The Dark Knight TDK Casting Sides

[Katsuro]

Perhaps, it did seem like a very in-the-moment type of thing at that point. But even so, Bats always saves 'em if he can.

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 who'se weight limit I cant quite remember. But even if it could support them, I cant imagine the grappling hook working in that situation.

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.

 

[Crooklyn]

In Ra's case, he did once already. He's not obliged to do it again.

Well technically he's not obliged at all, but he does. Cause he's Batman.

I don't think so. I think Batman can not be so sympathetic to hopeless, persistent criminals and still be respectful towards human life. I really like how the Begins Batman took the middle ground approach there by clearly stating how he's "no executioner" but also that has no qualms about leaving irredeemables to their fates and at the same time, risking his own life if it means getting a criminal a fair trial and a second chance. That I believe is the primary essence of the character's devotion to human life, not consistently saving incurable butchers so that they can kill more innocents.

Have you read the 'Under the Hood' storyline? This very exact point was brought into question at the climax of the story, and I thought it was brilliantly handled considering the characters involved. I'll try to get you some scans if you haven't read it if you wish.

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 who'se weight limit I cant quite remember. But even if it could support them, I cant imagine the grappling hook working in that situation.

...but here's the thing. It's a movie. Movies have scripts. Scripts have writers. Writers have ideas. Ideas can change.

IF Nolan wanted it to end differently, you can be sure the things that led to BB's conclusion wouldn't have played it out in the same exact manner. Hence why all the variables you mentioned are made null, simply because it could've been written in an alternative way.

 

[Katsuro]

...but here's the thing. It's a movie. Movies have scripts. Scripts have writers. Writers have ideas. Ideas can change.

IF Nolan wanted it to end differently, you can be sure the things that led to BB's conclusion wouldn't have played it out in the same exact manner. Hence why all the variables you mentioned are made null, simply because it could've been written in an alternative way.

So in other words, you wanted them to place some Dues Ex Machina to come in and magically save them?

Batman isn't a writer, he's a character. The character Batman did what he had to do in the situation the writer's placed him in. You cant act like he was out of character, and that's most peoples complaint, since it wasn't the character's decision to be put in that situation.

Is that what you're trying to argue, that Batman was out of character? Or do you believe the situation itself was unrealistic somehow? Or are you just saying it was a poor way to end the movie? I guess I just dont understand your complaint. I thought the scene was in character for an early Bats, the situation was no more unrealistic than the rest of the film, and I thought it was a perfect way to get rid of Ra's al Ghul with the way the story had been set up so far.

 

[Crooklyn]

So in other words, you wanted them to place some Dues Ex Machina to come in and magically save them?

That'd be implying a life/death situation involving a train is completely impossible to get out of, hence any sort of rescue of both characters can be deemed unnecessarily convenient. Is that what you're saying?

Is that what you're trying to argue, that Batman was out of character? Or do you believe the situation itself was unrealistic somehow? Or are you just saying it was a poor way to end the movie? I guess I just dont understand your complaint. I thought the scene was in character for an early Bats, the situation was no more unrealistic than the rest of the film, and I thought it was a perfect way to get rid of Ra's al Ghul with the way the story had been set up so far.

I don't see why you've added in this realism business, that has nothing to with this.

I wasn't originally complaining, I was making a point that Batman made a decision at the end of BB, that sets him in a certain position (that of not being completely against the loss of a life) if it's for the greater good. I was saying that if the TDK ferry scene involves Bats criticizing the killing of several convicted killers...it'd seem a tad hypocritical.

 

[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."

I respectfully disagree.

 

[Fenrir]

Well technically he's not obliged at all, but he does. Cause he's Batman.

Again, I think it's downright ironic and ******ed that the comic book Batman's vow to save irredeemable scum at any cost flies straight into the face of the principles for the preservation of human life.I believe it is nothing more than a stupid ploy that pretends to be a noble deed to keep the comics kid-friendly and retaining characters who should have deservedly bitten the bullet long back because of their dastardly deeds. That's why I'm all for ditching the concept of 'faithfulness' to the source material when it doesn't make any sense.

Have you read the 'Under the Hood' storyline? This very exact point was brought into question at the climax of the story, and I thought it was brilliantly handled considering the characters involved. I'll try to get you some scans if you haven't read it if you wish.

No, haven't read it. Scans would be nice. I'm quite interested to see how they justify that, because I don't think it is possible to do so without having gaping holes in logic. In fact, realistically speaking, the comic book Batman should be blamed and is indirectly responsible for endangering the lives of Gotham's citizens as well as the countless deaths of innocents who have been slaughtered at the hands of his rogues gallery that have repeatedly escaped Arkham to perpetrate the same kind of crimes (or even worse) because of his radical acts of 'compassion' in trying to save such felons. For someone like the comic book Batman who claims to be such a cherisher of human life, it's downright hypocritical on his part.

 

[Fenrir]

I wasn't originally complaining, I was making a point that Batman made a decision at the end of BB, that sets him in a certain position (that of not being completely against the loss of a life) if it's for the greater good. I was saying that if the TDK ferry scene involves Bats criticizing the killing of several convicted killers...it'd seem a tad hypocritical.

How so? Isn't it possible that amongst the prisoners on the ferry are convicts who are close to serving their sentence, repaying their debt to society, truly learned their lesson and looking to make a fresh start towards a new life as a reformed law-abiding citizen? Even if there's a single such individual amongst them, for Batman it makes the task
worthwhile enough to die for.

 

[bosef982]

About the Ra's thing? That was just between him and Bats, no one else would know.

His point with the boats could be to show Batman that regardless of what he does, regarldess of how hard he tries...NO ONE IS INNOCENT in Gotham, a philosophy that merges nicely with Two-Face.

 

[Agentsands77]

Just because he let's the coin decide his actions doesn't mean it's strictly good/evil, there, though. In fact, the rest of the comic indicates otherwise - I'd argue that this case isn't making him choose between a good and evil action, but whether to uphold the system in making his goals, or to go around it.

This one? Not so much, considering Two-Face gives a long spiel about how the coin's all about justice/injustice, and how that can be decided like the flip of a coin.

I mean, here's his dialogue:

TWO-FACE: Again. And again. The courts will send them back to prison or Arkham. They will escape. And we have the same problem. Again. And again.
BATMAN: Harvey...?
TWO-FACE: Harvey is gone. Two-Face is more like it, don't you think?
BATMAN: If you pull that trigger, how are you different from the Roman?
TWO-FACE: That's Jim Gordon talking. You know the system doesn't work. The justice can be decided like the flip of a coin.

And then here's his dialogue to Vernon, later;

TWO-FACE: You have to answer for Harvey Dent. Somebody gave Maroni the acid to throw in Dent's face. Somebody who saw Maroni just before he entered the courtroom. That somebody is you, Vernon Fields. Assistant to District Attorney Harvey Dent. You believe in the justice system don't you, Vernon? You didn't spend all those years in law school for nothing, right? Then you know, justice has two sides. Innocent or guilty. Like this coin. One side clean. The other side scarred.

 

[Miranda Fox]

His point with the boats could be to show Batman that regardless of what he does, regarldess of how hard he tries...NO ONE IS INNOCENT in Gotham, a philosophy that merges nicely with Two-Face.

I like that theory.

 

[Agentsands77]

NO ONE IS INNOCENT in Gotham, a philosophy that merges nicely with Two-Face.

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).

 

[itsthebatman]

Just because he let's the coin decide his actions doesn't mean it's strictly good/evil, there, though. In fact, the rest of the comic indicates otherwise - I'd argue that this case isn't making him choose between a good and evil action, but whether to uphold the system in making his goals, or to go around it.


This one? Not so much, considering Two-Face gives a long spiel about how the coin's all about justice/injustice, and how that can be decided like the flip of a coin.

I mean, here's his dialogue:

TWO-FACE: Again. And again. The courts will send them back to prison or Arkham. They will escape. And we have the same problem. Again. And again.
BATMAN: Harvey...?
TWO-FACE: Harvey is gone. Two-Face is more like it, don't you think?
BATMAN: If you pull that trigger, how are you different from the Roman?
TWO-FACE: That's Jim Gordon talking. You know the system doesn't work. The justice can be decided like the flip of a coin.

And then here's his dialogue to Vernon, later;

TWO-FACE: You have to answer for Harvey Dent. Somebody gave Maroni the acid to throw in Dent's face. Somebody who saw Maroni just before he entered the courtroom. That somebody is you, Vernon Fields. Assistant to District Attorney Harvey Dent. You believe in the justice system don't you, Vernon? You didn't spend all those years in law school for nothing, right? Then you know, justice has two sides. Innocent or guilty. Like this coin. One side clean. The other side scarred.

My point is that he does let the coin toss decide his actions - he doesn't release Calendar Man on that basis, while he does kill Falcone due to the scarred side coming up. Good and evil are nothing to do with it, and it does show the reduction of his moral faculties, and decison-making process, to the flip of a coin. That's his pathology, that he is amoral. I don't understand your point.

 

[Anjow1060]

His point with the boats could be to show Batman that regardless of what he does, regarldess of how hard he tries...NO ONE IS INNOCENT in Gotham, a philosophy that merges nicely with Two-Face.

I'm down with that. Makes perfect sense if you ask me.

 

[Miranda Fox]

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).

Please don't say that - it might come true.

 

[Agentsands77]

Please don't say that - it might come true.

I doubt it. I have more faith in Nolan and co. than that, and thus I firmly believe that Two-Face is not at all responsible for that ferry incident. I imagine Two-Face will barely show up in THE DARK KNIGHT, only to be further explored in BB3.

 

[regwec]

Agentsands, you speak of Long Halloween as if it is a seminal Two Face story, but he is really rather out of character, or at least "transitional" in the comic. He certainly has a greater sensitivity to opposing inner forces in Dark Victory- I don't think you can reconcile his attempt to become king of the freaks to a particularly pronounced sense of justice. In anycase, the bones of the character are most certainly his "flipping" between good and evil. It is aptly symbolised by his coin, and provides the character with a unique theme. Without it, he is much like the modern Red Hood, or any other "step too far" vigilante in comic book lore.

 

[Miranda Fox]

I doubt it. I have more faith in Nolan and co. than that, and thus I firmly believe that Two-Face is not at all responsible for that ferry incident. I imagine Two-Face will barely show up in THE DARK KNIGHT, only to be further explored in BB3.

 

[Agentsands77]

Agentsands, you speak of Long Halloween as if it is a seminal Two Face story, but he is really rather out of character, or at least "transitional" in the comic.

Fair enough. But wouldn't he be "transitional" in THE DARK KNIGHT, with BB3 to see him further developed?

He certainly has a greater sensitivity to opposing inner forces in Dark Victory- I don't think you can reconcile his attempt to become king of the freaks to a particularly pronounced sense of justice.

Yes, okay. But at least you'll admit that his initial descent into madness is stimulated by a loss of faith in the system and that "I did what must be done" mentality (interestingly it's the Harvey side that says, "I did what must be done").

Dent has his prior self and then his darker, other personality, and they war with eachother. But in THE LONG HALLOWEEN and in DARK VICTORY, the line between Harvey and Two-Face and their respective motivations isn't so clearly drawn. He has very complex interaction between the sides beyond just flipping a coin.

 

[regwec]

You may be right that we could see a "transitional" Two Face in the film, but I have a feeling that the issue would need to be condensed rather more for a movie than (two whole runs of) a comic.

I think it would be visually and thematically powerful if Dent (pre scarring) flipped a coin (perhaps a lucky trinket) through force of habit, or better still, as a nervous twitch. I think the marring of his face serves better as a massive trigger to mental breakdown, rather than the beginning of a gradual erosion of Dent's sanity. He should still retain the fervent persuit of justice, as you describe, but the coin should act as defense and prosecution, dictating his new sense of right and wrong.

Personal taste, anyway.

 

[itsthebatman]

Yes, okay. But at least you'll admit that his initial descent into madness is stimulated by a loss of faith in the system and that "I did what must be done" mentality (interestingly it's the Harvey side that says, "I did what must be done").

Dent has his prior self and then his darker, other personality, and they war with eachother. But in THE LONG HALLOWEEN and in DARK VICTORY, the line between Harvey and Two-Face and their respective motivations isn't so clearly drawn. He has very complex interaction between the sides beyond just flipping a coin.

The question isn't about Harvey, it's about Two-Face. Harveys descent and personal crisis are a separate issue from what he does as Two-Face.
Start again. Regardless of what it is that drives him to become Two-Face, the coin tossing deciding his actions is a defining characteristic when he does become Two-Face.

 

[itsthebatman]

You may be right that we could see a "transitional" Two Face in the film, but I have a feeling that the issue would need to be condensed rather more for a movie than (two whole runs of) a comic.

I think it would be visually and thematically powerful if Dent (pre scarring) flipped a coin (perhaps a lucky trinket) through force of habit, or better still, as a nervous twitch. I think the marring of his face serves better as a massive trigger to mental breakdown, rather than the beginning of a gradual erosion of Dent's sanity. He should still retain the fervent persuit of justice, as you describe, but the coin should act as defense and prosecution, dictating his new sense of right and wrong.

Personal taste, anyway.

Expressed more eloquently than I could ever manage. Co-sign.

 

[Agentsands77]

You may be right that we could see a "transitional" Two Face in the film, but I have a feeling that the issue would need to be condensed rather more for a movie than (two whole runs of) a comic.

Why? Surely we have BB3 filling in the same role DARK VICTORY does, right?

I think it would be visually and thematically powerful if Dent (pre scarring) flipped a coin (perhaps a lucky trinket) through force of habit, or better still, as a nervous twitch.

That's an idea that was done in "The Eye of the Beholder." He gets the coin from his father, and as his distingration takes hold over the story, he eventually becomes more and more attached to the coin. The coin is also given a very important significance to his life in the story (the double-headed coin was what his father used when he abused him - he said if tails would come up, he wouldn't beat him, but there was no tails).

I think the marring of his face serves better as a massive trigger to mental breakdown, rather than the beginning of a gradual erosion of Dent's sanity.

I think it's clear that, in THE LONG HALLOWEEN, Dent's disintigration into psychosis takes place long before the scarring. The scarring is just the final catalyst. But even after he's descended into madness, there's a progression between "early insane Two-Face" and "later insane Two-Face."

The question isn't about Harvey, it's about Two-Face.

Sure it is. Harvey Dent is one of the halves of Two-Face, and so there's much to be asked there. The two halves of the Two-Face persona have different motivations, different goals, but both have to be looked at.

Harveys descent and personal crisis are a separate issue from what he does as Two-Face.

They're forever interrelated.

Regardless of what it is that drives him to become Two-Face, the coin tossing deciding his actions is a defining characteristic when he does become Two-Face.

Many other stories have taken more complex portrayals of his psychosis than just coin flipping to decide all actions and all interactions between his two personalities. DARK VICTORY does just that, and he's firmly Two-Face in that story.

 

[itsthebatman]

Try and imagine Two-Face without the coin.

 

[Agentsands77]

Try and imagine Two-Face without the coin.

What's the point of that statement? I'm not arguing the coin is insignificant. It's an important aspect of his character. I'm simply arguing that the character can be and has been more complex than "he flips a coin for every decision he ever makes." The character has been much more complex than that for years.

The coin has been many different things through the history of the character - among them: a decision making process; a decider between the two personalities when they disagree; a gimmick to mock fate.

 

[regwec]

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. The interpretation I summarised is based on a few comics (you picked me up on one idea I stole!) primarily, but there is nothing there which really contradicts anything in the characters history. 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.