TDK Harvey Dent and PWZ Punisher: Comparison and Contrast

Spade

Seeking new challengers
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
9,970
Reaction score
2
Points
58
Disclaimer: This thread isn't for TDK or P:WZ-bashing; it's an observation on the direction of Frank's character in this film.

It occured to me, after watching The Dark Knight, that I found Harvey Dent to be closer to the modern Punisher than this new Punisher movie. I won't spoil any script details, but we all know that the Punisher does something that instigates a manhunt from the press release. During the course of that, Frank tries to find retribution.

My question is this- why? I'll use Dent as an example (without spoiling what comic fans don't already know). In The Dark Knight, we see how a traumatic event makes a certain district attorney more than a little mad. Yes, I get that he has a valid reason for seeking revenge. But we see afterwards that this spirals out of control and he eventually becomes a violent parody of his former self.

I bring this up because that sounds more like the comic Punisher I know than what Lexi's Punisher is. The comic book Punisher lost his family, and God knows what I would do in the same situation. But that was some time ago, and readers have questioned more than once whether Frank's ongoing quest is as justified as he would like to believe. Now contrast this from Lexi's Punisher, who seems to be a more violent Batman.

Some might say the Batman parallels are unavoidable, but are the two really one in the same? One works with the law, albeit bending it, for the greater good and a just world. The other not only breaks the law, but despises its flaws, instead believing that the consequences for evil actions should be absolute. So the whole "one in the same" argument is flawed. Why, then, does there seem to be an attempt to rationalize and/or elevate Frank here? He's practically a villain with minor justifications for his actions.

So, I ask you- is this really in the spirit of the Punisher we know and love, or did Christopher and Jonathan Nolan inadvertedly give us that in their film?
 
You're kidding, right?

Castle doesn't flip a coin.
 
You're kidding, right?

That was my response to your post. Hope you were being sarcastic.

Just because TDK Dent leaves consequence up to chance doesn't mean it invalidates the rest of the glaring similarities. Plus, MAX Frank doesn't fret over who he kills, either. Both use some vague justifications to smooth over their despicable acts of violence.
 
i haven't seen the dark knight yet because i hate packed houses and i haven't read the warzone script because i hate spoilers... but regardless, your comparison does seem pretty ridiculous.
 
Are there similarities to Dent and Castle? Sure, to a point. But the whole "Did Nolan already give us the right Punisher" angle is a bit hard to swallow. Because no, Nolan gave us a man who flips a coin and went after innocents.
 
i gt what he's trying to say and he's right. Frank Castle suffered a tragedy, and eventually got his revenge. But after that it went further, he became obsessed with punishment of the corrupt and the evil. very similar to Two-Face, except his vision of evil differs,and he leaves his decisions to chance.
 
Harvey Dent in the movie was just a man seeking revenge nothing more nothing less...Frank would never
threaten to kill Commissioner Gordon's innocent wife and kids.
...they both used extreme methods and killed people but other than that and the revenge angle and the loss of loved one(s) angle I dont see any real similarities.
 
Lets see...Two face looses loved one, revenge on those who were involved using chance as his decision maker, thats pretty much were it ends...Punisher loses loved ones, revenge on those who were involved and takes it upon himself to wage a one man war on crime for the rest of his life, those who he believes need to be punished are punished, no way around it, no if's and's or but's...9/10 times Punisher kills who he intends to kill and that is anyone who he believes is guilty, he goes to great lengths to see that innocents are not harmed and the guilty are punished. Two-face, not so much. Only similarity is that they had loved ones die and they use guns and sought revenge on those who helped kill their loved ones.
 
Lets see...Two face looses loved one, revenge on those who were involved using chance as his decision maker, thats pretty much were it ends...Punisher loses loved ones, revenge on those who were involved and takes it upon himself to wage a one man war on crime for the rest of his life, those who he believes need to be punished are punished, no way around it, no if's and's or but's...9/10 times Punisher kills who he intends to kill and that is anyone who he believes is guilty, he goes to great lengths to see that innocents are not harmed and the guilty are punished. Two-face, not so much. Only similarity is that they had loved ones die and they use guns and sought revenge on those who helped kill their loved ones.


In terms of overall characterization they are very similar. as you said they both loose loved ones, seek revenge on the corrupt and those responsible. But if you think about it another way they are similar is that both wish to fight injustice. However both have very different views on what justice is. Being so,they have not only set out to do what they think is justified but,they are both consumed by what they do and have pushed themselves to become something bigger than originally intending themselves to be. Two face wanted to end corruption in th city and take revenge on those he felt responsible for deaths of innocents. But, he lost himself into believing that everyone who"Wasnt lucky" were corrupt and deserved to die. Castle wanted revenge on the mobsters that killed his family. After doing so he became obsessed with fighting the war on crime all over. And he not only tries to expose the flaws in modern law,but he also shows great resent for the law itself and tries to shape it the way h sees fit.As well does Two-Face, throwing his twist on justice using luck a part of the mix as well. I think what the OP was trying get at was that, in essence Two-face was a bit more of a punisher than we have been seeing in these films. Not by his actions but more or less his intentions
 
Here are some spoiler tags on TDK, to keep the SHH moderators happy:

Two Face killed cops and was about to kill the 10 year old son of a police commissioner, just to prove point about fairness.

Obviously things Frank would never do. Just look at what he went through in Mother Russia to keep a little girl safe from those crooked army guys.
 
If the Frank had been in Dent's place, he would have strangled Joker on sight in the Hospital, then gone after his men.
 
If the Frank had been in Dent's place, he would have strangled Joker on sight in the Hospital, then gone after his men.

Exactly. Plus what everyone else is saying
about when he's about to shoot the kid.

The only real similarity I see is that they're both vigilantes who use extreme force and realistic weapons, rather than superpowers. Other than that, the similarity really ends there.
 
Well, those cops were dirty. I'm not sure if Frank's ever killed dirty cops. But, it's worth noting. Especially dirty cops who got his loved one killed.

The finale is where it shows the difference between Frank and Harv. And that's chance. Harvey believes himself to be the right arm of chance...and then dishing it out. I think Frank spends most his time trying to rule out chance and control the uncontrollable...which is tragedy at the hands of crime. Harvy accepts that, though. So much so that he sees tragedy from all ends as just a game of luck.

And willing to kill the kid. And Batman. And Jim. All people who did nothing wrong. Something Frank, as crazy as he may seem...would see perfectly clear.

Thing is also, TDK Two-Face is based off THE LONG HALLOWEEN character, Two-Face...of course, which is really just Harvey Dent unleashed. We saw glimpses of that in the film, where Harvey was so close to unleashing his inner demons on that Arkham escapee-Joker thug. So, TDK took alot from that Two-Face, which is why he resembles the vigilante aspect so well...because he is, essentially, the vigilante with no morals, no rules, no bias...just executioner at the whim of the coin.

Also...depending on which Punisher you look at, Frank is either looking for vengeance or to dish out punishment. Vengeance in few instances, like the 2004 film...or in THE CELL story. But, most usually...he's looking to just punish criminals. There's nothing really personal most of the time. He's just the exterminator and they're the vermin.

In TDK, Two-Face isn't actually looking for vengenace. I don't think he is, atleast. I think he's looking for something more than that. Some insane universal balance of chance that in his mind went out of whack when the tragedy occured.

I think the differences are too much between Harv and Frank, really. Mostly because Frank as a moral code he abides by. Follows it to a "T". Never wavers in that moral code for nothing in the world.

Harv doesn't really believe in morality anymore. He just believes in chance.

I do see what you mean, though. But I think the similarities are only superficial.
 
Well, those cops were dirty. I'm not sure if Frank's ever killed dirty cops. But, it's worth noting. Especially dirty cops who got his loved one killed.

The finale is where it shows the difference between Frank and Harv. And that's chance. Harvey believes himself to be the right arm of chance...and then dishing it out. I think Frank spends most his time trying to rule out chance and control the uncontrollable...which is tragedy at the hands of crime. Harvy accepts that, though. So much so that he sees tragedy from all ends as just a game of luck.

And willing to kill the kid. And Batman. And Jim. All people who did nothing wrong. Something Frank, as crazy as he may seem...would see perfectly clear.

Thing is also, TDK Two-Face is based off THE LONG HALLOWEEN character, Two-Face...of course, which is really just Harvey Dent unleashed. We saw glimpses of that in the film, where Harvey was so close to unleashing his inner demons on that Arkham escapee-Joker thug. So, TDK took alot from that Two-Face, which is why he resembles the vigilante aspect so well...because he is, essentially, the vigilante with no morals, no rules, no bias...just executioner at the whim of the coin.

Also...depending on which Punisher you look at, Frank is either looking for vengeance or to dish out punishment. Vengeance in few instances, like the 2004 film...or in THE CELL story. But, most usually...he's looking to just punish criminals. There's nothing really personal most of the time. He's just the exterminator and they're the vermin.

In TDK, Two-Face isn't actually looking for vengenace. I don't think he is, atleast. I think he's looking for something more than that. Some insane universal balance of chance that in his mind went out of whack when the tragedy occured.

I think the differences are too much between Harv and Frank, really. Mostly because Frank as a moral code he abides by. Follows it to a "T". Never wavers in that moral code for nothing in the world.

Harv doesn't really believe in morality anymore. He just believes in chance.

I do see what you mean, though. But I think the similarities are only superficial.

Well written.
 
Nice post ChrisBale.

I wouldn't have ever thought of the similarities between Two Face and Castle... but that's the whole point of comparison and contrast, right?

I always thought Batman and the Punisher were sort of alike. They both have no super powers, they work to free their city/world of injustice and corruption. I guess the biggest difference is Batman works with the police a little more, letting justice take care of villains... while the Punisher is the judge and jury.
 
I guess they have a few similarities like going the extreme route but Frank never threaten to kill an innocent person. And also that Two Face only has half a face and flips a coin...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"