The Dark Knight Harvey Dent/Two Face Thread

[Gianakin_]

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?

That's exactly what I'd want.

As for Ra's, he won't return for BB3, ok, fine. But what if WB decide that after Nolan leaves, the next Batfilm will be a vague sequel (aka the Schumacher treatment aka different visuals and interpretations, but follows the Nolan storyline)? Ra's can then return. Scarecrow and Joker, too. Heck, even Zsasz. Wat about 2Face, though? If they want to bring him back, a BIG deal of suspension of disbelief will be needed.

 

[Diablo101]

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.

I'm sorry, but I would want NO ONE to touch Nolan's Batman. If a new director comes in, I want a completley difference universe. No one should touch Nolan's Batman. When you let another director come in, you have an X3 or Superman III.

 

[theJ0K3R]

I would be fine if TDK was the last, just because I always thought you have to end Batman with the Joker, and this would be fine, though the story of Batman hasn't ended in these movies. I just can't see a huge Joker movie like TDK, then have some Riddler movie to outshine this one, can't do it.

 

[Crook]

I'm sorry, but I would want NO ONE to touch Nolan's Batman. If a new director comes in, I want a completley difference universe. No one should touch Nolan's Batman. When you let another director come in, you have an X3 or Superman III.

That's stupid reasoning. Those films failed because they sucked on a creative level, not because a new director came in to continue previously laid work.

There are several films that prove you wrong. Just look at the Bond and Harry Potter films.

 

[Agentsands77]

That's exactly what I'd want.

That's silly. Why have an open end if nothing's going to come of it?

And Nolan shouldn't be acting like he's running a franchise. He should be acting as if he's making one film at a time, and making the best choices for the individual films he's working on.

 

[Gianakin_]

I'm sorry, but I would want NO ONE to touch Nolan's Batman. If a new director comes in, I want a completley difference universe. No one should touch Nolan's Batman. When you let another director come in, you have an X3 or Superman III.

You mean Superman II, right?

And I'm not talking direct sequels here, I'm talking new visuals but the same storyline (as in "don't openly ignore and confirm the previous movies").

My counter-argument to you X3 and S3 is SR (which I liked, despite its flaws) and Blade II and probably Spiderman 4, if they go for a re-imagining but not a reboot.

 

[Diablo101]

That's exactly what I'd want.

As for Ra's, he won't return for BB3, ok, fine. But what if WB decide that after Nolan leaves, the next Batfilm will be a vague sequel (aka the Schumacher treatment aka different visuals and interpretations, but follows the Nolan storyline)? Ra's can then return. Scarecrow and Joker, too. Heck, even Zsasz. Wat about 2Face, though? If they want to bring him back, a BIG deal of suspension of disbelief will be needed.

If the franchise starts again with a different director, I rather see all the other villains rather than the ones Nolan used.

You still have Catwoman, Riddler, Freeze, Killer Croc, Clayface, etc. that can be used. I don't really want to see Joker, Ra's, Scarecrow, or Two-Face in the next couple of films. Joker and Two-Face will have been in two Batman films now. They don't need to be in a third one before those other villains at least get a chance at either their first time or their second time.

 

[Solidus]

The thing is none of the reviews, even from some fans of Bat lore have complained about

Spoiler

Two-Face's death

yes it sucks, that we can't see that character in more. But everyone said Dent is the back bone of TDK. It sounds like he does have a whole movie to see him transform, and have the Greek tragedy bestow upon him.

Remember, even if Nolan does 3 films. Thats like 7 hours of footage/characters/Bat lore he can put into film, compared to 70 years of Bat lore on paper. We can't have it all. And Nolan felt he gave him justice, and from all the glowing reviews it seems he did. I don't think Dent is short changed at all. Yes it would of been great to see way more of him. But sometimes less is more.

But it does sound like this whole movie will be revolved around Dent, not the last 30 minutes.

 

[The Sage]

I'm sorry, but I would want NO ONE to touch Nolan's Batman. If a new director comes in, I want a completley difference universe. No one should touch Nolan's Batman. When you let another director come in, you have an X3 or Superman III.

Just because Nolan is doing it great doesn't mean someone else can't come along and do it as good as he did...or perhaps better.

That's stupid reasoning. Those films failed because they sucked on a creative level, not because a new director came in to continue previously laid work.

There are several films that prove you wrong. Just look at the Bond and Harry Potter films.

 

[Gianakin_]

That's silly. Why have an open end if nothing's going to come of it?

You base this in that it's certain nothing's going to come of it.

And Nolan shouldn't be acting like he's running a franchise. He should be acting as if he's making one film at a time, and making the best choices for the individual films he's working on.

Naturally. But he should keep his options open. Like he already has done even before returning TDK was a reality. He kept the Scarecrow to use him for 30" in TDK, but he can't keep 2Face, not alive, but at least presumed dead? No, I don't like it.

 

[Diablo101]

That's stupid reasoning. Those films failed because they sucked on a creative level, not because a new director came in to continue previously laid work.

There are several films that prove you wrong. Just look at the Bond and Harry Potter films.

Harry Potter films are based on books that have everything laid out. Plus, if I had too choose, I wish Alfanso Cuaron was the director for all of them because HP3 is easily the best directed film of them all (though I find HP4 better because of its story).

Same applies with Bond. The early ones were all based off of books, and there are certain Bond directors who simply directed a better film than the others.

And the fact is that no HP or Bond film has come close to the quality of BB (and I doubt they'll come close to TDK either). When you have such a high-quality product, you can't expect a simliar quality in a sequel if the driving force behind the first two leaves.

 

[Gianakin_]

If the franchise starts again with a different director, I rather see all the other villains rather than the ones Nolan used.

You still have Catwoman, Riddler, Freeze, Killer Croc, Clayface, etc. that can be used. I don't really want to see Joker, Ra's, Scarecrow, or Two-Face in the next couple of films. Joker and Two-Face will have been in two Batman films now. They don't need to be in a third one before those other villains at least get a chance at either their first time or their second time.

You don't want to see Joker or 2Face again? Ok... I'm starting to see your line of thought here. I disagree with it btw. You can have new villains AND old ones, especially A-listers that have been used before. It's a great idea and it makes for more character development for the recurring baddies. It makes the saga more complete, whole.

 

[Crook]

The thing is none of the reviews, even from some fans of Bat lore have complained about

Spoiler

Two-Face's death

yes it sucks, that we can't see that character in more. But everyone said Dent is the back bone of TDK. It sounds like he does have a whole movie to see him transform, and have the Greek tragedy bestow upon him.

To be frank, I'm constantly surprised at the lengths people will support Nolan's decisions. Seemingly making a grand film aside, I can't believe a decision of this caliber is being so widely accepted.

Raimi was absolutely blasted for killing off every single villain, and MOST fans here throughout the years detested the idea of doing this and instead opted for the "Arkham" route. But Nolan does the same exact thing and now it's genius or what not. I'm baffled.

 

[Gianakin_]

Harry Potter films are based on books that have everything laid out. Plus, if I had too choose, I wish Alfanso Cuaron was the director for all of them because HP3 is easily the best directed film of them all (though I find HP4 better because of its story).

Same applies with Bond. The early ones were all based off of books, and there are certain Bond directors who simply directed a better film than the others.

And the fact is that no HP or Bond film has come close to the quality of BB (and I doubt they'll come close to TDK either). When you have such a high-quality product, you can't expect a simliar quality in a sequel if the driving force behind the first two leaves.

It's not a fact. Not at all. It's subjective and like you said, some directors can do better than others. What makes you think the next one won't do better?

That's how the people thought (oh, don't touch my Burton films etc etc) when Nolan took over the franchise, but we see how that went.

 

[Diablo101]

You don't want to see Joker or 2Face again? Ok... I'm starting to see your line of thought here. I disagree with it btw. You can have new villains AND old ones, especially A-listers that have been used before. It's a great idea and it makes for more character development for the recurring baddies. It makes the saga more complete, whole.

Look, if this was like a Batman TV show and they killed off Two-Face after like four episodes, I'd be pissed. But it's not.

I've always enjoyed having different villains and different themes/stories in comic-book villains. One of the main problems I realized of X3 was that the Magento charecter, who was great in the first two, got really predictable and annoying by the third. Same thing happen with Lex Luthor in the Superman franchise.

Now, I will agree that I think more of Two-Face probably could have been explored (just as I feel Ra's and Scarecrow would have been explored more) but I have faith in Nolan doing enough justice to the charecter and enough faith that he is doing what is right for THIS film that I'm not dissapointed.

 

[Crook]

Harry Potter films are based on books that have everything laid out. Plus, if I had too choose, I wish Alfanso Cuaron was the director for all of them because HP3 is easily the best directed film of them all (though I find HP4 better because of its story).

Same applies with Bond. The early ones were all based off of books, and there are certain Bond directors who simply directed a better film than the others.

Regardless of whether they were based off books, the translation to film doesn't make it any more easier. Not to mention with Bond, half the titles "based" on books didn't even follow it. It's still the director's job to maintain a sense of continuity, both visually and in the narrative.

And the fact is that no HP or Bond film has come close to the quality of BB (and I doubt they'll come close to TDK either). When you have such a high-quality product, you can't expect a simliar quality in a sequel if the driving force behind the first two leaves.

Why not? Is it unfeasible to believe that more than one person is capable of delivering a quality product under a brand name?

The Bourne series is a good example of seamless director shifts. And in months time, so will Marc Foster's "Quantum of Solace". In years time, Guillermo's Hobbit films.

 

[Diablo101]

To be frank, I'm constantly surprised at the lengths people will support Nolan's decisions. Seemingly making a grand film aside, I can't believe a decision of this caliber is being so widely accepted.

Raimi was absolutely blasted for killing off every single villain, and MOST fans here throughout the years detested the idea of doing this and instead opted for the "Arkham" route. But Nolan does the same exact thing and now it's genius or what not. I'm baffled.

Well, the thing is that Nolan gives people more faith. The man has made three of my favorite movies of all time (Memento, Prestige, and Batman Begins). His "weakest" film is Insomnia, which actually is a great film, just not amazing as his other three films. He is easily IMO the best director of this decade and I trust him more than anyone else.

 

[Gianakin_]

Look, if this was like a Batman TV show and they killed off Two-Face after like four episodes, I'd be pissed. But it's not.

I've always enjoyed having different villains and different themes/stories in comic-book villains. One of the main problems I realized of X3 was that the Magento charecter, who was great in the first two, got really predictable and annoying by the third. Same thing happen with Lex Luthor in the Superman franchise.

Now, I will agree that I think more of Two-Face probably could have been explored (just as I feel Ra's and Scarecrow would have been explored more) but I have faith in Nolan doing enough justice to the charecter and enough faith that he is doing what is right for THIS film that I'm not dissapointed.

Ok, fair enough. I just think that the Batman Rogue's Gallery is not as lavish as it's widely considered and I think that the A-listers should always be around. [BLACKOUT]Joker will be, but Heath won't and Aaron will be, but 2Face won't.[/BLACKOUT]

As for Magneto, it was refreshing that he was there. I loved him in every film. And Lex was annoying because it was the pre-crisis version. In post-crisis, he's essential to every damn Superman film, I love his interpretation.

 

[Diablo101]

The Bourne series is a good example of seamless director shifts. And in months time, so will Marc Foster's "Quantum of Solace". In years time, Guillermo's Hobbit films.

Actually, Bourne Identity is vastly surprior to both BS and BU. And Casino Royale, while a good movie, wasn't that amazing that it would be hard for someone else to come in and make a better film.

And the Hobbit films will still have Peter Jacksons influence on them a lot as he is a main producer.

 

[Gianakin_]

Actually, Bourne Identity is vastly surprior to both BS and BU. And Casino Royale, while a good movie, wasn't that amazing that it would be hard for someone else to come in and make a better film.

And the Hobbit films will still have Peter Jacksons influence on them a lot as he is a main producer.

Burton was the producer of Batman Forever, so...

This is getting into perosnal taste territory. I like the Bourne sequels so much more than the original and thought CR was the best Bond film to date, so, yeah... This discussion will probably go around in circles now.

 

[sclabguy]

Well, the thing is that Nolan gives people more faith. The man has made three of my favorite movies of all time (Memento, Prestige, and Batman Begins). His "weakest" film is Insomnia, which actually is a great film, just not amazing as his other three films. He is easily IMO the best director of this decade and I trust him more than anyone else.

sure he's a great director but i wouldn't say he's the greatest. and if he does kill harvey, which i highly doubt, at the end of the dark knight i will be morally pissed.

 

[Crook]

Actually, Bourne Identity is vastly surprior to both BS and BU.

I'd be inclined to agree, but the majority seem to think that the latter 2 are better.

And Casino Royale, while a good movie, wasn't that amazing that it would be hard for someone else to come in and make a better film.

Regardless, CR reinvigorated the franchise and was widely liked. QoS looks to be a step up while maintaining the same feel of the previous movie.

And the Hobbit films will still have Peter Jacksons influence on them a lot as he is a main producer.

It's still a different director. At the end of the day, Guillermo has final word on what goes into the final cut.

Besides, my argument was that there is no automatic loss of quality due to a different person at the helm.

 

[black phantom]

first time i post in the hype and i yust wana say "ALL OF YOU ARE GOING INSANE" i have two years reading this forums and i havent see you so frenetic an angry, your eating each other, calm down, count to 10, breath.

 

[ArcXIX]

t:

 

[Solidus]

To be frank, I'm constantly surprised at the lengths people will support Nolan's decisions. Seemingly making a grand film aside, I can't believe a decision of this caliber is being so widely accepted.

Raimi was absolutely blasted for killing off every single villain, and MOST fans here throughout the years detested the idea of doing this and instead opted for the "Arkham" route. But Nolan does the same exact thing and now it's genius or what not. I'm baffled.

And to be frank, on the opposite spectrum it is amazing to see people that want to find flaws with in something, and they will complain about something that all reviewers and people that had seen the movies have not complained about. The movie has been praised, and well liked by everyone. I just don't get why you want to continue to complain about everything that does not go your way.

Sorry, you did not make the movie, nor I, some one else did, and its what we got. And everyone seems to highly enjoy it. I don't see the problem.

It seems it was done in a sense that is tragic, and like I said Greek tragedy. I don't mind what you think, but honestly I don't mind it, because one thing, everyone so far is praising and loves the movie. And apparently Dent was given a good enough of a full circle. Because the reviews don't seem to be talking about how horrible that was. Even the comic book nerd reviews.

I'm still stoked because all the reviews are great. And I do trust Nolan. If the reviews were bashing the Two-Face thing left and right, and saying how it ruined the movie, then yes I would be worried. But I'm not.