The Dark Knight How awesome was Two-Face's face?

Venom

Civilian
Joined
Mar 21, 2002
Messages
692
Reaction score
0
Points
11
Two-Face looked amazing in this film. It really pushed the limits in being scary, without earning a R rating. I liked the permanent snarl he had because the lips were missing from half his face, and the eye movements as well.

I'm curious how they transformed Eckhart's face. Has to be CGI right? It doesn't look to be prosthetics. His 'bad side' actually looked smaller than his undamaged side. If it were prosthetics, itwould make his bad half look larger, not smaller. And there's no way they could do that eye with make up alone.
 
I thought his face looked terrible after the burn.

It was the most "unrealistic" part of the film.

Didn't hinder my enjoyment of the movie, though, but it was terrible. Batman Forever did a better job of making a realistic Two Face FACE than this movie did, which was bad.
 
Yeah if you like pink red scars on Two-Face....



I thought Nolan & Co did better job with Two-face's look.
 
I thought his face looked terrible after the burn.

It was the most "unrealistic" part of the film.

Didn't hinder my enjoyment of the movie, though, but it was terrible. Batman Forever did a better job of making a realistic Two Face FACE than this movie did, which was bad.

Because,If you had acid thrown in your face,your hair would just turn purple

:cwink:
 
Wait wait wait...Batman Forever did a BETTER job? Come on...
 
I think Two-Face was perfect.

I'm glad they killed him. We got the full arc of his story, heroic rise, to tragic downfall. If they had brought him back, I fear he would've just became a generic villain.
 
It looked fantastic, disturbing, faithful to the comics and actually quite realistic. I didn't think of prosthetics or CGI for one moment when watching the movie.
 
I personally like Two-face's character (including appearance) just as good as the Joker's. One of the most bada$$ parts of the movie was when Two-face shoots Maroni's driver while he is in the car. That was just awesome.
 
It was bloody perfect. If I see people wanting it more realistic I am going to vomitt... I mean here are the same people complaining that the characters are too grounded and stray away from the comics... but that Two Face was spot on.
 
I personally like Two-face's character (including appearance) just as good as the Joker's. One of the most bada$$ parts of the movie was when Two-face shoots Maroni's driver while he is in the car. That was just awesome.

Agreed. That was Two-Face's badass moment, akin to Joker's magic pencil scene.
 
I will say that too much was made of the gruesomeness factor. I expected much worse than it actually way.
 
Wait wait wait...Batman Forever did a BETTER job? Come on...

Yeah, that's how BAD Two Face was in this movie.

Bear in mind I am ONLY talking about his FACE here. The performance and character itself blows all others out of the water.

It was bloody perfect. If I see people wanting it more realistic I am going to vomitt... I mean here are the same people complaining that the characters are too grounded and stray away from the comics... but that Two Face was spot on.

This is a Franchise that is priding itself on realism and making more "believable" characters. Two Face felt off from that "realism" (in his LOOK only). I mean that is NOT how your face would look like if it got burned. It simply isn't.
 
In Batman Forever, it looked like the inspiration for Two-Face came from staring at a pack of gummy bears.
 
I will say that too much was made of the gruesomeness factor. I expected much worse than it actually way.

I think they were restricted by the PG-13 rating. I think they got away with alot as it is. I expected that face to get them an R rating.
 
I thought his face looked terrible after the burn.

It was the most "unrealistic" part of the film.

Didn't hinder my enjoyment of the movie, though, but it was terrible. Batman Forever did a better job of making a realistic Two Face FACE than this movie did, which was bad.

Evidentally you must have seen a different BF and TDK than the rest of us have.
 
I thought the look was terrific. I loved that first hospital scene, where the look was teased a couple of times: the first time he turned his head, you got only a couple of frames before it cut back to Oldman again. It took about three times for a full reveal, which was great.

There was one car scene where the camera was hand-held, but the CGI was perfect. That must've been a headache.

But, I guess if you have $180 million in your wallet, you can do this stuff. :D
 
I thought his face looked terrible after the burn.

It was the most "unrealistic" part of the film.

Didn't hinder my enjoyment of the movie, though, but it was terrible. Batman Forever did a better job of making a realistic Two Face FACE than this movie did, which was bad.

you really seem to know what your talking about, oh you do alright! lol:whatever:
 
I liked it. It must have been hard to think of something that would work well.
 
Pictures speak louder than actions....

TwoFace-2.jpg
 
Evidentally you must have seen a different BF and TDK than the rest of us have.

lol

You all did not comprehend what I was saying.

You seem to think that I am PRAISING Batman Forever's Two Face.

No, I'm doing no such thing. Batman Forever's Twoface was HIDEOUSLY unrealistic.

But it was still more "real" than TDK Two Face.

AGAIN, I AM TALKING ONLY LOOK HERE.
 
^
Thats looks awful, even when I was a kid and a big fan of the film, I never liked the look they gave him.
 
lol

You all did not comprehend what I was saying.

You seem to think that I am PRAISING Batman Forever's Two Face.

No, I'm doing no such thing. Batman Forever's Twoface was HIDEOUSLY unrealistic.

But it was still more "real" than TDK Two Face.

AGAIN, I AM TALKING ONLY LOOK HERE.

How is chewed up bubblegum looking scars on your face with purple hair more realistic then Eckharts scars and burns? Could you please explain yourself?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"