The Dark Knight TDK Casting Sides

[itsthebatman]

Well, considering what are arguably the two definitive Two-Face stories of all time, "The Eye of the Beholder" (Batman Annual #14) and The Long Halloween/Dark Victory take different routes than that, I don't know that such a take is "fundamental."

Even in the Two-Face stories where you consider the coin business to be downplayed, he still makes decisions based on the toss of the coin. The psychology behind the coin tossing may be more evolved and sophisticated than the early, gimmicky stories, but it's still crucial, nay,fundamental, to his character. In one post you argue it's not fundamental, in another you say it's an important aspect of the character.
I argue about Two-Face more than any other character. I think it does show what a great character he is.

 

[Agentsands77]

Agentsands, you can't create a sythesis of a character who has existed continuously for 65 years by referencing just two stories. There are all sorts of nuances to the character; the stories you have mentioned portray some quite strongly, and neglect others altogether.

Similarly, the film will portay some nuances and neglect others altogether. Which will they show? Well, we'll see, but I have an inkling they'll probably be very faithful to the Dent of THE LONG HALLOWEEN and DARK VICTORY.

I think that's what comic book movies should aim to do- for me, revising Two Face's split personality would contradict the entire thrust of the character from the 1940s to the 1990s.

See, I think a film should take a specific interpretation and run with it, regardless of whether it fits all the takes ont he character in the past or not. Harvey Dent/Two-Face's portrayal over the years has often been wildly inconsistent/incompatible.

The psychology behind the coin tossing may be more evolved and sophisticated than the early, gimmicky stories, but it's still crucial, nay,fundamental, to his character.

Of course.

In one post you argue it's not fundamental, in another you say it's an important aspect of the character.

In that post I meant to argue that a certain interpretation of the coin isn't fundamental (the line I quoted of yours wasn't clear as to what aspect of your post I was responding to). It seemed to me that you were upholding the ARKHAM ASYLUM take on the coin and the chararacter - which I was arguing wasn't so fundamental to the character. The use of a coin to make decisions is fundamental to the character. The psychology behind it is not.

That said, I seem to remember a Two Face story in BATMAN: BLACK AND WHITE that didn't use the coin at all, and it seemed to work pretty well. I don't have my copy in front of me, but I don't think the coin showed up in that one.

 

[itsthebatman]

In that post I meant to argue that a certain interpretation of the coin isn't fundamental (the line I quoted of yours wasn't clear as to what aspect of your post I was responding to). It seemed to me that you were upholding the ARKHAM ASYLUM take on the coin and the chararacter - which I was arguing wasn't so fundamental to the character. The use of a coin to make decisions is fundamental to the character. The psychology behind it is not.

That said, I seem to remember a Two Face story in BATMAN: BLACK AND WHITE that didn't use the coin at all, and it seemed to work pretty well. I don't have my copy in front of me, but I don't think the coin showed up in that one.

Okay. Gotcha. So we do agree. As always, the answer is in the details.

That's a great story. No coin (there goes my argument!). But there are twins involved, one good, one evil. He's Harvey until the final page.

 

[bosef982]

That could work. But I still think Two-Face is unlikely to be involved with that incident, purely because of the running time argument. Too much going on in this film for Two-Face to have much of a big role (or this film could feel more crowded than X-MEN 3).

NO NO NO...I don't want two-Face in here iether. However, it's a theme that can be explored in the 3rd movie. As the escalation continues, the line between innocent and guilty gets blurred, Joker laughing at it and saying, "NO ONE'S INNOCENT, it's all a big joke!" Eventually, after harvey gets scarred -- at hte movie's end no less -- we can probably end with him saying that innocence is as fickle as a flip of a coin...or something like there are two sides to everyone, innocent and guilty...etc...and leae the rest for the 3rd. I by no means want to see Two-Face in this one. However i can see how they can themeatically lay down the groundwork for him via the Joker.

 

[Agentsands77]

Well, bosef, we will see Two-Face in THE DARK KNIGHT to some degree, and I think it will be probably more than your post suggests. But I don't think it'll be much (think of how little Two-Face was in THE LONG HALLOWEEN... I imagine the end coda for THE DARK KNIGHT will play out close to that, maybe with Dent taking out Maroni).

 

[Infinity9999x]

I heard there was a bit of TDK script floating around and StorminNormin pointed me here, does anybody have a copy of it?

 

[Ryan227]

Phew, taking a day off for my girlfriend's family reunion was a bad idea, there was a lot of reading to do. From what I can tell the debate is over the coin flipping and which version of Dent they'll use? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm a big fan of the current Dent that just wants justice and isn't using the coin as a crutch. I want him to have the "angel/devil" sides to him but I want his decisions to be based on his own twisted form of justice.

Definitely do not want the Tommy Lee Jones version where he flips the coin until the desired outcome comes his way.

 

[The Guard]

Personally, I feel that a film version of Harvey Dent/Two-Face that doesn't have him relying on the coin to make decisions and show WHY that is...is not a good portrayal/exploration of the character. BATMAN FOREVER chalked it up to insanity, as the comics did for a long time, but mostly ignored any of the important stuff.

I only disagree because I don't think that's the Dent they're drawing upon. The Dent of THE LONG HALLOWEEN or "The Eye of the Beholder" (or really the last 15 years, honestly) isn't about the good/evil dichotomy, but more focused on justice. And looking at the dialogue they go with for Dent, it definitely seems like they're going with the "I did what needed to be done" angle for Two-Face.

I don't know, there are definitely some good/evil and moral/immoral aspects to the Dent of THE LONG HALLOWEEN and other recent stories. It's not only about seeking justice. It's about how far he'll go toward that end. And so morality and good and evil dichotomies definitely come into play.

It feels that way to me, too. It may be the opening of the film, for all we know, but it definitely feels like it takes place a good bit after the end of BATMAN BEGINS.

Joker might well be an "established" criminal when he commits the robbery. But I'm guessing the flashback could just be his first time actually "working on his own", and that it could be what Gordon referenced in BATMAN BEGINS. It's a theory, I don't really have any proof for it.

Excellent point. Even for the good/evil dichotomy, it doesn't pan out. It's a scene that I'm convinced has to do with a sick joke of the Joker's (and it's entirely possible that even if the button is pressed, both boats blow up anyway - seems like a Joker-like gag).

That's the point. There is no good choice. There's no right choice. And what would that do to a man who often has trouble making the right choice, anyway? Couldn't it be a sick joke of the Joker's and be something that ends up affecting Harvey Dent (Won't an acid bath fall into that category as well)?

Oh, I see what you mean. Interesting suggestion. But I don't see how Harvey Dent would be put in the decision of making that choice. You'd think it would be a policeman or just the people on the boats themselves.

I don't either. It was just a thought.

I still don't think it quite gets to the core of Dent's conflict. His conflict is between upholding law and sacrificing it (in the dialogue he's given, he displays a lot of admiration for Batman's rising above the law in his duties). His conflict is about at what point do you have to go above the law to get the job done. It's about him losing all faith in the law to provide justice. The conflict of Harvey Dent is whether he should go out and simply murder those responsible for crimes or not.

Harvey Dent's conflict has always been about good and evil, not about merely lawful VS unlawful actions (which he engages in during most recent arcs that explore this time period of his time, as well as THE LONG HALLOWEEN and DARK VICTORY). He's shown to be more than willing to skirt the limits of the law. That's not the issue with him. Doing the right thing is. It's how FAR he's willing to go in pursuit of what he feels is the right thing that is Dent's main issue. Until he becomes Two-Face. Then, depending on the mythology being drawn from, he either literally surrenders to his evil impulses except for the part of Dent that remains, or loses all desire to restrain himself in his methods in his ongoing pursuit of justice.

This act doesn't really provide a scenario for that conflict. The ferry situation doesn't really speak to the law at all, it's simply a moral dilemma of who to save.

I know, and given the context, I imagine this will be probably be a conflict for Batman (Hopefully designed, storywise, to evolve him from where he was in terms of moral grounding in BATMAN BEGINS). The Dent thing was just a thought I had.

Frankly speaking, I find the notion of the comic book Batman risking himself to save homocidal and even genocidal repeated-offense sociopaths after the law failing to sentence them to the electric chair incredibly naive. There is no justice nor common sense in giving a megalomaniac a chance at redemption when all it ends up in is just more people getting killed. That is why I shall always appreciate a Batman who can be cold and apathetic to killers and criminals who've had their chances - certainly not to the extent of actually executing them himself but not foolish enough to risk his own life to save theirs.

Batman's not simply naive, though. He's hopeful. And that's a big part of Batman's character. His absolutely insane idea to protect Gotham City, and his reliance on the law, which fails him over and over and over again. Isn't his entire crusade fairly naiive and illogical to begin with? The overall concept certainly is.

But here's the thing... what if he couldn't? I mean, look at the predicament they're in. Speeding train, moments away from crashing. He's got his cape which only supports him, and one grappling hook whose weight limit I cant quite remember. But even if it could support them, I cant imagine the grappling hook working in that situation.

The monofilament tested to 200 pounds. However, during the course of the film, before the train sequence, Batman had already used the grapple to lift both himself and a thug, and later to lift himself, Rachel and the kid to safety. So weight shouldn't really have been that much of an issue in terms of whether or not he could have saved Ra's.

And even if Batman was able to save him, can you actually picture that scene in your head? Can you picture Ra's grabbing onto Batman like a damsel in distress as he's swung or flown to safety? I doubt Ra's would've let himself be saved.

The point is not really whether or not Batman could actually have saved Ra's. The point is that he made no attempt to. He made it very clear that he had no desire to. Storywise, it's a logical and fairly satisfying way to get rid of Ra's Al Ghul while Batman escapes. It makes sense, and it's dramatic. It works well enough in context, and it's arguably in character. But it also sets a very clear limit to Batman's character if they intend on any consistency in this franchise: He won't kill, but he apparently will let people die. Especially those who would harm others if they survived. Now, they can play with that in THE DARK KNIGHT, and have him evolve his thinking beyond his basic ideas of morality.

 

[The Guard]

Edited.

 

[Nepenthes]

edit

 

[Ryan227]

The point is not really whether or not Batman could actually have saved Ra's. The point is that he made no attempt to. He made it very clear that he had no desire to. Storywise, it's a logical and fairly satisfying way to get rid of Ra's Al Ghul while Batman escapes. It makes sense, and it's dramatic. It works well enough in context, and it's arguably in character. But it also sets a very clear limit to Batman's character if they intend on any consistency in this franchise: He won't kill, but he apparently will let people die. Especially those who would harm others if they survived. Now, they can play with that in THE DARK KNIGHT, and have him evolve his thinking beyond his basic ideas of morality.

Exactly what I was thinking. Bruce saves Ra's, Ra's attacks Gotham. Therefore, not saving him means he MIGHT not survive to come back and harm Gotham.

 

[Fenrir]

Batman's not simply naive, though. He's hopeful. And that's a big part of Batman's character.

Yes, to the point that he keeps risking his own rear end to save these murderous psychopaths after they keep repeatedly escaping the short arm of the law only to endanger more civilian lives with bigger insidious plots, out of 'hope' that someday they would see the light, even if it means countless lives lost along the way? What a conundrum!

His absolutely insane idea to protect Gotham City, and his reliance on the law, which fails him over and over and over again. Isn't his entire crusade fairly naiive and illogical to begin with? The overall concept certainly is.

No, it's not. Because Bruce's quest to protect Gotham city is not just some act of selfless sacrifice. He has his own selfish motives to be involved. It may be a fool's errand, but its what gives him a purpose in life and feeds his obsession to fighting crime that was born the moment his parents were killed. I do believe that at some level, consciously or subconsciously, Batman does acknowledge the law failing him over and over again and realizes the naivety in trying to completely rid the city of evil, but still keeps pushing on because it is just as much for himself as it is for others. Otherwise, if it were just for the helpless, innocent and the oppressed, he would have abandoned the cape and the cowl long ago over the self-recognition of the fact that his crusade is a hopeless cause.

 

[Agentsands77]

No, it's not. Because Bruce's quest to protect Gotham city is not just some act of selfless sacrifice. He has his own selfish motives to be involved. It may be a fool's errand, but its what gives him a purpose in life and feeds his obsession to fighting crime that was born the moment his parents were killed.

I'll let Christopher Nolan respond to that:

Nolan: The reason to me he's heroic is because he's altruistic. He's trying to help other people with no benefit to himself and, whatever motivates him—and this was the tricky thing to really try and nail with Batman Begins as opposed to previous incarnations—is the difference between him and a common vigilante, the Punisher or Charles Bronson inDeath Wish. To me, the difference is he is not seeking personal vengeance. We did not want his quest to be for vengeance, we wanted it to be for justice. That's what sends him looking for an outlet for his rage and frustration. What he chooses to do with it is, I believe, selfless, and therefore, heroic. And that, to me, is really the distinction—selfishness versus selflessness—and that is very noble. But it is a very fine distinction. I do think he is a heroic figure.
BOM: But he does gain a value—justice is a value, even to Batman. Is he really selfless—or does he want to have a life to call his own?
Nolan: To me, he's not selfish in terms of how the word is generally understood—he's not obtaining personal gratification in an immediate sense. He's having to obliterate his own immediate [short-term] self-interest. I could tap into the reality of the story if I felt that he saw his mission as an achievable goal.
BOM: So his is a higher, more rational form of selfishness, as against irrational, short-range immediate gratification?
Nolan: Yes.
BOM: What is the movie's theme in essential terms?
Nolan: The struggle and the conflict between the desire for personal gratification or vengeance and the greater good for a constructive, positive sort—something more universal. Because Batman is limited by being an ordinary man, there's a constant tension between pragmatism and idealism.

I do believe that at some level, consciously or subconsciously, Batman does acknowledge the law failing him over and over again and realizes the naivety in trying to completely rid the city of evil, but still keeps pushing on because it is just as much for himself as it is for others. Otherwise, if it were just for the helpless, innocent and the oppressed, he would have abandoned the cape and the cowl long ago over the self-recognition of the fact that his crusade is a hopeless cause.

I strongly disagree. His crusade isn't hopeless, even when he's faced with the fact that he'll have to sacrifice even more than he originally thought. At the very least, he saves lives every night (there's a story in BATMAN: BLACK AND WHITE where the Joker says to Batman, "You're crazy enough to think you can stop crime." Batman responds, "What do you mean? I stop it every night.").

And in his heart, Batman's an idealist. He doesn't come to believe his cause is hopeless ever. He needs to always believe he can save Gotham. Even if the crusade doesn't have an end doesn't mean the war isn't worth fighting. Such a struggle is always an eternal struggle - as long as humanity exists, there won't be a perfect world.

To quote Nolan again:

BOM: But isn't Batman in business to put himself out of business?
Nolan: I think he is, but I believe that to be futile. There is no utopia. There is no Heaven on earth. We all sort of accept that—it's not possible. If you look at the history of the comics, there are a lot of interesting explorations of the father's life and organized crime, and the nature of the enemy changes. These things can't ever be perfect or balanced or reconciled—it's a constant struggle. As soon as we solve one problem in our lives, something else crops up.
BOM: Is it a malevolent or benevolent universe?
Nolan: I think it's a benevolent universe. Ultimately, I think what Batman is trying to do is tip the balance against corruption—and that's a specific type of evil that can't ebb and flow, and it can be defeated in a sense. I do believe that. That's why his quest makes sense to me.
[...]
Yet the immediate response to Batman's standing up for what's good is a proportional escalation of evil, and that's not philosophical—it's not that it will always be that way—it's about how bad things have to get before things become good. Batman is positive, but I believe that, in the first couple of years, he's going to find an increasingly negative response from society, because the truth is that, when you have a powerful, negative city like Gotham, it didn't become corrupt by accident, and those entrenched people are going to respond very vigorously.

 

[bosef982]

You guys are way off topic.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

You guys are way off topic.

Who cares? It's a brilliant discussion. Discussion on that level is to be encouraged, not discouraged.

 

[The Guard]

It's interesting that although Nolan seems to get Batman an dhis motivations, he presented slightly different ones in BATMAN BEGINS (until Rachel set him straight) and never really delved into his actual personal motivations.

Yes, to the point that he keeps risking his own rear end to save these murderous psychopaths after they keep repeatedly escaping the short arm of the law only to endanger more civilian lives with bigger insidious plots, out of 'hope' that someday they would see the light, even if it means countless lives lost along the way? What a conundrum!

It's not a conundrum at all. It's just illogical, but so is half the stuff he does. He's fighting for a lost cause, and he's doing so with specific ideals. It's a major aspect of his character.

No, it's not.

It's not illogical?

Because Bruce's quest to protect Gotham city is not just some act of selfless sacrifice.

So?

He has his own selfish motives to be involved.

I wouldn't describe it as selfish at all. Selfish would be if Batman personally wanted to see the crimes that affect only him eliminated. His motives are different, though. He understands suffering intimately, and wants to prevent others from experiencing it.

It may be a fool's errand, but its what gives him a purpose in life and feeds his obsession to fighting crime that was born the moment his parents were killed. I do believe that at some level, consciously or subconsciously, Batman does acknowledge the law failing him over and over again and realizes the naivety in trying to completely rid the city of evil, but still keeps pushing on because it is just as much for himself as it is for others. Otherwise, if it were just for the helpless, innocent and the oppressed, he would have abandoned the cape and the cowl long ago over the self-recognition of the fact that his crusade is a hopeless cause.

Why would he give up? He doesn't see things in those terms. He may wish to eradicate crime, even as he acknowledges that its not possible, but he does as much as he can. He doesn't keep fighting a lost cause just for himself and his personal motivations. He does it for the greater good, for the people he can help. The same reason Superman bothers to do what he does, or that anyone takes part in any charitable, beneficial act.

I believe that describing Batman's crusade as selfish is a major misstep in analyzing the character. Can he be selfish and arrogant? Yes. But his motivations, and his crusade...is not.

 

[Dark Knight]

Thanks Miranda again, amazing! Some of these scenes raise the question, where does Batman come into play lol

BTW I think the bank robbery would be amazing for the teaser trailer. Just have the screen go black before the gun shot and then let the shot ring through the theater with villainous laughter as the bat logo comes up. Actually, if someone can tell me a movie with a good robber-bank manager scene I will attempt to make a fan-made teaser of this with direct dialogue from the script! I've made some teasers before so I have some experience, anyone suggest any movies to base the footage???

Use some clips from HEAT!

 

[ultimatefan]

double post

 

[ultimatefan]

Not without resorting to veiled insults, it appears.


Ah, but you do tease. Frequently. For no productive reason.

That's unfortunate. I was raised to believe conviction and the ability to communicate my point of view was a good thing. I don't hurl insults when I argue, and I don't tend to belittle people. I present logical arguments. If people have a problem with me believing in my argument...or following through on it, that's their problem. Again, no one has to read my posts.

Where was he shown TO have any honor? You've got Falcone having a young, grieving Bruce Wayne beat up for no discernable reason (to prove a point). Later, we have Falcone smuggling god knows what for god knows who...for money and favors. I don't know how honorable that is. Not long afterward, Falcone's men (or were they Ra's Al Ghul's men?) shot a District Attorney in the back. I certainly don't see any scenes where he is honorable in BATMAN BEGINS. Do you? Hence me saying that angle of the mob is somewhat ignored.

The words and actions of the bank manager, given his situation. He's provoking someone he knows will kill him for doing so.

I never said it had to be delivered as a speech. It's just absurd dialogue regardless.


Which is the first stupid thing about this scene. Who threatens and then insults an armed robber who clearly has the balls to counter a powerful mobster?

And this is where it all goes downhill. Rather than playing with "scared" or "confused", the writers suddenly have the bank manager giving a ridiculous speech.

And my issue is exactly this. It's lame. It's unrealistic. If he's making a plea, it's a lousy one. It's logically stupid for the bank manager to provoke a madman with a gun, and even dumber to not so subtly insult him afterward. It's just moronic on every level.


Opinion. I think they're lousy.


I'm looking at the scene in context. I do not need it's meaning or how it fits into the story explained to me. These things are fairly obvious. And I've not accused anyone of incompetence. Only of average and in this instance, overpresentational, writing.

I'm not asking THE DARK KNIGHT to reinvent the wheel. I'm mostly referring to "the same old cliche police dialogue we've seen in a dozen movies" when I say cliche. Not the tone, the storyline, or even the characterizations so much. Cliches are often inevitable, but they need not be repetitive and stale in terms of dialogue.


Then why the hell is this writer trying to?

I agree. The thing is, I don't see a whole lot of being straight and to the point. I see quite a bit of "embellishment" that becomes far too presentational. The judge, the bank manager...

And such is my issue with the writing here. This is why I called it unimpressive. It's either boring, or predictable, or far too showy.

Should I turn to in your face insults such as "self-*****iating"? That´s what you mean with "not belittling" anyone? Where´s the insult in saying I´m not crazy about your writing? It´s an opinion. Should Nolan and Goyer feel it as an insult that you don´t like their writing. I can´t find links now, but if you want me to be specific, I saw samples of your fictions and the dialogue in there mostly felt to me as or more bland, mundane and flat as you accuse this of being. So much I can´t actually remember the specifics of the content.

The intention was to communicate things I don´t like about how you express yourself, so from my POV, at least, they were productive.

Given that it doesn´t feel nearly as repetitive and boring to me as it does to you, all that is a moot argument anyway. The lines feel to me mostly not so much as attempts to witty zingers as things that, I feel, are right for the purpose of the scenes in the story and what such characters might say. The story doesn´t seem boring in the least to me, neither does the dialogue that communicates it. That´s your problem, not mine.

 

[Phaser]

The Guard's prematurely judgmental attitude has made him look like a fool more than once. I distinctly remember arguing with him when he was making a big deal about the 'inappropriateness' of Wayne Enterprises manufacturing military equipment and crying foul about how the Tumbler crushing the police patrol car outside Arkham killed or severely injured the two cops inside, one of many points we debated about before the film was released. I actually got a laugh in the theater seeing many such 'problems' Guard had with the BB script properly addressed in the final cut of the film.

And there's nothing to suggest it won't happen with the sequel either, especially with a significantly superior writer penning TDK.

On a side note, even though some may deem it a bit harsh or even uncalled for, 'self-falatiating' is actually very much an appropriate term for The Guard's tirades around this place, especially on the basis of the countless (and seemingly endless) arguments I've had with him prior to BB's release. I have seen him tout and hint at his 'superior' fan-scripts and writing skills more than once.

 

[regwec]

Well, ain't we all b*tches.

 

[Miranda Fox]

The Guard's prematurely judgmental attitude has made him look like a fool more than once. I distinctly remember arguing with him when he was making a big deal about the 'inappropriateness' of Wayne Enterprises manufacturing military equipment and crying foul about how the Tumbler crushing the police patrol car outside Arkham killed or severely injured the two cops inside, one of many points we debated about before the film was released. I actually got a laugh in the theater seeing many such 'problems' Guard had with the BB script properly addressed in the final cut of the film.

And there's nothing to suggest it won't happen with the sequel either, especially with a significantly superior writer penning TDK.

On a side note, even though some may deem it a bit harsh or even uncalled for, 'self-falatiating' is actually very much an appropriate term for The Guard's tirades around this place, especially on the basis of the countless (and seemingly endless) arguments I've had with him prior to BB's release. I have seen him tout and hint at his 'superior' fan-scripts and writing skills more than once.

I'm going to have to 'word' this one.

It's nothing particularly personal against Guard, but saying the Joker is most definitely being wrongly portrayed based on those sides is pretty ridiculous (and before anyone starts, I was happy over the 'laugh' because there were people who, in all seriousness, kept saying the Joker wouldn't laugh. Maybe it is incredibly premature to say they got NOLOWNED but damn, that was one of the most annoying quibbles I ever saw and it was cool to at least see one stupid nitpick bulldozed).

 

[SilentType]

 

[Miranda Fox]

Did you make that? It's hilarious. And probably a sign to get back on topic.

 

[MechaOrga]

Holy sweet mother of jesus on rubber crutches that was funny!!!!!!
t:

Did you make that yourself???seriously!