ok so two-face dies
i thought he would be the main villain for the 3e and final movie.
Spoiler that ****
ok so two-face dies
i thought he would be the main villain for the 3e and final movie.
First off yes Scarecrow and Ra both wasted in Begins. Scarecrow was I'd even say terrible in Begins.
Rachel Dawes and the training are both Nolan's means of making the film make sense, did I ever say that made them valid no.
Its like someone else coming up with a Batman interpretation before Batman 1 and they follow that instead of the original its like WTF.
Killing other bad guys is NOT as terrible as BLOWING UP A GODDAMN HOSPITAL FULL OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS LOL like seriously.
Another thing is Batman Begins is not THE FIRST major Batman film. Batman 89 was
so in order to properly introduce the character to the masses its essential to follow the original pattern.
You know how many people think Joker REALLY killed Batman's parents because of Batman89 like seriously.
Nolan's film almost get this bit of leeway because he is trying to create his own kind of world taking bits and pieces of comics and putting his own twist
He is taking certain aspects that are overly unbelievable and making them believable.
I think in my eyes if you're doing the first film stick to the origins period.
I'm sorry, but that is absurd logic. You don't have to follow the very first story a character appeared in to get it right. Nolan is not following Two Face's first appearance back in the 40's comics. Looks like he's using The Long Halloween. Does that mean he's going to screw it up?
He didn't follow Ra's Al Ghul's first story. Or Scarecrow's. Did he screw them up in Begins?
Nolan did that. Batman was a blatant killer back those days. Batman never had a childhood friend named Rachel Dawes. Batman was never trained by Ra's Al Ghul. Gotham City was not full of corruption back then [Nolan took that from Batman Year One in the 80's].
Does this make his version less valid? By your logic it does because it's not following the first stories in the Batman series.
No, he was murdering his fellow gangsters by shooting them repeatedly, electrocuting them to death, throwing poisoned pens in their necks, shooting up Cops, killing his henchmen in a temper, shooting Bruce Wayne, and trying to mass murder all of Gotham etc.
Pure Joker. Especially 70's/80's style. Your complaint is that you wanted it even darker. That's fine. But that does not make Jack's version of the character any less valid.
Let me state this clearly: Two-Face dies. It happens on-camera. We see his body. We see his funeral. And his death changes everything for Gotham and Batman, and the end of the film... in fact, the TITLE of the film... hinges on Harvey's death and the subsequent cover-up of the truth about it.
Then you're mistaken. It's quite obvious what happens at this point, thanks to all the reviewers, including the ever-trustworthy Moriarty.BS on Two- Face dying. I heard what happens and he doesnt exactly "Die"
Let me state this clearly: Two-Face dies. It happens on-camera. We see his body. We see his funeral. And his death changes everything for Gotham and Batman, and the end of the film... in fact, the TITLE of the film... hinges on Harvey's death and the subsequent cover-up of the truth about it.
Oh thank god. I was a little upset by the rumors when I heard about his death. I could've sworn Nolan said once "if they didn't die in the comics, they won't die in the movie."BS on Two- Face dying. I heard what happens and he doesnt exactly "Die"
Yes, indeed. It's quite good to see that cleared up.Well, there you have it. No more speculation over that aspect of the movie.
Thanks Moriarty!
Let me state this clearly: Two-Face dies. It happens on-camera. We see his body. We see his funeral. And his death changes everything for Gotham and Batman, and the end of the film... in fact, the TITLE of the film... hinges on Harvey's death and the subsequent cover-up of the truth about it.
No.Don't spoil to me what REALLY happens, but is there a very distinct chance now he can be in the third film?
Hmm...my own theory about Mori's review of Batman Returns is...he's such a good and thoughful reviewer that he saw stuff in that film that I don't believe was actually there.
But that's art, isn't it? We see things differently.
Oh it's definatly there, I know because I see it too. Ever read something where someone else puts your exact thoughts about something into words. Thats how I felt about Batman Returns, I've always tried to tell people how it was my favourite bat movie, and most laughed at me for it.
Why would he lie? The guy's an honest guy (one of the best internet geeks we've got), and "Let me state this clearly" doesn't exactly lead anyone to think it's B.S. No, Mori's not lying, and after Devin's confirmation and the three AICN reviewer's statements, I think we can close the book on this one.No chance Mori is lying?
Let me state this clearly: Two-Face dies. It happens on-camera. We see his body. We see his funeral. And his death changes everything for Gotham and Batman, and the end of the film... in fact, the TITLE of the film... hinges on Harvey's death and the subsequent cover-up of the truth about it.
I know he dies
I'm saying I want to prove it to some people