The Dark Knight Rises Flip a Coin: Nolan or Two-Face?

That-Guy

Avenger
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
16,292
Reaction score
0
Points
31
Okay, this is totally hypothetical, but if what Aaron Eckhardt says is true, if Nolan directs the next Batman film, Two-Face won't be a part of it. However, as we all know, his death was left a little ambiguous so it is feasible that he could come back for part 3. I personally feel that he should, because Two-Face is just as important to the Batman mythos as a villain as he was as a hero D.A.

So let's say that Warner Brothers really wants to use the character again but Nolan says "hell no, if you do that, I'm leaving." What would you rather see? Would you prefer Nolan to go his own route with the films or would you like to see them take the Batman/Two-face story even farther down its dark path?

Don't get me wrong; I love Nolan. He's made the two best Batman films ever and his other projects (Memento, The Prestige) have also been stellar. But I also really love the character of Two-Face and I feel that having his "death" be a cover-up and having him show up in part 3 would give a sense of completion to the trilogy. So I'm torn. Your thoughts?
 
No the end result would be Spiderman 3. The Studio pressured Raimi to include Venom and look what happened to that. So best go with Nolan
 
I'd glady sacrafice a charecter "thats already dead" to keep things under Nolans view and direction in the wonderful world of Batman up and running...
 
Nolan.

Two-Face had his turn. Now a new villain can get a shot. :D
 
Two-Face is my second favorite villain after Joker.

But I can live without seeing neither again. Nolan has a vision, to forsake it just to see the continued use of a character who has much more power as a ghost that haunts the third film than the main villain is just a bad idea.
 
Two-Face is my second favorite villain after Joker.

But I can live without seeing neither again in this particular series. Nolan has a vision, to forsake it just to see the continued use of a character who has much more power as a ghost that haunts the third film than the main villain is just a bad idea.

fixed :cwink:

I'll take Nolan as well.

CFE
 
I love Nolan but the prospect of a cover up is intriguing and highly underrated and if the theme is redemption in the next movie could show a whole new side for Gordon, Batman and in general.
 
Okay, this is totally hypothetical, but if what Aaron Eckhardt says is true, if Nolan directs the next Batman film, Two-Face won't be a part of it. However, as we all know, his death was left a little ambiguous so it is feasible that he could come back for part 3. I personally feel that he should, because Two-Face is just as important to the Batman mythos as a villain as he was as a hero D.A.

Nope, we don't all know. What I know is that his death was final.
 
I'd be up for seeing Two-Face again (even though I believe he's dead...), but not at the expense of Nolan.
 
This is such a no-brainer.

Nolan is GOD!

And that's coming from an atheist! :oldrazz:
 
i love paperclips.




but i worship Nolan now :hehe:
 
Two-Face had his entire story in TDK and brilliantly done. He even provided a storyline after his death. The story doesn't need him again, what's the point in bringing him back.

And what's the "ambiguous" part of his death? He's seen falling to his death, death and then his funeral. Can't be more specific. They didn't show anything else in BB and I know Ras al Ghul is dead.



This is such a no-brainer.

Nolan is GOD!

And that's coming from an atheist! :oldrazz:

Which means you don't believe in Nolan. :csad:
 
I hate paper clips, burn victims with attitudes, and three letter words. so Nolan has my vote!!!
 
This is such a no-brainer.

Nolan is GOD!

And that's coming from an atheist! :oldrazz:

That statement is a bit much...an incredible filmmaker yes, but God...I don't think that's the case; in fact, I don't think it should be the case.

There's no singular end all, be all filmmaker...and were it to be argued, despite how great his Batman films are, I can't see Nolan's name being thrown around in that discussion quite yet.

But give him a few more non-Batman films and then we'll see...

CFE
 
If heads, the Defending Pokémon is now Confused.

I think it is more likely for WB to put pressure on including the Joker character than the Two-Faced one. Since he is less dead, I mean.
 
The thing with the Nolan universe, it does have an end. Though the Batman stories have spanned over decades, Batman in that universe is only a man and men die. There will be an end to his reign and there will be an end to his villains.
 
One thing to remember is to NEVER BELIEVE in Harvey Dent! haha.. ironically Aaron Eckhart LIED to us all!! Remember in those various interviews Eckhart told us that his face would get scarred by ACID. In the movie it was not ACID!! Who knows, Eckhart might keep it a secret if he is to be returning
 
Nolan.

Two-Face's arc is over, even though people complain about the screentime of the scarred Dent, the entire movie is dedicated to Harvey Dent, him becoming Two-Face is just the final straw. His story is over, and it was a great journey.

Enough talk about villains, the next movie needs to be about Batman and him becoming the hero Gotham deserves AND needs.
 
I voted for Two-Face, only because I think the Batman franchise went south in the past because the studio gave the reigns to one director. Don't get me wrong, I love what Nolan has done with the first two films. But I don't think for a second that he's the only director out there who can make a fantastic Batman film. That would be like saying only Denny O'Neil or Alan Grant should write Batman comics. Plus, Nolan doesn't want to keep making these movies. He's indy at heart, and I don't want him to come back just because he was offered a boatload of cash. If he truly wants to come back, fine. If he would only come back because WB promised lots of cash and first look at some of his other projects, his heart might not truly be in it. That's how you get a Spider-Man 3, if you ask me. The studio might have demanded that Venom appear in that movie, but ultimately, Raimi and his brother wrote a sub-par screenplay. If WB sticks to hiring top-notch filmmakers, Batman will be just fine without Nolan.
 
I voted for Two-Face, only because I think the Batman franchise went south in the past because the studio gave the reigns to one director. Don't get me wrong, I love what Nolan has done with the first two films. But I don't think for a second that he's the only director out there who can make a fantastic Batman film. That would be like saying only Denny O'Neil or Alan Grant should write Batman comics.

They can do this once Nolan leaves.

Plus, Nolan doesn't want to keep making these movies.

Has he told you this?

Nolan may or may not come back. Until he stops working on the Bat franchise everyone is assuming he's making a third.

He's indy at heart, and I don't want him to come back just because he was offered a boatload of cash.

Agreed.

If he truly wants to come back, fine. If he would only come back because WB promised lots of cash and first look at some of his other projects, his heart might not truly be in it. That's how you get a Spider-Man 3, if you ask me. The studio might have demanded that Venom appear in that movie, but ultimately, Raimi and his brother wrote a sub-par screenplay.They can do this once Nolan leaves.

They'll give him a boatload of cash even if he wanted to do another Batman film to tell another story.

TDK's success would have increased his salary immensely.

If WB sticks to hiring top-notch filmmakers, Batman will be just fine without Nolan.

Agreed.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"