The Dark Knight Harvey Dent/Two Face Thread

[itsthebatman]

Spoiler

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

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

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

This ending leaves Batman tainted in the eyes of Gothamites. Fine for this movie, but how can he truly redeem himself in BB3 if Two-Face's crimes do not become public knowledge? Will he change his mind and let the cat out of the bag, or will someone else do it for him? The only way Batman can be redeemed in part III is for Two-Face to reappear, and be taken into custody by the Bat. I'd rather Dent's name be tainted than Batmans - Gotham will realies they need a Dark Knight, not a white knight.

 

[Agentsands77]

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.

In what is likely to be only a three-film series, do we really need two whole films dominated by Harvey Dent?

 

[Gianakin_]

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

I'm sitting an exam tomorrow and I'm not 100% studying, I'm sorta multitasking. It's cool, though.

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.

Exactly, 100% exactly. I'm sure TDK will retain its original quality no matter what.

 

[Diablo101]

He redeems himself by doing what he always does: Save the day. Doesn't need to take the blame off of him. Because that's what heroes do: They take the blame even when it's not their fault, and keep on going what they keep doing.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Ra is a ninja. Man could of been burned alive on screen and I would still be fine if he returned.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Stupid double post.

 

[Crook]

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

You're confusing what "fits the story and future themes" with "this is the only way it has to be done".

In what is likely to be only a three-film series, do we really need two whole films dominated by Harvey Dent?

Considering both sides of the personality are vastly different, it's not like we're retreading old ground.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You're confusing what "fits the story and future themes" with "this is the only way it has to be done".


Considering both sides of the personality are vastly different, it's not like we're retreading old ground.

Good point and also Dent wouldn't need to dominate the second. You could have all four (Riddler, Catwoman, Harvey, and Penguin) in a third film. They would all serve different roles.

 

[Agentsands77]

Spoiler

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

Irrelevant example. We weren't told in RETURN OF THE JEDI that Luke *wasn't* Vader's son, were we?

Spoiler

This ending leaves Batman tainted in the eyes of Gothamites. Fine for this movie, but how can he truly redeem himself in BB3 if Two-Face's crimes do not become public knowledge?

Who says he has to redeem himself? Part of the whole point of THE DARK KNIGHT, as far as I've gathered from the clips, is that Bruce has to come to terms with a shift in the role of the Batman. Perhaps permanently.

Heck, he's always been an iffy figure in the comics. Even recently, when the rumor was going around that he shot Joker in the face, Batman said, "Let's keep it that way."

 

[Agentsands77]

Considering both sides of the personality are vastly different, it's not like we're retreading old ground.

Well, sure it would. Both sides are present in THE DARK KNIGHT.

It's like looking at THE LONG HALLOWEEN versus DARK VICTORY. The second has some good Two-Face moments, but on the whole, it just feels like more of what THE LONG HALLOWEEN already did.

 

[Crook]

Well, sure it would. Both sides are present in THE DARK KNIGHT.

It's like looking at THE LONG HALLOWEEN versus DARK VICTORY. The second has some good Two-Face moments, but on the whole, it just feels like more of what THE LONG HALLOWEEN already did.

A small role in TDK hardly constitutes as grounds for "been there done that", if explored in a future film.

Besides, he doesn't have to be the only villain in the movie. Nolan likes to intertwine various subplots and characters, I presume he would not change the formula for a possible sequel.

 

[Gianakin_]

Irrelevant example. We weren't told in RETURN OF THE JEDI that Luke *wasn't* Vader's son, were we?

No, but my point was about the impact. The Vader/father thing, just like [BLACKOUT]Dent's death[/BLACKOUT] makes an impact and is a twist. But they're both one-offs. Once you see them, the element of suprise is gone.

 

[itsthebatman]

Who says he has to redeem himself? Part of the whole point of THE DARK KNIGHT, as far as I've gathered from the clips, is that Bruce has to come to terms with a shift in the role of the Batman. Perhaps permanently.

Heck, he's always been an iffy figure in the comics. Even recently, when the rumor was going around that he shot Joker in the face, Batman said, "Let's keep it that way."

How would he re-establish his alliance with Gordon, and his uneasy relationship with the rest of the GPD, if he's wanted for murder and can't prove his innocence? It's not like Gordon will tell the rest of GPD 'You know, it wasn't Batman that killed those guys, it was Dent, but keep it under your hat, yeah?' and that'll restore everything.

 

[Agentsands77]

No, but my point was about the impact. The Vader/father thing, just like [blackout]Dent's death[/blackout] makes an impact and is a twist. But they're both one-offs. Once you see them, the element of suprise is gone.

The surprise? Yes. The emotion and dramatic power is still there, however. But you tell the audience that Vader was lying to Luke in that scene, when they go back to watch EMPIRE, you've robbed that moment of all of its impact.

 

[Agentsands77]

A small role in TDK hardly constitutes as grounds for "been there done that", if explored in a future film.

We're getting a substantial amount of Two-Face in THE DARK KNIGHT, just like we got a substantial amount of Two-Face in THE LONG HALLOWEEN. And just like DARK VICTORY feels like more of the same, I cannot see a way in which a Two-Face appearance in a third film wouldn't be giving us more of what we already got.

 

[Gianakin_]

The surprise? Yes. The emotion and dramatic power is still there, however. But you tell the audience that Vader was lying to Luke in that scene, when they go back to watch EMPIRE, you've robbed that moment of all of its impact.

Ah, but after that, if you thematically tie it in the main theme of BB3, the return would not feel like cheating.

 

[Crook]

We're getting a substantial amount of Two-Face in THE DARK KNIGHT, just like we got a substantial amount of Two-Face in THE LONG HALLOWEEN. And just like DARK VICTORY feels like more of the same, I cannot see a way in which a Two-Face appearance in a third film wouldn't be giving us more of what we already got.

You get a substantial amount of Harvey, not Two-Face. Besides, I don't see how you could use up all he has to offer as a villain, with a mere appearance in the last fifth of the film.

 

[Gianakin_]

We're getting a substantial amount of Two-Face in THE DARK KNIGHT, just like we got a substantial amount of Two-Face in THE LONG HALLOWEEN. And just like DARK VICTORY feels like more of the same, I cannot see a way in which a Two-Face appearance in a third film wouldn't be giving us more of what we already got.

Dark Victory didn't handle things too well with 2Face and the aftermath of the TLH events. The potential was right there for the reaping, though.

 

[Agentsands77]

Ah, but after that, if you thematically tie it in the main theme of BB3, the return would not feel like cheating.

It would still rob the scene of its emotional and dramatic impact. That's unavoidable.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

A small role in TDK hardly constitutes as grounds for "been there done that", if explored in a future film.

Besides, he doesn't have to be the only villain in the movie. Nolan likes to intertwine various subplots and characters, I presume he would not change the formula for a possible sequel.

Exactly the thing that Nolan has done so well is mix the villains, love interest, and plots together. He knows how to set a pecking order.

 

[David Rice]

I don't get how people think Freeze could work AT ALL in the Nolan-verse.

Easy. Give him a weapon that shoots liquid nitrogen. Remember T2?

 

[Gianakin_]

It would still rob the scene of its emotional and dramatic impact. That's unavoidable.

How? If the audience feel cheated the same way that Batman does, that means the theme will get to them.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It would still rob the scene of its emotional and dramatic impact. That's unavoidable.

I don't get this point. It doesn't change the moment. The moment happens and how you feel when it does will not be changed from a film made three years later. You outlook after might, but if what happens in the third matches or even goes beyond the second film I doubt anyone would care.

 

[itsthebatman]

We're getting a substantial amount of Two-Face in THE DARK KNIGHT, just like we got a substantial amount of Two-Face in THE LONG HALLOWEEN. And just like DARK VICTORY feels like more of the same, I cannot see a way in which a Two-Face appearance in a third film wouldn't be giving us more of what we already got.

As Crook says, TDK is mainly about Harvey, with a little bit of Two-Face thrown in. It certainly doesn't utilise all that Two-Face has to offer. I would LOVE for there to be a returning villain in the Batman series - Magneto in X2 and Lex Luthor in Superman 2 have shown that it can be done without feeling like 'more of what we got'. There are different themes to be explored - TDK is about the fall of Harvey Dent, BB3 could be about Batman attempting to rehabilitate, as covered in DKR. If you actually think that is an uninteresting route to go down, and would give us something we truly haven't seen in a Batman movie, there's nothing more I can say to convince you.
As for interesting post-origin Two-Face stories: Dark Victory, Robin: Year One, his parts in Knightfall and No Man's Land, Crime and Punishment, Dark Knight Returns, A Lonely Place of Dying, Half A Life.

 

[David Rice]

I bet this is what Nolan wants. Everyone going nuts over Two Face. Is he dead? Is he alive?

Nolan is watching... and laughing! t: