The Dark Knight Harvey Dent/Two Face Thread

[omid17]

don't worry about the movie comes out in 19 days

 

[David Rice]

It would be like what Spiderman 3 did to Venom i think and god knows none of us want that.

Not necessarily, it depends on how the movie plays. Eddie is pretty much a useless character, but you make him into Venom and he gets a lot more interesting.

 

[Agentsands77]

Why is he a reliable source? He's just another guy.

Why isn't he reliable? He's an entertainment writer who's pretty well known in movie news circles. This is what he does as a living. He even appears on television occasionally as a movie reviewer. He saw the film. What more do you want?

Seriously, the degree of skepticism some folks have.

 

[redfirebird2008]

CHUD is one of the biggest toilet bowls on the internet....

FIFY.

 

[Axtech]

Spoiler

IF two face dying is true

I give that a big

The main reason is because it makes such a colorful, GROWING universe for DC much smaller by eliminating such a pivotal character.

I don't really think the DC movie universe is growing in that way. In fact, once Nolan is finished his run, I imagine any future Batman movies will have nothing to do with these movies. Just as the JLA movie isn't in the same continuity, future post-Nolan movies won't be either.

Think of it this way: Nolan is essentially doing a non-canon run of graphic novels. I much prefer this conception of comic book movies, since the alternative seems to result in fanboys arguing about whether or not an interpretation is "definitive" or accurate enough.

Although I'm quite disappointed with this apparent turn of events, I'll reserve judgment until after I see the movie. Given Nolan's record for storytelling, it will probably make perfect sense in context.

 

[Marx]

Why isn't he reliable? He's an entertainment writer who's pretty well known in movie news circles. This is what he does as a living. He even appears on television occasionally as a movie reviewer. He saw the film. What more do you want?

Seriously, the degree of skepticism some folks have.

In the age of the internet, you should always maintain a level of skepticism Agentsands.

 

[David Rice]

don't worry about the movie comes out in 19 days

18

; )

 

[David Rice]

Why isn't he reliable? He's an entertainment writer who's pretty well known in movie news circles. This is what he does as a living. He even appears on television occasionally as a movie reviewer. He saw the film. What more do you want?

Seriously, the degree of skepticism some folks have.

It's not skepticism, I already started that with this many people saying the same thing I buy it, but when it first came out I didn't.

And the reasons that where given for the guy being a reliable source were just lame.

 

[David Rice]

In the age of the internet, you should always maintain a level of skepticism Agentsands.

Yes. Thank you sir.

 

[Agentsands77]

In the age of the internet, you should always maintain a level of skepticism Agentsands.

Indeed you should. The internet's got crazy stuff floating all around. But there are sources worth more skepticism than others, and you can occasionally find a source you can reasonably put a degree of faith in. I've been reading Devin for a long time. If I hadn't been familiar with the guy for so long, I might be more skeptical... but this isn't a guy who's going to make crap up. Especially not when he's trying to build up his validity regarding THE DARK KNIGHT.

Seriously, I lose brain cells every time I post on this forum.

 

[Marx]

Indeed you should. The internet's got crazy stuff floating all around. But there are sources worth more skepticism than others, and you can occasionally find a source you can reasonably put a degree of faith in. I've been reading Devin for a long time. If I hadn't been familiar with the guy for so long, I might be more skeptical... but this isn't a guy who's going to make crap up. Especially not when he's trying to build up his validity regarding THE DARK KNIGHT. Seriously, I lose brain cells every time I post on this forum.

I can agree with that. That being said though, it is still the internet. (No matter how 'reliable' the source may claim to be.)

 

[Marx]

double post

 

[Agentsands77]

That being said though, just because it is on the internet doesn't make it true.

I haven't seen anyone apply that level of reasoning. Of course not everything written on the internet is true. That's obvious.

(No matter how 'reliable' the source may claim to be.)

It's not about how reliable Devin claims to be. The guy does have a track record. He's offensive, has bold opinions, and rubs people the wrong way (including me). But I don't believe he's the kind of guy to spit out crap, especially in this case.

 

[Marx]

I haven't seen anyone apply that level of reasoning. Of course not everything written on the internet is true. That's obvious.

I didn't mean to imply that you followed that mentality.

It's not about how reliable Devin claims to be. The guy does have a track record. He's offensive, has bold opinions, and rubs people the wrong way (including me). But I don't believe he's the kind of guy to spit out crap, especially in this case.

I can respect that. I'm just saying that, track record or not, everyone is capable of allowing their own personal feelings to dictate what they want to write, report, or post.

I just find it funny how alot of people feed the rumor-mill and then proceed into an argument over whose rumor and source is more reliable and factual. (As I've said before.)

 

[xero1186]

I don't really think the DC movie universe is growing in that way. In fact, once Nolan is finished his run, I imagine any future Batman movies will have nothing to do with these movies. Just as the JLA movie isn't in the same continuity, future post-Nolan movies won't be either.

Think of it this way: Nolan is essentially doing a non-canon run of graphic novels. I much prefer this conception of comic book movies, since the alternative seems to result in fanboys arguing about whether or not an interpretation is "definitive" or accurate enough.

Although I'm quite disappointed with this apparent turn of events, I'll reserve judgment until after I see the movie. Given Nolan's record for storytelling, it will probably make perfect sense in context.

Even if the DC universe is going in that direction it would be nice to see Gotham and Batman grow in that direction.

It just feels like the only reason

Spoiler

to kill two-face

is to obtain a very unnecessary sense of closure. Now, I understand that Nolan does these films one by one with no real insight to whether or not he'll do another. It just feels like a cop out. I just get the vibe that his decision(if it's true) is to say

Spoiler

with two-face dead I have the option to stop here.

I understand that

Spoiler

to let him live

would make everything feel very open ended but I would much prefer that be the case.

 

[Axtech]

I'm gonna throw this all in spoiler tabs just so it's not too obvious what we're discussing, haha

Spoiler

I definitely agree, and I'd much rather see Two-Face survive. But in the end, I think it could work for the movie depending on how it's done and what exactly goes down. And though it means we probably won't see Two-Face in another Nolan movie, it certainly doesn't mean we'll never see him done right on-screen again.

 

[xero1186]

I'm gonna throw this all in spoiler tabs just so it's not too obvious what we're discussing, haha

Spoiler

I definitely agree, and I'd much rather see Two-Face survive. But in the end, I think it could work for the movie depending on how it's done and what exactly goes down. And though it means we probably won't see Two-Face in another Nolan movie, it certainly doesn't mean we'll never see him done right on-screen again.

Spoiler

Well, here's what it really comes down to for me. It's a lose/lose situation where 1. Nolan comes back to make a 3rd and then there's no sign of 2 face in it (if only for a scene like crane's is supposed to be like) and 2. Nolan doesn't make a 3rd film and we see the end of Batman movies for a little while.

 

[Robin91939]

[BLACKOUT]I have no problem if Harvey's death plays out like it does in Dark Victory. If he is seen falling to a near certain death and there is a conversation between Batman and Gordon about being as sure that Harvey is dead without seeing a body. I don't need to see a shot of Harvey living safe and sound like in Dark Victory but I think it's handled pretty well in that story. And wouldn't mind something similar, IF HE HAS TO DIE.

If there is a funeral where we see a body, as rumored- I can live with it- if the story of Harvey Dent/Two-Face is done properly, but best case scenario, for me, is that he is presumed dead but can return...


Also- how does Batman take responsibility for Two-face's crimes? Does he release a statement through Gordon? A letter ala the end of Batman? How would Batman communicate with the public like that?

Or....is it just assumed that Batman did these terrible deeds and Bruce has no intention of clearing his name in an attempt to save Harvey's image.

Then again- if Harvey is now dead, Gordon certainly doesn't like Harvey anymore (on account that Two-face murders members of his family), and Rachel is dead so its not like Bruce is protecting Harvey's image for her sake.....why does he take the wrap for it all?

I know the thing is Bruce wants Gotham to keep their hope that someone could be incorruptible, and he wants them to believe that Harvey never went rogue. So maybe they could accept another White Knight if one were to ever arrive one day in Gotham- but can't that now be Batman? Since Bruce now knows that he has to be Batman indefinitely- wouldn't he want to be seen as that beacon of light considering he's still alive and the last hope for Gotham?[/BLACKOUT]

-R

 

[Bat-Mite]

Spoiler

Gary Oldman kind of just threw a wrench into this whole "Omg, Harvey is dead!" thing. Towards the end of this video, he talks about Batman having to hunt Harvey down in the third one (or vice versa, it's difficult to tell from the way he words it). But the important thing is, he's saying Harvey is alive.

 

[KILLING JOKER]

Spoiler

Gary Oldman kind of just threw a wrench into this whole "Omg, Harvey is dead!" thing. Towards the end of this video, he talks about Batman having to hunt Harvey down in the third one (or vice versa, it's difficult to tell from the way he words it). But the important thing is, he's saying Harvey is alive.

Ummm, he's talking about Batman.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Ummm, he's talking about Batman.

Yeah, I figured that was the case, since it wouldn't make much sense if it were the other way around. lol. But like I said, he worded it strangely.

 

[KILLING JOKER]

Yeah, I figured that was the case, since it wouldn't make much sense if it were the other way around. lol. But like I said, he worded it strangely.

I wish you were right though...lol

 

[Batman jr.]

Not necessarily, it depends on how the movie plays. Eddie is pretty much a useless character, but you make him into Venom and he gets a lot more interesting.

I'm not a big fan of the demise of a certain character, but all these comparisons with SM:3 are starting to get annoying. One guy says that it's like Eddie/Venom and automatically it means it'll be excatly like that???

Don't you think that he was talking about the amount of screentime for TF?

Even if it isn't like Heat or The Godfather, TDK will be 1000 times better than the huge pile of stupid dancing-BS SM:3 was.

 

[HopeOfTheFuture]

Two-Face dying is somehow realistic. I mean, with no medication or treatment against such a facial wounds, I wonder how long someone would live in the realistic Nolan world.

 

[Batman jr.]

Two-Face dying is somehow realistic. I mean, with no medication or treatment against such a facial wounds, I wonder how long someone would live in the realistic Nolan world.

Well, at least he won't be electrocuted and replaced by Christoper Walken
or act a Joker/Jim Carrey-copy...