I just flat out disagree with this. I think almost everyone here appreciates Two-face having a prolonged build-up, especially since Batman The Animated Series didn't just jump straight into that side of the character (ironically the comics did initially). Once he becomes Two-Face though it opens up other avenues since the face-scarring is what sends him into a life of crime -- that is the life that you can't explore while he's just Harvey, even though you can set up the sides of him that lead to it.
You surely know about a TV series having many episodes to explore every character and being able to devote a two-parte for Two-Face. And then having just 3 movies for so many different characters.
"Almost everyone here appreciates Two-face having a prolonged build-up" doesn't mean is the only, the best or the possible way to do it. That's just not a reason.
You're starting to sound like Two-face because that's what is called a 'false dilemma'
But, but I'm so open to learn.
It's not the only quality thing they could've done with the character. Just because Two-Face had a few good scenes doesn't mean that there couldn't have been more of them.
Doesn't mean they had to put more either. What Two-Face had was great. But the bat-universe had more to show.
Boba Fett was actually a much smaller character, and I would call his scenes "quality", but since the events of Return of the Jedi his character has been expanded tremedously, and he's much more since. So really the quality of "that" simply reminds me how underutilized the character was, especially in light of Heath Ledger's death - who I assume would've returned for a third.
We don't know what Ledger was going to do next. If it were for me, I'd replace him for the third, period.
Thing is, we could also explore Jim Gordon a lot more than we did. But hey, we can't explore the full potential of every interesting character.
Now, if we're talking about fully-wasted potentials, I still cry before the awful and insufficient portrayal of Scarecrow. Now THAT was bad and regretable.
Initially Aaron Eckhart agreed to a third movie, which means, I would guess, that he would've been the third installment villain. I always thought, after hearing that, that perhaps the reason they hastily tied off his story was to make room for more Heath Ledger in the third. There is no way they could've known they'd cast someone that good as the Joker, and once they saw Heath play the part I'm sure they thought he'd upstage anything they could do with little ole' Two-Face.
But this is just speculation, right?
******************************************
What I really don't like reading is guys presuming films are flawless. TDK is far from flawless and one of its main detractions is Two Face.
Is that so? Because it does have flaws. But at least far less than most of superhero movies out there including its predecessor.
Bruce Wayne is NOT Batman, Dent is NOT Two Face. They are parts of that character but essentially, they are not their alter-egos. Two Face is a whole different beast from Dent, moreso than Wayne and Batman. Dent completely transforms to something else, whereas Wayne bounces back and forth with his alter-ego. So no, we don't get Two Face from Dent.
Alter ego is precisely what they are. We can get how screwed Two-Face is because we know how different from Dent he was.
No, this version was not about finding a new never-explored personality of Dent. It was Dent but losing it after losing his face and love of his life.
Quality over quantity. That's Hannibal Lector. That's Hopkins, that's Ted Tally (screenwriter). All those elements combined with Demme's direction is the ultimate in quality over quantity. So much so that you forget how little time he is on screen. You can't compare that to Two Face. The writing was nowhere near as layered and Eckhart did well, but he's not half the actor of Hopkins.
We can't compare screentimes here between those characters because as comic fans we KNOW how much Two-Face has been regularly used veersus how much he was used in TDK. As fans we're expecting something in advance.
We'd have to ask to regular moviegoers who don't know or don't expect in advance for things.
Now, who the hell is "Lector"?
I tell you what though, if they picked a stronger actor like Denzel with an artist doing a Two Face interpretation of him, then he is the calibre of actor that would have made the little he had into something amazing and memorable.
Sorry, but Two Face was not memorable. Joker was.
Oooooooooooooh, so it was never actually about the screentime but how good the actor portraying the role was.
Then say so. "I didn't like Eckhardt as Two-Face."
Different song.
Two Face should be the villain in the third and he deserves more than like FIFTEEN MINUTES????
How many minutes does he deserve?
***********************************
************************************
they could have exploited the potential of two-face's character to a much fuller extent in a separate film (after setting him up in TDK). they chose not to. instead they chose to short change the character by cramming his story into the last 20 minutes of the movie. in my opinion, this was a bad choice that deprived an audience of the characters potential. and considering how great a character two-face is, thats a real shame.
They could have a movie from the perspective of Jim Gordon, ala Year One. And put there the whole Flass vs Gordon thing, and the whole Loeb vs Gordon thing, and the whole Sarah Essen thing, etc etc etc, real shame.
But after two movies we've seen little of him. Thank God that, same as with Two-Face, what we've seen has been great.
**************************************
The word I keep hearing is "satisfying" "just fine". Surely we want Two Face to be amazing, spectacular. That's what Joker was.
Ah, but you can find new words for Two-Facve. I found it a better character than the Joker. Sure, Joker will always be the ultimate scene-stealer and everything. He's the ultimate psycho, add to that the black humour, the clown face etc etc and nothing can beat that no matter who's portraying the rest of the characters. But it was ultimately characterization. Joker doesn't change much throughout the movie and he's not supposed to. The whole world will love him just the way he always is.
Eckhardt on the other hand had to develop a thorough and meticulous step by step piece of acting. From the incorruptible serious man trying to hide his insecurities, but defying death, to the man so degraded, so corrupted, so grotesque that must become a monster to adapt himself to his new reality, after he's opened his eyes to the cruel world beyond the beautiful speeches about justice and hope.
And come on, you are comparing Two Face in tdk to an oscar-winning performance and one of the most memorable characters AND performances of all time that has been parodied endlessly? Anthony Hopkins would be appalled...ha
Again, your point is the actors then, not the screentime.
Nolan chose to make Two Face come in for a short while but the writing was not as good as it was for Hannibal Lector and Eckhart is no Hopkins.
Or the writing, but not the screentime.
These are facts, not opinions.
Oh, if I had a dime for every fan that has said...
THIS is better than THAT. That's the very definition of "opinion" man.
Two Face is one of Batman's main villains and he was given....15 minutes?
Joker is THE main villiain and they're giving him ONE movie???
All he did as Two Face was flip his coin and get angry. No exploration of character whatsoever. Come on, this is plain to see.
So you missed the whole plot and specially the last scene.
THE character who was explored the most in the whole movie was Dent/Two-Face. He was the one changing the most scene after scene. He went from the brightest white to the darkest black.
