use of fear gas, as that could certainly get quite scary; imagine a demonic, distorted version of Two-Face. Could be neat, if it fits. There's also the idea of some sort of campaign commercial, or perhaps a flashback/dream, which I'm sure, if included, is necessary. Whatever it turns out to be (if it turns out to be... LOL), it'll probably be relatively small, but fun and welcome none-the-less.

All I can say with certainty is that Eckhart's sly smile has caused one massive crap storm, and a lot of discussion to go along with it.

 

[liov]

You missed a huge part of that scene, then. His coin was double sided, and not scarred on one side. He was never even CLOSE to 'nearly killing' that guy. It was an act. Hence him saying 'Not exactly' when Batman asks him 'You'd really leave a man's life to chance?'

It wasn't dark at all if you pay attention. Harvey's coin would have always landed on heads, and he knew it.

He still kidnapped a mentally ill man and pointed a loaded gun at him.

Yes, you have very valid and correct points. He says and does those things and proclaims chance to be the only fair thing.

I'm mainly debating this because without the internal duality of Harvey/Two-Face, it ceases to be Harvey/Two-Face. It becomes a disfigured man whose name happens to be Harvey Dent who is angry because Donnie Darko's sister was blown up. The character was well developed in some respects, poorly developed in others. It's unlikely the problem will ever be rectified, but that's okay, since the good points made TDK work. I can't argue that the character wasn't changed, I'd lose that debate.

However, considering that Nolan told Eckhart twice that he's not coming back, the fact that there are already two villains (both of whom will inevitably be taking up a lot of screen time) with the possibility of another that is not going to be Dent, and that the film is not going to be able to be 3+ hours long, I feel it's safe to say we won't be seeing Dent in any capacity beyond a flashback. So we're forever stuck, in the Nolanverse, with a kinda-Two-Face.

 

[liov]

It's just my take on why I personally wouldn't want to see Harvey revealed to be alive (there are a couple other minor, more superficial reasons, which I'll get into if necessary, but this is the bulk of it).

Wow, that is a really great point. Very well put, sir. The structure of the story necessitates Dent's death. Bringing back Harvey would be like bringing Macbeth back in Macbeth 2:Electric Boogaloo.

 

[Hamill-Joker]

He still kidnapped a mentally ill man and pointed a loaded gun at him.

Yes, you have very valid and correct points. He says and does those things and proclaims chance to be the only fair thing.

I'm mainly debating this because without the internal duality of Harvey/Two-Face, it ceases to be Harvey/Two-Face. It becomes a disfigured man whose name happens to be Harvey Dent who is angry because Donnie Darko's sister was blown up. The character was well developed in some respects, poorly developed in others. It's unlikely the problem will ever be rectified, but that's okay, since the good points made TDK work. I can't argue that the character wasn't changed, I'd lose that debate.

However, considering that Nolan told Eckhart twice that he's not coming back, the fact that there are already two villains (both of whom will inevitably be taking up a lot of screen time) with the possibility of another that is not going to be Dent, and that the film is not going to be able to be 3+ hours long, I feel it's safe to say we won't be seeing Dent in any capacity beyond a flashback. So we're forever stuck, in the Nolanverse, with a kinda-Two-Face.

Over simplifying the story and disputing the fact that Nolan can have his own interpretation of Two-Face.

Are you also mad that The Joker didn't fall into chemicals and didn't have bleached skin?

It is all about interpreting the character in their own way. Quite frankly I enjoyed this interpretation over the idea that he would become this "two" obsessed gangster boss.

I thought it was the best interpretation of Harvey Dent and Two-Face ever.

 

[liov]

Over simplifying the story and disputing the fact that Nolan can have his own interpretation of Two-Face.

Are you also mad that The Joker didn't fall into chemicals and didn't have bleached skin?

It is all about interpreting the character in their own way. Quite frankly I enjoyed this interpretation over the idea that he would become this "two" obsessed gangster boss.

I thought it was the best interpretation of Harvey Dent and Two-Face ever.

I know I am over simplifying. I'm backing off because I'm just angry about the character. Nolan is allowed to have his interpretation, I just don't like the core part of a character not being incorporated in the interpretation. I'm done debating because my argument is mostly comprised of my emotional reaction to seeing a character I love being changed so dramatically into something else.

I actually am not mad about the Joker because the scars are a reasonable substitute for being turned permawhite. It doesn't alter the fact that the character was broken by some form of physically altering trauma that helped turn him into the Joker. The character is still the same.

 

[Saint]

That remains unproven.

What would you consider proof, exactly? It seems pretty clear at this point that he's dead. Obviously Nolan could change his mind whenever he wants, but short of violently dismembering the body on screen, I think there's about as much proof as is required.

 

[regwec]

There is sufficient "proof" for Dent's death to be proven, until it is disproven. Left alone, few questions would hang over Dent's fate; readdressed, there would be few complaints.

 

[Infinity9999x]

There is sufficient "proof" for Dent's death to be proven, until it is disproven. Left alone, few questions would hang over Dent's fate; readdressed, there would be few complaints.

Agreed. There is more then enough to infer comfortably that the character is dead, but it is possible that you could bring him back. I just find it hard to imagine them doing it in a way that wouldn't seem at least a bit contrived.

 

[batman11]

Wow, that is a really great point. Very well put, sir. The structure of the story necessitates Dent's death. Bringing back Harvey would be like bringing Macbeth back in Macbeth 2:Electric Boogaloo.

While processing the film after the first time I saw it, I almost felt slightly foolish for not predicting his death. The signs were pointing to it, and Dent's story fits the tragic hero archetype (and plot progression) wonderfully. I loved that such a familiar character was mapped onto Dent's role in the film, and it really made his story feel complete to me. It also works, like many of Harvey's character traits do, as a great parallel to Batman. Bats could be considered a tragic hero himself, but not really in the traditional sense. He's a almost like a new spin on the archetype, as his flaw doesn't necessarily make him a 'bad' character, and his tragedy is infinite; there is no death to put an end to his misery. That's why I like to think of TDK as the "Fall of Batman/Birth of the Dark Knight," and why I think TDKR is the perfect title (and message) for the next film. But anyhow...

And so, we get a nice mirror with Harvey. Both characters are relatively successful when we start the film, and yet, by the end, they have both fallen. We start with Batman accepted (albeit begrudgingly) by certain citizens, the police, etc., and Dent is thriving as a symbol for justice (justice is more alive in Gotham than ever). Everything turns on its head by the end of the film, and now Batman is an outlaw, and Dent (justice) is dead. Both characters experience a tragic fall, and yet Batman endures. Why? Alfred tells us earlier in the film. He can take it.

I always thought that was another great way of mirroring Bats and Dent. And then of course, who's the person that turns everything upside down for these characters? The Joker. And how does his arc (questionable term, considering we know so little about him and it can be argued that he doesn't entirely devlop) progress? Upside down to Bats' and Dent's. He starts as someone underestimated and undersold by nearly everyone (I would go as far to say a perceived "failure" in the grand scheme of the city), but everything changes rather quickly, and by the end of the film, he has the last laugh. Despite what Bats may say, the Joker does win, in some capacity. And so he has this reverse arc, when compared to Bats and Dent. He ends up on top while the other two fall. Of course, the real Yin and Yang are Bats and the Joker here, which is why it is quite fitting that the casualty of their flip-flopping war is Harvey. In death (which, importantly comes by Bats' hand), Harvey delivers the Joker's final blow to Batman, setting him on the path that we'll pick up on in the next picture.

Phew. Veered off topic there a little bit. This would all be more fitting in my "Characterization Thread" (shameless link plug below - I'm going to go quote my post there), as it certainly starts to venture a little further from Harvey and back into Batman territory. Good stuff though!

(http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=347747)

 

[batman11]

EDIT: un duplicado.