The Dark Knight Harvey Dent/Two Face Thread

[Yurka]

Here's a shocker: Nolan never wanted to make Dent a villain. He's a tragic hero in Nolan's eyes. And in terms of a tragic hero, Nolan seems to have done justice to him.

And you're going to be dissapointed because even though TDK will be a epic masterpiece, it didn't set up a potential sequel in the way you wanted it to? Big deal. Focus on this film now, and worry about the potental sequel when the time comes (which should be about three years from now).

I think people here wanted TDK to end like BB did with the Joker card and that's not going to happen so everyone is all going emo-angry. Nolan doesn't like to make the same type of films, so he was never going to make TDK like BB. Just because BB ended in a way where you knew who the villain would be in the next oen didn't mean TDK would.

Now, I think that Two-Face could have been interseting in the third film, but I'm not upset if he's not in it as long as Nolan does justice to the charecter in this.

Im not gonna be as dissappointed because it doesnt set up a sequel, I'm gonna be dissappointed because Nolan has said he doesn't believe in killing off villains, and this, if true (denial ), is very hypocritcal. Thats what really dissappoints me.

 

[calibud]

Here's a shocker: Nolan never wanted to make Dent a villain. He's a tragic hero in Nolan's eyes. And in terms of a tragic hero, Nolan seems to have done justice to him.

And you're going to be dissapointed because even though TDK will be a epic masterpiece, it didn't set up a potential sequel in the way you wanted it to? Big deal. Focus on this film now, and worry about the potental sequel when the time comes (which should be about three years from now).

I think people here wanted TDK to end like BB did with the Joker card and that's not going to happen so everyone is all going emo-angry. Nolan doesn't like to make the same type of films, so he was never going to make TDK like BB. Just because BB ended in a way where you knew who the villain would be in the next oen didn't mean TDK would.

Now, I think that Two-Face could have been interseting in the third film, but I'm not upset if he's not in it as long as Nolan does justice to the charecter in this.

Amen, mate. I'm sure there'll be more than one potential villian set-up in TDK for #3. Just nothing OMFG exciting like the card in BB. It's sad that in the end, most people will be disappointed by their own presumptions than by the end product.

 

[bonesawmcgraw]

Sounds more like you'll be disappointed in the fact that he may not have any scenes in #3 rather than his characterization in TDK. That's cool, but be glad that Tommy Lee Jones wasn't the last we'd seen of Two-Face on film.

And a third film isn't even confirmed, so there is absolutely no merit for his dissapointment.

 

[Oryon]

Here's a shocker: Nolan never wanted to make Dent a villain. He's a tragic hero in Nolan's eyes. And in terms of a tragic hero, Nolan seems to have done justice to him.

And you're going to be dissapointed because even though TDK will be a epic masterpiece, it didn't set up a potential sequel in the way you wanted it to? Big deal. Focus on this film now, and worry about the potental sequel when the time comes (which should be about three years from now).

I think people here wanted TDK to end like BB did with the Joker card and that's not going to happen so everyone is all going emo-angry. Nolan doesn't like to make the same type of films, so he was never going to make TDK like BB. Just because BB ended in a way where you knew who the villain would be in the next oen didn't mean TDK would.

Now, I think that Two-Face could have been interseting in the third film, but I'm not upset if he's not in it as long as Nolan does justice to the charecter in this.

Exactly.

 

[Omega Wizard]

Like I said

Spoiler

If Nolan killed of Dent just to get out of BB3....

**** Nolan

 

[Crook]

And a third film isn't even confirmed, so there is absolutely no merit for his dissapointment.

No merit? Really?

Whether there's a third film or not, Dent's arc is done, when it should nowhere be close to done. They've explored one half of the character, and they've effectively brushed off the other. That book is closed forever, and that's where the disappointment lies. The character wasn't given his due.

 

[calibud]

Im not gonna be as dissappointed because it doesnt set up a sequel, I'm gonna be dissappointed because Nolan has said he doesn't believe in killing off villains, and this, if true (denial ), is very hypocritcal. Thats what really dissappoints me.

Nolan, Bale, and Eckhart have also said Two-Face is more of an extreme vigilante than villain in this film. That doesn't make Nolan hypocritical.

 

[Yurka]

Please tell me how you can do justice to this character by leaving out major themes and symbolism associated with Batman? Out of all the batvillains, Harv is the one that you can relate to Bruce the most.

Now, Harvey Dent may get his due in this film, but Two-Face? There's absolutely no way you can do that character right in 30 minutes and just leave it at that.

So true.

 

[MiniBond]

Ok...I'm not gonna solve the problem all by myself but come on..........I honestly, truely think both ways are good:

-Two face as a villain/vigilante opposed to Batman

[BLACKOUT]
-Two face as a fallen angel reminiscent of the "late" Harvey Dent
[/BLACKOUT]


But I mean........Nolan chose the second way and it TOTALLY makes sense !

I agree with the people upset here about [BLACKOUT]not seeing Two face again[/BLACKOUT]: I LOVE this character, he's my fav' Batvillain, I was delighted to hear that Aaaron would play him........but TDK is all about Harvey, his story, his tragic journey....and that could implie [BLACKOUT]killing him[/BLACKOUT] after loosing all that matters to him (Rachel, his job, his career, his friends)....that's it !!! It makes sense, I couldn't say it better and after some thinking I think it's an unconventional path which will be remembered in the future, which will divide people, which will please some, disappoint others but IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE !!

 

[Diablo101]

Im not gonna be as dissappointed because it doesnt set up a sequel, I'm gonna be dissappointed because Nolan has said he doesn't believe in killing off villains, and this, if true (denial ), is very hypocritcal. Thats what really dissappoints me.

He's not hypocritical. Because Dent isn't a villain in Nolan's eye, so he hasn't killed off any villain.

Please tell me how you can do justice to this character by leaving out major themes and symbolism associated with Batman? Out of all the batvillains, Harv is the one that you can relate to Bruce the most.

Now, Harvey Dent may get his due in this film, but Two-Face? There's absolutely no way you can do that character right in 30 minutes and just leave it at that.

Nolan did justice to Ra's IMO and he probably only had 30minutes of screentime, and it was never heavily focused on him. Same with Scarecrow.

Two-Face will have about 30 minutes devoted to him. That's enough for Nolan to work his magic.

Doing justice to a villain doesn't mean they need to have "X" amount of screentime.

I actually was not upset at the amount of screentime Venom had in SM3. I was just upset with the fact that Brock's development in the film was ****.

 

[bonesawmcgraw]

No merit? Really?

Whether there's a third film or not, Dent's arc is done, when it should nowhere be close to done. They've explored one half of the character, and they've effectively brushed off the other. That book is closed forever, and that's where the disappointment lies. The character wasn't given his due.

But, let's say Nolan doesn't decide to do a third film. Then the two-face character will still be "underdeveloped", no? In which case, why would it even matter? All of this stressing is based on the assumption that there WILL be a 3rd installment. When there is absolutely no reason to believe there even will.

 

[Crook]

Nolan did justice to Ra's IMO and he probably only had 30minutes of screentime, and it was never heavily focused on him. Same with Scarecrow.

Well this explains it.

I thought his interpretation of Ra's barely scratched the surface of what the character brings. And don't get me started on Scarecrow...

Doing justice to a villain doesn't mean they need to have "X" amount of screentime.

No, but there's a certain limit of what you can do because of it. With the complexities of Two-Face's character, I'd be hard-pressed to find any reasonable explanation in how you could possibly do justice to that element in 30 minutes time.

 

[Agentsands77]

Nolan's no hypocrite.

Spoiler

He said he had a problem with killing off villains. And in the original films, they did it so carelessly and pointlessly. But he never once said he wouldn't kill off a foe if he felt the story would genuinely benefit from it.

 

[Gianakin_]

He's not hypocritical. Because Dent isn't a villain in Nolan's eye, so he hasn't killed off any villain.


Nolan did justice to Ra's IMO and he probably only had 30minutes of screentime, and it was never heavily focused on him. Same with Scarecrow.

Two-Face will have about 30 minutes devoted to him. That's enough for Nolan to work his magic.

Doing justice to a villain doesn't mean they need to have "X" amount of screentime.

I actually was not upset at the amount of screentime Venom had in SM3. I was just upset with the fact that Brock's development in the film was ****.

It's not about the amount of time. The potential and relationship between Dent and Bats and Gordon warrants a second film. Comparisons to Ra's and Scarecrow are not really valid since 1)Scarecrow is friggin' alive for future use and 2)Ra's was at least given the courtesy of an ambiguous death. Since it's a matter of opinion whether those 2 characters were done justice in BB, I won't pull the screentime card, but I will say that their return is possible.

Spoiler

With 2Face, who has SO MUCH MORE to do with Batman, they're not even gonna give him the comic book death treatment?

Nope, sorry, it's not good to me.

 

[Diablo101]

No merit? Really?

Whether there's a third film or not, Dent's arc is done, when it should nowhere be close to done. They've explored one half of the character, and they've effectively brushed off the other. That book is closed forever, and that's where the disappointment lies. The character wasn't given his due.

There's always "more" that can be done with a charecter. Ra's could have had more, Scarecrow could have had more.

But fact is that this is not a TV show where you have multiple episodes that allow you to explore everything. This is a film, and you can't explore everything about everyone.

Batman Begins didn't explore every aspect of Batman, yet I still found it to be amazing.

 

[Gianakin_]

With the complexities of Two-Face's character, I'd be hard-pressed to find any reasonable explanation in how you could possibly do justice to that element in 30 minutes time.

To be fair, I believe they can do him justice, at least a certain part of his potential, in TDK alone. But by [BLACKOUT]killing him off without the comic book death treatment[/BLACKOUT], they deprave the franchise and the character of the rest of his potential.

 

[Diablo101]

It's not about the amount of time. The potential and relationship between Dent and Bats and Gordon warrants a second film. Comparisons to Ra's and Scarecrow are not really valid since 1)Scarecrow is friggin' alive for future use and 2)Ra's was at least given the courtesy of an ambiguous death. Since it's a matter of opinion whether those 2 characters were done justice in BB, I won't pull the screentime card, but I will say that their return is possible.

Spoiler

With 2Face, who has SO MUCH MORE to do with Batman, they're not even gonna give him the comic book death treatment?

Nope, sorry, it's not good to me.

Ra's has a lot do with Batman IMO, espically in Nolan's world. Without Ra's, there is no Batman in Nolan's world.

 

[Gianakin_]

Ra's has a lot do with Batman IMO, espically in Nolan's world. Without Ra's, there is no Batman in Nolan's world.

Of course he does. Imo, 2Face has more to do with Bats, though. And at least Ra's could still be back. Can you see where I'm getting at?

 

[Crook]

There's always "more" that can be done with a charecter. Ra's could have had more, Scarecrow could have had more.

But fact is that this is not a TV show where you have multiple episodes that allow you to explore everything. This is a film, and you can't explore everything about everyone.

Batman Begins didn't explore every aspect of Batman, yet I still found it to be amazing.

You can't possibly compare those 2 to Bruce's development in the movie. That's a joke. Bruce got at least an entire hour's worth of story, while Ra's and Scarecrow couldn't even scratch 10 minutes.

There's a difference between possibility for more development and plain under-usage of the characters' potential.

 

[Diablo101]

To be fair, I believe they can do him justice, at least a certain part of his potential, in TDK alone. But by [blackout]killing him off without the comic book death treatment[/blackout], they deprave the franchise and the character of the rest of his potential.

That's the problem: You keep talking about the franchise.

Nolan himself has stated that he does not make franchise films. TDK to him is a seperate film from Batman Begins.

As long as Nolan is in charge, the "franchise" is safe.

And the whole "Nolan killed Two-Face because he wants to end the franchise" is ridiculous.

 

[Agentsands77]

To be fair, I believe they can do him justice, at least a certain part of his potential, in TDK alone. But by [blackout]killing him off without the comic book death treatment[/blackout], they deprave the franchise and the character of the rest of his potential.

Perhaps so. But I'd rather have Nolan thinking about what's best for this story than for the nebulous concept of "the franchise." It sounds to me that this has made THE DARK KNIGHT all the more powerful, and that's what matters.

 

[Diablo101]

Of course he does. Imo, 2Face has more to do with Bats, though. And at least Ra's could still be back. Can you see where I'm getting at?

Ra's isn't coming back. Nolan has confirmed he won't, and he never will. Nolan is done with that charecter.

Basically, you would be totally fine if they pulled a Batman Returns and showed Catwoman, even though Catwoman never returned to the Batman movies. So as long as there is that fools hope that Two-Face is back, you would be fine?

 

[Gianakin_]

That's the problem: You keep talking about the franchise.

Nolan himself has stated that he does not make franchise films. TDK to him is a seperate film from Batman Begins.

As long as Nolan is in charge, the "franchise" is safe.

And the whole "Nolan killed Two-Face because he wants to end the franchise" is ridiculous.

End it? No. Planning to not return and give ultimate closure to characters someone else could use in a continuation? Yes.

Because whether you like it or not, it IS a franchise.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Like I said

Spoiler

If Nolan killed of Dent just to get out of BB3....

**** Nolan

fanboys

 

[sasquatchs]

You can't possibly compare those 2 to Bruce's development in the movie. That's a joke. Bruce got at least an entire hour's worth of story, while Ra's and Scarecrow couldn't even scratch 10 minutes.

There's a difference between possibility for more development and plain under-usage of the characters' potential.

You can't compare Bruce to Scarecrow and Ra's, but it sounds like you can compare Bruce's development to Harvey's in this film