The Dark Knight Harvey Dent/Two Face Thread

[ArcXIX]

t:

 

[donk70]

Quit exaggerating. Killing this franchise would mean a box office bomb, no more sequels, and a public outcry against this film. None of which seem to be happening anytime soon.

It's not an exaggeration. The fact is that if you kill the bankable villains the franchise will suffer. The fanboys are but a small percentage of the movie going public. The average movie goer wants to see villains that he recognizes. I doubt if Zsaz or The Black Mask is able to pull in the general public like Two Face, The Joker, Riddler, or the Penguin can. Start killing off the familiar named villains and the people will stop watching the movies. It's as simple as that.

Those are artistic changes to the material. Something that EVERYONE has done. From Burton, to Schumacher, to Dini. Let's not pretend like all writers follow a blueprint to the letter.

To use those 3 as examples to defend the right of artisitc expression is a poor decision on your part. All 3 of those gentlemen have had their share of detractors over the years, so it's like comparing Ted Bundy to John Wayne Gacy and arguing which one was the worse murderer.

 

[Agentsands77]

It's not an exaggeration. The fact is that if you kill the bankable villains the franchise will suffer.

Not if THE DARK KNIGHT goes over as well as we think it will. If this is the epic smash we all anticipate, BB3 won't have to do anything to be a hit. It'll have a built-in audience.

 

[Crook]

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.

Why would I, or anyone else care about what the reviewers think of a certain plot point? Most of these guys aren't fans of the character, so I highly doubt they'll care what happens to them.

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.

You act as if I'm complaining for no damn reason. Have you read the past few pages? Does it come off as complaining, or does it come off as a valid critique of this particular decision? Honestly. I'd have expected you'd give this forum more credit in how they explain their positions.

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.

It doesn't have to ruin the movie to be considered a bad decision, or a waste. I fully expect TDK to be a great movie (I even made a point to mention that in my first post, but no surprise it's ignored), but this particular plot point is gonna come off as a huge disappointment no matter what.

 

[Boom]

Still. SPOILERS concerning ending:

Spoiler

Two major villains used up in one movie. It's going to be hard to find another Batman rogue that can live up.

 

[donk70]

Not if THE DARK KNIGHT goes over as well as we think it will. If this is the epic smash we all anticipate, BB3 won't have to do anything to be a hit. It'll have a built-in audience.

Of course it will, because the bankable villains aren't done yet. You still have The Riddler, The Penguin, Catwoman, Egg Head and King Tut to pull from.

Those are the names that people know


And yes, The King Tut and Egghead refernces is an attempt at humor

 

[Agentsands77]

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

Well, in the hypothetical question you were asked, it was stipulated that nothing would come of it. And you said you'd still prefer an open end.

But he should keep his options open.

Not at the expense of the film he's working on. He has to make the right choices for THE DARK KNIGHT.

Seemingly making a grand film aside, I can't believe a decision of this caliber is being so widely accepted.

It's not. There's controversy in the fanbase, at least. And a few reviews didn't like it (themovieblog's, in particular).

Raimi was absolutely blasted for killing off every single villain

No, he was blasted for absolutely wasting a character and then killing him off. The death was just the icing on the cake... if Eddie Brock and Venom hadn't been so ill-used before then, I don't think people would have cared.

 

[Agentsands77]

Spoiler

Two major villains used up in one movie. It's going to be hard to find another Batman rogue that can live up.

To be fair, Nolan's never said he wouldn't recast the part of the Joker. And Oldman, sitting next to Nolan in the interview, suggested that it would be fine to recast the part.

 

[Boom]

You know, I've never really had much issue with killing off villains in movie adaptations of comics.

Comics are practically endless. Movies usually end up lasting 2-4 movies, so there's really no need to worry about having the villain come back.

 

[Crook]

It's not an exaggeration. The fact is that if you kill the bankable villains the franchise will suffer. The fanboys are but a small percentage of the movie going public. The average movie goer wants to see villains that he recognizes. I doubt if Zsaz or The Black Mask is able to pull in the general public like Two Face, The Joker, Riddler, or the Penguin can. Start killing off the familiar named villains and the people will stop watching the movies. It's as simple as that.

The only bankable villains for Bats is Joker, Catwoman, and maybe Riddler. Everyone else is merely recognized by the mainstream but no one is exactly clamoring for them to appear. Bats has the luxury of having MANY interesting villains in his rogues gallery, who have not yet appeared on film.

As much as I hate what's being done to one of the more prominent villains, there are still plenty to choose from that can make for a great opposition towards Batman.

To use those 3 as examples to defend the right of artisitc expression is a poor decision on your part. All 3 of those gentlemen have had their share of detractors over the years, so it's like comparing Ted Bundy to John Wayne Gacy and arguing which one was the worse murderer.

Good thing I wasn't comparing them in order of how their visions were accepted then.

But if you want to bring that up, then how do you explain BTAS being widely accepted as one of the more definitive interpretations of Batman? Despite making many alterations to the source material?

 

[Boom]

To be fair, Nolan's never said he wouldn't recast the part of the Joker. And Oldman, sitting next to Nolan in the interview, suggested that it would be fine to recast the part.

Call it an overdose of hyperbole, reality, or whatever you want, but Ledger's being hailed for this role.

"Best villain in a superhero movie. Ever."
"Oscar-worthy."

If Nolan can find someone who can live up to that, great. But from the sound of it, that's not going to be easy.

 

[Gianakin_]

Well, in the hypothetical question you were asked, it was stipulated that nothing would come of it. And you said you'd still prefer an open end.

No, no, maybe I was misunderstood or I misunderstood the question. The only way I would accept [BLACKOUT]2Face's certain death[/BLACKOUT] would be if the next installment was a reboot. I hope this clears my opinion.

Not at the expense of the film he's working on. He has to make the right choices for THE DARK KNIGHT.

I don't see how NOT banging [BLACKOUT]his death[/BLACKOUT] in our heads is not a right choice. Y[BLACKOUT]ou can still make it tragic with leaving it open[/BLACKOUT]. Not A LOT, just a small teenie tiny window.

 

[BatSpider]

You know, I've never really had much issue with killing off villains in movie adaptations of comics.

Comics are practically endless. Movies usually end up lasting 2-4 movies, so there's really no need to worry about having the villain come back.

I guess

and for the fact, im okay with whatll happen to Harvey, no need to go crazy about it

 

[Agentsands77]

Call it an overdose of hyperbole, reality, or whatever you want, but Ledger's being hailed for this role.

"Best villain in a superhero movie. Ever."
"Oscar-worthy."

If Nolan can find someone who can live up to that, great. But from the sound of it, that's not going to be easy.

Certainly not an easy task, and one I wouldn't advise Nolan to take. But I'm just pointing out that the door isn't closed just yet.

 

[Figs]

While it sucks that

Spoiler

Two Face dies

, I agree that we should get some villains that haven't been on screen before or ones that were but need to be done better like Mr. Freeze or Bane.

I was thinking about the ending where

Spoiler

Batman is being chased by the cops

and thought that maybe in the next possible film it would be a good/fun idea to use that fact that

Spoiler

the cops are fully wanting to take down Batman

, that Wayne should create his Matches Malone character to still do some crime work.

 

[Agentsands77]

I don't see how NOT banging [blackout]his death[/blackout] in our heads is not a right choice. Y[blackout]ou can still make it tragic with leaving it open[/blackout]. Not A LOT, just a small teenie tiny window.

Leaving the tiny window has all sorts of problems.

Spoiler

1. If there's no body, Batman's not going to be stupid enough to think he's dead for sure. And if he did, that's a whole lot of dumb.

2. You allow the hint that Two-Face is still alive, it robs the emotional impact of his death (it did for Catwoman in BR, and Jean Grey in X2, etc. and so forth). It also makes the death somewhat gimmicky.

3. The idea that Batman takes on the reputation for Two-Face's crimes to preserve the image of him as hero is a beautiful one. Doesn't quite work if Two-Face is roaming about out there somewhere, or if Two-Face later appears.

4. Two-Face then returning from the "dead" would be a terrible mistake. The return from the dead always ruins the potency of a character's death. Just like how Ra's recent resurrection spoiled DEATH AND THE MAIDENS.

 

[Yurka]

Why would I, or anyone else care about what the reviewers think of a certain plot point? Most of these guys aren't fans of the character, so I highly doubt they'll care what happens to them.


You act as if I'm complaining for no damn reason. Have you read the past few pages? Does it come off as complaining, or does it come off as a valid critique of this particular decision? Honestly. I'd have expected you'd give this forum more credit in how they explain their positions.


It doesn't have to ruin the movie to be considered a bad decision, or a waste. I fully expect TDK to be a great movie (I even made a point to mention that in my first post, but no surprise it's ignored), but this particular plot point is gonna come off as a huge disappointment no matter what.

As usual Crook, I totally agree.

 

[Solidus]

You know, I've never really had much issue with killing off villains in movie adaptations of comics.

Comics are practically endless. Movies usually end up lasting 2-4 movies, so there's really no need to worry about having the villain come back.

I agree, thats how I feel about it.

 

[donk70]

The only bankable villains for Bats is Joker, Catwoman, and maybe Riddler. Everyone else is merely recognized by the mainstream but no one is exactly clamoring for them to appear. Bats has the luxury of having MANY interesting villains in his rogues gallery, who have not yet appeared on film.

As much as I hate what's being done to one of the more prominent villains, there are still plenty to choose from that can make for a great opposition towards Batman.

But you're missing my point. My point is that sure there is a great many of villains to choose from, and personally I would love to see Bat's go up against The Black Mask, or Scareface/Ventriloquist, or Anarchy, but the average movie goer will see those names and ask "who are those guys"? Those 3 that I just mention will not bring as big as a bank as The Penguin, The Riddler, or Catwoman.

Good thing I wasn't comparing them in order of how their visions were accepted then.

But if you want to bring that up, then how do you explain BTAS being widely accepted as one of the more definitive interpretations of Batman? Despite making many alterations to the source material?

Because of the age factor. There's alot of fanboys who's 1st exposure to Batman was via this cartoon, so there's alot of who think that BTAS is the be all and end all of the Batman media- or definitive if you must. And granted, it was done in a great style and atmosphere that was comparable to the tone of the Batman flicks at the time. But lets face it, it really fed off the artistic licensing of Bruce Timm and Paul Dini. I won't even mention my opinion of making Harley Quinn canon.

So basically what younger fans are accepting vs what older fans, such as myself, accept are two different things.

 

[Gianakin_]

Leaving the tiny window has all sorts of problems.

Spoiler

1. If there's no body, Batman's not going to be stupid enough to think he's dead for sure. And if he did, that's a whole lot of dumb.

2. You allow the hint that Two-Face is still alive, it robs the emotional impact of his death (it did for Catwoman in BR, and Jean Grey in X2, etc. and so forth). It also makes the death somewhat gimmicky.

3. The idea that Batman takes on the reputation for Two-Face's crimes to preserve the image of him as hero is a beautiful one. Doesn't quite work if Two-Face is roaming about out there somewhere, or if Two-Face later appears.

4. Two-Face then returning from the "dead" would be a terrible mistake. The return from the dead always ruins the potency of a character's death. Just like how Ra's recent resurrection spoiled DEATH AND THE MAIDENS.

Spoiler

1.Not if he "dies" a la Ra's. The situation is dire and Batman will think him of dead, but that leaves the window.

2.I disagree. The impact for someone who will see TDK fir the 1st time will still be there.

3.It will work if redemption is the theme for BB3. That is, if 2Face is hiding between TDK and BB3.

4.That's like point 2, which I answered. Haven't read Death and the Maidens.

 

[Agentsands77]

Spoiler

1.Not if he "dies" a la Ra's. The situation is dire and Batman will think him of dead, but that leaves the window.

Spoiler

Ra's death leaves no window. If you think it does, fine, but it would be bloody awful if he returned.

Spoiler

2.I disagree. The impact for someone who will see TDK fir the 1st time will still be there.

Spoiler

Ah, but the impact for someone going back to watch THE DARK KNIGHT on repeat viewings will be diluted, because the fake-out will be apparent. The death will have been merely an illusion.

Spoiler

3.It will work if redemption is the theme for BB3. That is, if 2Face is hiding between TDK and BB3.

Spoiler

No, it wouldn't. Because once Two-Face makes a reappearance, the damage is done. And Batman's decision to honor his memory has been entirely in vain. It makes the whole scenario of Two-Face's death a rather pointless fake-out.

 

[itsthebatman]

Spoiler

1.Not if he "dies" a la Ra's. The situation is dire and Batman will think him of dead, but that leaves the window.

2.I disagree. The impact for someone who will see TDK fir the 1st time will still be there.

3.It will work if redemption is the theme for BB3. That is, if 2Face is hiding between TDK and BB3.

4.That's like point 2, which I answered. Haven't read Death and the Maidens.

Have you taken a break all day man? Still fighting the good fight.

The problem with this decision is not about its effect on the film. I'm sure a non-Batman fan coming into it would have no problems with what happens, and even as a Batman film I do not feel that it will ruin the film, in the same way as hoboJoker and the crappy Batsuit will make no particular difference. My problem is that it cuts off further opportunities for telling stories with this character, and does so in a fashion that makes it impossible to bring him back. This is truly a wasted opportunity to give Two-Face a starring role in BB3, great as Harvey Dent's role seems to be in this one.

 

[Crook]

But you're missing my point. My point is that sure there is a great many of villains to choose from, and personally I would love to see Bat's go up against The Black Mask, or Scareface/Ventriloquist, or Anarchy, but the average movie goer will see those names and ask "who are those guys"?

Success isn't generated by recognition. What do you think the general public thought of Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, and Riddler when they were first shown on Adam West's show? "Ooh, I LOVE those guys"? No. I bet half of them didn't even know they existed. But as they watched the show, they became intrigued and eventually grew to like them.

Those 3 that I just mention will not bring as big as a bank as The Penguin, The Riddler, or Catwoman.

I completely disagree. Audiences are gained by a "hook". I think if Mr. Freeze were done right, utilizing amazing visuals related to his freezing capabilities, it would bring in a much bigger audience than either of those 3.

Because of the age factor. There's alot of fanboys who's 1st exposure to Batman was via this cartoon, so there's alot of who think that BTAS is the be all and end all of the Batman media- or definitive if you must. And granted, it was done in a great style and atmosphere that was comparable to the tone of the Batman flicks at the time. But lets face it, it really fed off the artistic licensing of Bruce Timm and Paul Dini. I won't even mention my opinion of making Harley Quinn canon.

I think you're undermining quite a bit of what that team brought to the mythos. I admit, I grew up on this cartoon, but I'm not the type of person to like something purely because of a childhood love. I've watched many shows and movies that I watched and adored as a kid, but I've simply grown out of that phase. In relation to the Batman world, I "loved" Adam West's show and B&R. Now? I think their quality is not up to snuff in the least.

Timm and co. on the other hand, I've consistently been a fan of. You honestly think their changes to Freeze and Clayface in particular, were for the worse, just because they deviated from the source material?

 

[Diablo101]

No one is understanding why Nolan has killed off Dent.

Batman has to make a huge sacrifice at the end of the movie because of Dent. This sacrifice adds to the mythos of Batman and shows why he is "the silent guardian, the Dark Knight." The only way for this sacrifice to happen is by having Dent dying. Keeping him alive ruins the whole point.

Remember folks, in the end, while Joker may "steal" the film and Dent is the "backbone", it all comes back to Batman in the end

 

[Gianakin_]

Spoiler

Ra's death leaves no window. If you think it does, fine, but it would be bloody awful if he returned.

Spoiler

It was a rather extreme example, because he'll need a Lazarus Pit to get out of that mess, but my point still stands. A convincing enough death, but with a window.

Spoiler

Ah, but the impact for someone going back to watch THE DARK KNIGHT on repeat viewings will be diluted, because the fake-out will be apparent. The death will have been merely an illusion.

Spoiler

Well, if the whole "I am your father" twist is still working, I wouldn't worry about Dent's "death".

Spoiler

No, it wouldn't. Because once Two-Face makes a reappearance, the damage is done. And Batman's decision to honor his memory has been entirely in vain. It makes the whole scenario of Two-Face's death a rather pointless fake-out.

Spoiler

Yes, it takes Batman by surprise because he doesn't know he's alive. And yes, the decision will have been in vain, and that will be a major theme in the film.