The Dark Knight Let's debate various aspects of TDK

[Keyser Sushi]

Not at all. Besides you, the only respondent has said only that I've "failed epically." This is what I described: a person may come in here and make a nice post, but it will not stimulate any higher standard than it would anywhere else. People will still respond with gems like "Epic fail."

Like Shoe said, lighten up a little my good man. There's always room for a joke or three. I guess I just believe that even the lamest of posters can be motivated to start arguing more intelligently if properly prodded. Lord knows I've seen it happen. I used to call out trolls to defend their point of view and we'd go around and around until they finally would start trying - though they usually lacked the intelligence to do so convincingly.

Damn, was that exhausting, though.

Talking to people who agree with you is frequently boring.

Depending on context, but yes. In a place like this it's especially true. Without a voice of dissent there can be no progress made. Science needs a measure of doubt or skepticism. Shadows need light, up needs down, all of that. Pure Daoism, if you ask me.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I remember hearing that as well. I'm hoping Nolan is a man of his word and lets Batman do way more detective work in TDK.

Yeah, I'm with you on that. I always prefer detective work over gadgetry. Casino Royale >>>>>>>>>>>>> Die Another Day.

I'm not sure what that apparatus is either, but it always reminded me of that "blocker thingy" that Bats uses in B89 when he's fighting the Ray Charles thug on top of the bell tower.

Hahaha... yeah, that's crossed my mind as well. I always wondered about those things that seemed to randomly pop out of Keaton's costume...

(Why did nothing randomly pop out of Pfieffer's? I mean, er...)

 

[Shoemeister]

I'd have to wonder about that as well. Honestly I've always thought the best aspect of a Two-Face story would be if Batman winds up having to protect somebody he normally would be fighting (like Joker or Maroni or somebody) from Two-Face, who wants to kill them. Two-Face who used to be Batman's ally.

This is similar to what I have wanted to see, too. It's also been speculated that a scenario like this would happen. It's just too bad that we'll never get to see Bats "team up" with Ledger's Joker.

As for all of the recasting talk, I really have no opinion at this point in time. But chances are, after I see TDK, it's something I won't even be able to fathom.

 

[The Battousai]

Yeah, I'm with you on that. I always prefer detective work over gadgetry. Casino Royale >>>>>>>>>>>>> Die Another Day.

QFT

Hahaha... yeah, that's crossed my mind as well. I always wondered about those things that seemed to randomly pop out of Keaton's costume...

(Why did nothing randomly pop out of Pfieffer's? I mean, er...)

 

[Keyser Sushi]

This is similar to what I have wanted to see, too. It's also been speculated that a scenario like this would happen. It's just too bad that we'll never get to see Bats "team up" with Ledger's Joker.

As for all of the recasting talk, I really have no opinion at this point in time. But chances are, after I see TDK, it's something I won't even be able to fathom.

Amen. There's definitely something sad about that. I'd really believed that there would be some Joker in BB3, even if the focus wasn't on him. And there may be, but damn... who wants to follow that act?

 

[Dark Sentinel]

Thanks!

I've been out there. Somewhere.

ahh, of course..

Anyway, i dk if this has been intelligently debated in this thread yet (too lazy to look through each page) but what do you think about the (confirmed?) rumor that

Spoiler

Two-Face will only be in TDK for a couple minutes? (ok, maybe i didn't need to spoiler tag this, but it's just in case any n00bs look over it)

However, as excited as I am to see Ledger's performance of the Joker, I cannot, cannot, CANNOT wait to see Two-Face on screen. Two-Face has always been my favorite Batman villain, and I love how Nolan and Eckhart are approaching the character, for (appropriately) two specific reasons:

(*apologizes in advance for the length*)

1. First, we will actually get to see the dark journey, on screen and as it happens, of the charismatic and passionate District Attorney Harvey Dent providing hope for a totally crime-free Gotham, to psychopathic and scarred (mentally as well as physically) Two-Face, now obsessed with exterminating the crime that created him, as if on a genocidal level. There won't be a half-@$$ed excuse for an origin story like the five-second news report in Batman Forever (in my opinion the second-worst decision made for that film, after the glossy nippled Batsuit of course). True, we saw a pre-scarred Dent in B'89, but we only saw the charismatic, crusading DA side of him. Though I'm sure Burton (and Billy Dee Williams) probably had ideas for where that version of Dent, and eventually Two-Face, would ultimately go in Batman III, it was never fulfilled (thanks, in part and IMHO, to Joel Schumacher). This time around, however, Dent will be a much more rounded and versatile character. He has to be, since Nolan has said he's the
   Spoiler

   "backbone of the story." (again, the tags are for the n00bs' sake)
   This means that Eckhart will put a hell of a more effort into the role than we can expect (which Eckhart has undoubtedly done, given that in preparing for the role he studied multiple personality disorders and bipolar disease, among other things that I can't recall off the top of my head.) I'm particularly interested in seeing scenes where Dent battles his inner demons (abusive father, etc.), and scenes where we can see how the "dark toll" that his crusade against crime (and the Joker in particular) has affected him mentally. What I'd love to see in the film is Harvey Dent at his lowest possible point, and it is at that lowest point where we really see it's effect. Throughout the film, I (and hopefully everyone else on here) hope to see the early stages of Dent's breaking psyche. As the escalation grows and things get worse, Harvey's determination turns gradually into a manic obsession. In his (and the film's) darkest hour, where everything is an inch from going to hell in a handbasket, we finally get a tiny, miniature glimpse of the Two-Face persona. It doesn't matter how it manifests itself, we have to see the Two-Face persona trying to break through the chinks in the "white knight's" armor. ("White knight" is a phrase producer Charles Roven used to describe Dent in relation to Batman, the titular "dark knight.") And just when everything (including Dent himself) seems to be at the point of no return, Salvatore Maroni is caught and put on trial. The Dent we met at the beginning of the film, the charismatic and passionate District Attorney that filled the citizens of Gotham with the hope of a brighter, crime-free future, returns with a vengeance, only to be scarred during Maroni's indictment. Whether Dent is scarred by Maroni himself or one of Maroni's henchmen doesn't really matter to me as long as he's scarred. Again, this is (in my mind) the ideal sequence of events I hope to see in the film. Exactly where Nolan & Co. places them in relation to the overall story (or rather, where they already have placed them, given that Nolan has shown his director's cut to Warner Bros.) is their decision, and "I Believe in Chris Nolan."
2. Secondly, I've noticed something about what we've heard and read about Two-Face's performance: Besides the most recent news (see above), CHUD's report about Two-Face's performance really piques my interest. Even though Two-Face himself is [blackout]only onscreen for a few minutes at the end of the film (obviously to set up the 3rd film)[/blackout], Nolan is putting a hell of a lot of time and effort into the performance itself. This makes me as excited as a kid on Christmas. We may only be getting the tip of the iceberg, just a small taste of the Two-Face we've all dreamed of seeing done absolutely, 100% right, at the end of TDK, but oh what a savory taste it will be! Personally, I think that Nolan is aiming for a similar effect that the last scene of Pirates of the Caribbean 2 (the return of Captain Barbossa) had on the audience: When Gore Verbinski spoke about talking to Geoffrey Rush about bringing him back for the second (and third) film, he said (forgive me for paraphrasing, I'm quoting from memory here) something to the effect of: "[Geoffrey Rush's return as Barbossa is] going to be the thing that people are going to be talking about when they leave the theater." I imagine that Nolan has this same idea in mind (albeit we'll see Two-Face for more than a few seconds--and we'll also see him in action!!): when the credits roll on TDK and everyone leaves the theater, not only will they (and we) be talking about Ledger's amazing (and possibly Oscar-worthy?) performance as the Joker, but everyone will also be talking about Two-Face. What specific thing about Two-Face's performance we'll be talking about is a bridge we'll cross when the credits roll, but between his appearance, Eckhart's acting, and Nolan's approach to Two-Face's split personality, we'll have a TON to talk about.

**Again, sorry for the ridiculous length (probably my longest post ever, in terms of both length and the amount of time it took to write it--i'm surprised my hands havent fallen off!!) but i guess (since this is an intelligent debate thread ) not many people will mind it too much. I could go on--and I probably will--but it's bedtime.

One last thing, everyone: Feel free to call me out on ANYTHING I have said. (I'm sure you'll find something, regwec. I look forward to our eventual battle of wits ) Keyser Sushi, again, welcome back and thanks for bringing some actual intelligence back to the Bat-boards. StorminNorman, thanks for creating this thread man! i've been waiting for a thread like this to post my Two-Face thoughts in (the Harvey Dent Thread doesn't go very in-depth about the actual psychology of the Dent/Two-Face character, as awesome of a thread as it is), I hope I've done you and Keyser Sushi proud.

 

[deathfromabove]

great post

 

[Shoemeister]

great post

Indeed. A very good read.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Keyser! Long time no...intelligent debate.

BUBBA!!!!!

ahh, of course..

Anyway, i dk if this has been intelligently debated in this thread yet (too lazy to look through each page) but what do you think about the (confirmed?) rumor that

Spoiler

Two-Face will only be in TDK for a couple minutes? (ok, maybe i didn't need to spoiler tag this, but it's just in case any n00bs look over it)

It was mentioned briefly earlier, but not to the degree that you are about to go into:

However, as excited as I am to see Ledger's performance of the Joker, I cannot, cannot, CANNOT wait to see Two-Face on screen. Two-Face has always been my favorite Batman villain, and I love how Nolan and Eckhart are approaching the character, for (appropriately) two specific reasons:

(*apologizes in advance for the length*)

1. First, we will actually get to see the dark journey, on screen and as it happens, of the charismatic and passionate District Attorney Harvey Dent providing hope for a totally crime-free Gotham, to psychopathic and scarred (mentally as well as physically) Two-Face, now obsessed with exterminating the crime that created him, as if on a genocidal level. There won't be a half-@$$ed excuse for an origin story like the five-second news report in Batman Forever (in my opinion the second-worst decision made for that film, after the glossy nippled Batsuit of course). True, we saw a pre-scarred Dent in B'89, but we only saw the charismatic, crusading DA side of him. Though I'm sure Burton (and Billy Dee Williams) probably had ideas for where that version of Dent, and eventually Two-Face, would ultimately go in Batman III, it was never fulfilled (thanks, in part and IMHO, to Joel Schumacher). This time around, however, Dent will be a much more rounded and versatile character. He has to be, since Nolan has said he's the
   Spoiler

   "backbone of the story." (again, the tags are for the n00bs' sake)
   This means that Eckhart will put a hell of a more effort into the role than we can expect (which Eckhart has undoubtedly done, given that in preparing for the role he studied multiple personality disorders and bipolar disease, among other things that I can't recall off the top of my head.) I'm particularly interested in seeing scenes where Dent battles his inner demons (abusive father, etc.), and scenes where we can see how the "dark toll" that his crusade against crime (and the Joker in particular) has affected him mentally. What I'd love to see in the film is Harvey Dent at his lowest possible point, and it is at that lowest point where we really see it's effect. Throughout the film, I (and hopefully everyone else on here) hope to see the early stages of Dent's breaking psyche. As the escalation grows and things get worse, Harvey's determination turns gradually into a manic obsession. In his (and the film's) darkest hour, where everything is an inch from going to hell in a handbasket, we finally get a tiny, miniature glimpse of the Two-Face persona. It doesn't matter how it manifests itself, we have to see the Two-Face persona trying to break through the chinks in the "white knight's" armor. ("White knight" is a phrase producer Charles Roven used to describe Dent in relation to Batman, the titular "dark knight.") And just when everything (including Dent himself) seems to be at the point of no return, Salvatore Maroni is caught and put on trial. The Dent we met at the beginning of the film, the charismatic and passionate District Attorney that filled the citizens of Gotham with the hope of a brighter, crime-free future, returns with a vengeance, only to be scarred during Maroni's indictment. Whether Dent is scarred by Maroni himself or one of Maroni's henchmen doesn't really matter to me as long as he's scarred. Again, this is (in my mind) the ideal sequence of events I hope to see in the film. Exactly where Nolan & Co. places them in relation to the overall story (or rather, where they already have placed them, given that Nolan has shown his director's cut to Warner Bros.) is their decision, and "I Believe in Chris Nolan."

This has been a major point for me since BF as well. Two-Face may not be my favorite Bat-villain (not by a long shot) but he's a good character who got SHAFTED horribly in "Forever." The fact that we have a movie where Harvey is a power player and we see his descent into Two-Face, is great news. In effect I think Harvey's descent into madness will mirror the city's own descent into ruin under the Joker's reign of terror, and Batman's own struggle to maintain his resolve.

• Secondly, I've noticed something about what we've heard and read about Two-Face's performance: Besides the most recent news (see above), CHUD's report about Two-Face's performance really piques my interest. Even though Two-Face himself is [blackout]only onscreen for a few minutes at the end of the film (obviously to set up the 3rd film)[/blackout], Nolan is putting a hell of a lot of time and effort into the performance itself. This makes me as excited as a kid on Christmas. We may only be getting the tip of the iceberg, just a small taste of the Two-Face we've all dreamed of seeing done absolutely, 100% right, at the end of TDK, but oh what a savory taste it will be! Personally, I think that Nolan is aiming for a similar effect that the last scene of Pirates of the Caribbean 2 (the return of Captain Barbossa) had on the audience: When Gore Verbinski spoke about talking to Geoffrey Rush about bringing him back for the second (and third) film, he said (forgive me for paraphrasing, I'm quoting from memory here) something to the effect of: "[Geoffrey Rush's return as Barbossa is] going to be the thing that people are going to be talking about when they leave the theater." I imagine that Nolan has this same idea in mind (albeit we'll see Two-Face for more than a few seconds--and we'll also see him in action!!): when the credits roll on TDK and everyone leaves the theater, not only will they (and we) be talking about Ledger's amazing (and possibly Oscar-worthy?) performance as the Joker, but everyone will also be talking about Two-Face. What specific thing about Two-Face's performance we'll be talking about is a bridge we'll cross when the credits roll, but between his appearance, Eckhart's acting, and Nolan's approach to Two-Face's split personality, we'll have a TON to talk about.

If Norm was here I think he'd take issue with some of what you said. Norm has always subscribed to the Jeph Loeb theory of Harvey Dent, which is that he was a fundamentally good man who took chances and may have had a proclivity for extreme measures, but he never was two personalities until the accident. In Norm's view, if I remember correctly, Harvey's madness is a result of his inability to save the city. That his natural proclivity toward extreme measures is the Two-Face personality. In essence, Two-Face still wants to save the city; but instead of Harvey bringing light to the city, the city has brought darkness to Harvey: his new theory of saving the city is killing bad guys and things like that, which Batman takes issue with.

I'm sure I got that wrong and Norm will correct me.

I have no opinion of my own Two-Face. As long as he's not a silly and horribly mangled parody like the Tommy Lee Jones incarnation, I'll be satisfied.

**Again, sorry for the ridiculous length (probably my longest post ever, in terms of both length and the amount of time it took to write it--i'm surprised my hands havent fallen off!!) but i guess (since this is an intelligent debate thread ) not many people will mind it too much. I could go on--and I probably will--but it's bedtime.

Damn right it's bedtime, but I love a long post, I had to respond to it tonight. You did good, man!

One last thing, everyone: Feel free to call me out on ANYTHING I have said. (I'm sure you'll find something, regwec. I look forward to our eventual battle of wits ) Keyser Sushi, again, welcome back and thanks for bringing some actual intelligence back to the Bat-boards. StorminNorman, thanks for creating this thread man! i've been waiting for a thread like this to post my Two-Face thoughts in (the Harvey Dent Thread doesn't go very in-depth about the actual psychology of the Dent/Two-Face character, as awesome of a thread as it is), I hope I've done you and Keyser Sushi proud.

Hell yes, dude. And thanks! This is EXACTLY the kind of thing this thread is meant for. Especially if Reg finds something to call you out on.

 

[Dark Sentinel]

It was mentioned briefly earlier, but not to the degree that you are about to go into:



This has been a major point for me since BF as well. Two-Face may not be my favorite Bat-villain (not by a long shot) but he's a good character who got SHAFTED horribly in "Forever." The fact that we have a movie where Harvey is a power player and we see his descent into Two-Face, is great news. In effect I think Harvey's descent into madness will mirror the city's own descent into ruin under the Joker's reign of terror, and Batman's own struggle to maintain his resolve.

That's my thinking too. You could almost go as far as to say that Harvey Dent is the personification of Gotham City (or rather, the representation of the "minority" that isn't corrupt). I don't think that I myself would make that assumption, but there's definitely a connection between Gotham's escalation and Harvey's psychological deterioration.

If Norm was here I think he'd take issue with some of what you said. Norm has always subscribed to the Jeph Loeb theory of Harvey Dent, which is that he was a fundamentally good man who took chances and may have had a proclivity for extreme measures, but he never was two personalities until the accident. In Norm's view, if I remember correctly, Harvey's madness is a result of his inability to save the city. That his natural proclivity toward extreme measures is the Two-Face personality. In essence, Two-Face still wants to save the city; but instead of Harvey bringing light to the city, the city has brought darkness to Harvey: his new theory of saving the city is killing bad guys and things like that, which Batman takes issue with.

I'm sure I got that wrong and Norm will correct me.

I agree with that, whether it's Norm's opinion or not. I never said (or at least, never intended) that Dent's character was divided into a "good Harvey" persona and an "evil Two-Face" persona. In my mind, the "brutal" or "ruthless" aspect associated with Two-Face is made up of suppressed memories and feelings that stem from Harvey's abusive childhood. We all get pissed off. When we get pissed, we're still the same person with the same good intentions, but when we're pissed off at something, we're still focused on solving the problem, but we don't generally think about the means. But when we calm down, we can think rationally and figure out the means as well as the ends.

What I'm getting at is this: the Harvey persona and the Two-Face persona are the two psychological halves of the same Harvey Dent. They have the exact same goals, they want the exact same thing, but the difference is that for the Two-Face persona, "the ends will justify the means" and, for lack of a better expression "justice, by whatever means, is still justice." It's interesting that, in The Lord of the Rings, Saruman says this to Gandalf concerning the destruction of Sauron: "There would be no real change in our aims, only the methods which we use to achieve them." (Unlike Harvey, however, Saruman went all bad)

Damn right it's bedtime, but I love a long post, I had to respond to it tonight. You did good, man!

Thanks

Hell yes, dude. And thanks! This is EXACTLY the kind of thing this thread is meant for. Especially if Reg finds something to call you out on.

Np at all, i'm just glad somebody made a thread for me to put my 2 cents into (ok, maybe a little more than 2 )

As for Reg, the few times he and I have debated, i've enjoyed it every time. Not many people on here can make you think, and that's something that (unfortunately) the Hype is lacking. There are a few people on here, but not enough. Plus, who doesn't love a good-natured argument every once in a while?t:

 

[Keyser Soze]

Since you are interested in intelligent discussion, you should be open to criticisms of this topic. I can't speak for the tact of the people doing to criticizing, but I can say your response doesn't scream "I want to have a nice discussion" to me. On page one, a member--who mentioned enjoying the thread well enough--described it as "grandstanding." Rather than address the issue (which is legitimate, regardless of how it was voiced) you called the poster a "noob" and told him in no uncertain terms to shut up and go away.

EDIT: Looking back through the thread, it seems this issue was already resolved, and Saint was referring to Sushi, not to me. Sorry for the outburst, I just am VERY against the "n00b segregation", so being accused of calling people n00bs ruffled my feathers a bit.

 

[rohitiyer]

I thought I'd bring up the new Gotham Times. I really liked THIS article:

It only makes me wonder how far they're going to take the Wayne-is-a-prick angle and I'm wondering if he's being made out to be too much of a Tony Stark.

I'm not the kind of person who would know the definitive Bruce Wayne, but my favorite interpretation has been Paul Dini's "War On Crime" one. The Bruce that works silently behind the scenes and who, even as Wayne, is working on leads and using his financial powers and connections to get to the bottom of things.

Having said that, I do think we'll get some of that when Bruce and Lucius travel to Hong Kong. Like Rachel says at the end of Begins, "This is your mask (referring to Bruce himself)" and I hope that's how it plays out in the sequel - Bruce losing himself even more to this creature that he's created.

That's why one of my favorite shots in the trailer is him alone in his penthouse. I'd like to see him face some repercussions in his personal life (and, no, that does not mean Rachel's death); some sort of struggle that makes him rethink his life - "What would you have me do?"

He works very hard at what he does and to see him fail is necessary for his character to grow even more. Add to that the complications if Harvey and Rachel are dating, it provides a mirror to Bruce - he sees the life that he could have had; a life still spent fighting crime, without sacrificing his identity. Maybe he even harbors some jealousy towards Harvey and that later only turns to guilt. I'm really hoping for some good writing between those three.

And speaking of the penthouse, I don't know about you guys, but I'm really happy that we've got some visual diversity in the sequel because of it. It provides a nice break from the dreary bat-cave and takes him to a new setting. I expect the location to work in an interesting way too and hopefully it's not just a sleek set-piece.

 

[Dark Sentinel]

I thought I'd bring up the new Gotham Times. I really liked THIS article:

It only makes me wonder how far they're going to take the Wayne-is-a-prick angle and I'm wondering if he's being made out to be too much of a Tony Stark.

I'm not the kind of person who would know the definitive Bruce Wayne, but my favorite interpretation has been Paul Dini's "War On Crime" one. The Bruce that works silently behind the scenes and who, even as Wayne, is working on leads and using his financial powers and connections to get to the bottom of things.

Having said that, I do think we'll get some of that when Bruce and Lucius travel to Hong Kong. Like Rachel says at the end of Begins, "This is your mask (referring to Bruce himself)" and I hope that's how it plays out in the sequel - Bruce losing himself even more to this creature that he's created.

That's why one of my favorite shots in the trailer is him alone in his penthouse. I'd like to see him face some repercussions in his personal life (and, no, that does not mean Rachel's death); some sort of struggle that makes him rethink his life - "What would you have me do?"

He works very hard at what he does and to see him fail is necessary for his character to grow even more. Add to that the complications if Harvey and Rachel are dating, it provides a mirror to Bruce - he sees the life that he could have had; a life still spent fighting crime, without sacrificing his identity. Maybe he even harbors some jealousy towards Harvey and that later only turns to guilt. I'm really hoping for some good writing between those three.

And speaking of the penthouse, I don't know about you guys, but I'm really happy that we've got some visual diversity in the sequel because of it. It provides a nice break from the dreary bat-cave and takes him to a new setting. I expect the location to work in an interesting way too and hopefully it's not just a sleek set-piece.

great post man (I'm trying to not look at the newspaper though--no offense, but I'm expecting my own in the mail today )

I too have given some thought as to how the "public" Bruce will be portrayed. Will the "Public Bruce" be a partier, a philanthropist, a playboy, an arrogant prick, or will it an even blend of all of these and others?

Also, like you I am interested to see the "Private" or "Real Bruce." The person he is when he isn't Batman and isn't Public Bruce. Bale said in an interview that Bruce's situation changes from a young man trying to avenge the death of his parents to someone who "now has power and is burdened by that power." Bale also comments on Bruce wondering whether his crusade against crime as Batman is a finite endeavor. But for me it will be very interesting to see how the escalation and the Joker makes Bruce's "burden of power" an even heavier one.

 

[SheldonLevene]

I kind of like how B:TAS made Bruce a likeable character who happened to date alot of women and buy alot of things. Not a prick. I understood the need for Wayne to be an ******* in BB, but I hope they show attempts to mend his image in TDK.

 

[Crook]

I always thought it best to blend all those types into one. Arrogant and prickly playboy with the ladies in public nightspots, well-mannered businessman in front of the tv cameras. And a dash of sly charm for all occasions.

 

[SheldonLevene]

I always thought it best to blend all those types into one. Arrogant and prickly playboy with the ladies in public nightspots, well-mannered businessman in front of the tv cameras. And a dash of sly charm for all occasions.

Yeah agreed.

 

[StorminNorman]

If Norm was here I think he'd take issue with some of what you said. Norm has always subscribed to the Jeph Loeb theory of Harvey Dent, which is that he was a fundamentally good man who took chances and may have had a proclivity for extreme measures, but he never was two personalities until the accident. In Norm's view, if I remember correctly, Harvey's madness is a result of his inability to save the city. That his natural proclivity toward extreme measures is the Two-Face personality. In essence, Two-Face still wants to save the city; but instead of Harvey bringing light to the city, the city has brought darkness to Harvey: his new theory of saving the city is killing bad guys and things like that, which Batman takes issue with.

I'm sure I got that wrong and Norm will correct me.

You got that almost completely correct. I would only make mention to how horrible the Timm/Dini Harvey Dent does - even (and perhaps especially) if the occasion does not call for it.

 

[rohitiyer]

great post man (I'm trying to not look at the newspaper though--no offense, but I'm expecting my own in the mail today )

I too have given some thought as to how the "public" Bruce will be portrayed. Will the "Public Bruce" be a partier, a philanthropist, a playboy, an arrogant prick, or will it an even blend of all of these and others?

Also, like you I am interested to see the "Private" or "Real Bruce." The person he is when he isn't Batman and isn't Public Bruce. Bale said in an interview that Bruce's situation changes from a young man trying to avenge the death of his parents to someone who "now has power and is burdened by that power." Bale also comments on Bruce wondering whether his crusade against crime as Batman is a finite endeavor. But for me it will be very interesting to see how the escalation and the Joker makes Bruce's "burden of power" an even heavier one.

Glad you liked the post, man.

I was just watching the 1998 animated "Batman and Superman: World's Finest" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0169590/) and I noticed that the Bruce there is very similar to the Begins one, in that he is suave and a go-getter, yet he's ideological even about his businesses. He even woos Lois Lane and he's not afraid of going after her even in the presence of Superman.

Similarly, it might be interesting to see Bruce like that in TDK also. Some healthy competition between Bruce and Harvey might just be better than Bruce brooding over Rachel like Peter Parker in Spider-Man 3. It would be nice to see him be confident and sarcastic and might just underline Harvey down-to-earth character (I don't know what they're going for with Harvey, that's just my personal interpretation).

Ultimately it would be cool if Bruce is a nice guy, but only "underneath". A really over-confident and pompous tycoon on the outside who's real nature only shows up through his actions.

 

[abcdefz]

And speaking of the penthouse, I don't know about you guys, but I'm really happy that we've got some visual diversity in the sequel because of it. It provides a nice break from the dreary bat-cave and takes him to a new setting. I expect the location to work in an interesting way too and hopefully it's not just a sleek set-piece.

Yep yep yep yep yep.

It works symbolically, too. He's really rebuilding his life from the ground up.

 

[rohitiyer]

Yep yep yep yep yep.

It works symbolically, too. He's really rebuilding his life from the ground up.

New suit, new bike, new pad...

can't argue with you there!

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I thought I'd bring up the new Gotham Times. I really liked THIS article:

It only makes me wonder how far they're going to take the Wayne-is-a-prick angle and I'm wondering if he's being made out to be too much of a Tony Stark.

I'm not the kind of person who would know the definitive Bruce Wayne, but my favorite interpretation has been Paul Dini's "War On Crime" one. The Bruce that works silently behind the scenes and who, even as Wayne, is working on leads and using his financial powers and connections to get to the bottom of things.

Having said that, I do think we'll get some of that when Bruce and Lucius travel to Hong Kong. Like Rachel says at the end of Begins, "This is your mask (referring to Bruce himself)" and I hope that's how it plays out in the sequel - Bruce losing himself even more to this creature that he's created.

That's why one of my favorite shots in the trailer is him alone in his penthouse. I'd like to see him face some repercussions in his personal life (and, no, that does not mean Rachel's death); some sort of struggle that makes him rethink his life - "What would you have me do?"

He works very hard at what he does and to see him fail is necessary for his character to grow even more. Add to that the complications if Harvey and Rachel are dating, it provides a mirror to Bruce - he sees the life that he could have had; a life still spent fighting crime, without sacrificing his identity. Maybe he even harbors some jealousy towards Harvey and that later only turns to guilt. I'm really hoping for some good writing between those three.

And speaking of the penthouse, I don't know about you guys, but I'm really happy that we've got some visual diversity in the sequel because of it. It provides a nice break from the dreary bat-cave and takes him to a new setting. I expect the location to work in an interesting way too and hopefully it's not just a sleek set-piece.

Well, any good story has character development in it, so hopefully this is the sort of thing where they'll develop Bruce as a character. I know Nolan and Bale like to give Bruce something to do in these movies so I believe they will.

As far as the penthouse goes, I love it too - that's straight up Bronze Age Batman.

I always thought it best to blend all those types into one. Arrogant and prickly playboy with the ladies in public nightspots, well-mannered businessman in front of the tv cameras. And a dash of sly charm for all occasions.

So... basically you, but with style?

You got that almost completely correct. I would only make mention to how horrible the Timm/Dini Harvey Dent does - even (and perhaps especially) if the occasion does not call for it.

Glad I did good by you, brotherman. I thought about the Timm/Dini thing but didn't go there because that argument (which I have come to appreciate) is yours and yours alone. I could not do justice to it if I tried.

 

[Anita18]

Haven't read a lot of the previous posts, but I'd like to say I think it's really cool that they're really using the circumstances at the conclusion of the first movie to build a conflict for the second. Normally it's almost like they start over with each film in a series, but in TDK everything that happened in BB has serious ramifications.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Haven't read a lot of the previous posts, but I'd like to say I think it's really cool that they're really using the circumstances at the conclusion of the first movie to build a conflict for the second. Normally it's almost like they start over with each film in a series, but in TDK everything that happened in BB has serious ramifications.

You're right. I'd also point out that everything that happens in TDK leads up to a tease of Two-Face at the very end, so it's a safe bet that everything in TDK leads up to BB3, if it gets made (and I think it will). A *true* Batman trilogy? *dies happy*

 

[Saint]

If Norm was here I think he'd take issue with some of what you said. Norm has always subscribed to the Jeph Loeb theory of Harvey Dent, which is that he was a fundamentally good man who took chances and may have had a proclivity for extreme measures, but he never was two personalities until the accident. In Norm's view, if I remember correctly, Harvey's madness is a result of his inability to save the city. That his natural proclivity toward extreme measures is the Two-Face personality. In essence, Two-Face still wants to save the city; but instead of Harvey bringing light to the city, the city has brought darkness to Harvey: his new theory of saving the city is killing bad guys and things like that, which Batman takes issue with.

I disagree. I don't think Two-Face's actions in TLH/DV were motivated by a desire to save the city. When Dent was scarred, it revealed to him an utter failing in the system he upheld. Unable to believe in justice any longer, but also unable to turn his back on everything he believed in, he broke in two. With two equal voices, he was unable to make judgments, hence the coin. Harvey may have still wanted to save the city, but not Two-Face.

Sometimes I wonder if the Two-Face persona even has motivations. I wonder if it's not just pure resentment, a juvenile sort of lashing out. It does whatever it can to create chaos, because it's an entity made entirely out of the anger and misery of Harvey. It's not about revenge, it's not about anything--it's just a persistent condition of hate that has a voice. Two-Face exists because Harvey could not conceive of venting what he was feeling, and so he created another persona to do it for him.

It took me a while to figure that out. I was always thinking "Why does Two-Face commit crimes? Why does he do anything he does?" The problem was that I was thinking of the Two-Face persona as a part of Harvey Dent--something that, in some way, is influenced by who he was. A sort of darker Harvey. But that doesn't follow. A darker Harvey wouldn't rob banks or kidnap twins or any of that. Accordingly, Two-Face must not be at all like Harvey Dent. He is a different personality entirely, not motivated by anything in Harvey's life, or any darker versions of Harvey's feelings.

One issue I have is that most writers ignore Dent entirely. Sure, he flips the coin to decide whether or not to off Batman, but what about before that? Why don't we see Dent sitting in a basement somewhere arguing about whether they should A) turn themselves in, or B) execute some crazy scheme? Two-Face is always depicted as being in the driver's seat. You never hear Harvey say "Screw this, I don't want to run this gang. Nuts to bank robberies. I don't want to steal that shipment of Doublemint Gum."

Two-Face is often written as one mind that simply can't decide whether or not to use lethal force. This shouldn't be the case. When Two-Face says "Let's put Gordon on trial!" Harvey should say "Nuts to you." I would like to see some coin tosses land in Harvey's favour, I'd like to see Harvey drive for while, only to have his plans twisted by Two-Face when the coin lands scarred side up. What is Harvey Dent thinking when Two-Face is running amok? What would Harvey do instead, if the coin favoured him? How would Two-Face twist that into something terrible?

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I disagree. I don't think Two-Face's actions in TLH/DV were motivated by a desire to save the city. When Dent was scarred, it revealed to him an utter failing in the system he upheld. Unable to believe in justice any longer, but also unable to turn his back on everything he believed in, he broke in two. With two equal voices, he was unable to make judgments, hence the coin. Harvey may have still wanted to save the city, but not Two-Face.

Sometimes I wonder if the Two-Face persona even has motivations. I wonder if it's not just pure resentment, a juvenile sort of lashing out. It does whatever it can to create chaos, because it's an entity made entirely out of the anger and misery of Harvey. It's not about revenge, it's not about anything--it's just a persistent condition of hate that has a voice. Two-Face exists because Harvey could not conceive of venting what he was feeling, and so he created another persona to do it for him.

It took me a while to figure that out. I was always thinking "Why does Two-Face commit crimes? Why does he do anything he does?" The problem was that I was thinking of the Two-Face persona as a part of Harvey Dent--something that, in some way, is influenced by who he was. A sort of darker Harvey. But that doesn't follow. A darker Harvey wouldn't rob banks or kidnap twins or any of that. Accordingly, Two-Face must not be at all like Harvey Dent. He is a different personality entirely, not motivated by anything in Harvey's life, or any darker versions of Harvey's feelings.

One issue I have is that most writers ignore Dent entirely. Sure, he flips the coin to decide whether or not to off Batman, but what about before that? Why don't we see Dent sitting in a basement somewhere arguing about whether they should A) turn themselves in, or B) execute some crazy scheme? Two-Face is always depicted as being in the driver's seat. You never hear Harvey say "Screw this, I don't want to run this gang. Nuts to bank robberies. I don't want to steal that shipment of Doublemint Gum."

Two-Face is often written as one mind that simply can't decide whether or not to use lethal force. This shouldn't be the case. When Two-Face says "Let's put Gordon on trial!" Harvey should say "Nuts to you." I would like to see some coin tosses land in Harvey's favour, I'd like to see Harvey drive for while, only to have his plans twisted by Two-Face when the coin lands scarred side up. What is Harvey Dent thinking when Two-Face is running amok? What would Harvey do instead, if the coin favoured him? How would Two-Face twist that into something terrible?

You know, that's a great post, man. As I said before I have no real opinion on Harvey, but I love what you just wrote. I wish Norm was here to rebut you and the two of you could debate back and forth a while.

I will say that I agree 100% with what you said about how comic writers handle the character...and it was equally bad if not worse in BF, where Harvey and Two-Face were both apparently jerks, just with different taste, and the coin toss was rendered useless not only by this, but by his habit of repeating the coin toss until he got the desired result. God that movie was bad...