The Dark Knight Where does most of TDK's critisism come from?

[Motown Marvel]

Sure, that's why Batman is the main role. Gordon, much as Two-Face is not the main character.

BTW... weren't we talking about Two-Face? Why did you bring Batman up?

i brought up batman because you brought up gordon who was the protagonist counterpart to the comparisons being made when.....oh f**k it.

No, I'm arguing that many secondary roles didn't get their full potential because this is just a trilogy and you have to choose.

Between Joker and Two-Face they chose Joker.

no, i totally get and understand that. most of these movies are centered around the main hero and the main villain. TDK was batman vs. joker. no problems there.

my problem is, they suddenly decided to cram two-face in at the end. and instead of leaving it open to later explore the characters full potential which he deserves, they just killed him off as soon as they introduced him.

it was too much for the movie and did too little for the character.

 

[The Joker]

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.



But, but I'm so open to learn.



Doesn't mean they had to put more either. What Two-Face had was great. But the bat-universe had more to show.





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.



But this is just speculation, right?



******************************************







Is that so? Because it does have flaws. But at least far less than most of superhero movies out there including its predecessor.



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.



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"?



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.



How many minutes does he deserve?


***********************************







************************************





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.

**************************************




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.



Again, your point is the actors then, not the screentime.



Or the writing, but not the screentime.



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.



Joker is THE main villiain and they're giving him ONE movie???



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.

My two cents on that is the fact that someone there kinda touched upon.

First and foremost these films are about Batman. Not Two-Face, not the Joker. His rouges are mirrors and conflicts that teach and evolve Batman as a character. They give the thematic elements and the core principles that are tested that Batman may have to overcome obstacles to come to realization or revelations. Some I think really forget this and get into the main mindset that the villains make the film, and that we fans want as much screen time for our favorite villains.

Yes villains are extremely important, they are the mirror darkly, they are the prods that spark Batman's inner demons and lets him face not only them but himself in the process. TDK was about falling. It was about loss. It was about losing control of everything you worked so hard at. And Harvey was the symbol of this throughout the entire film. Harvey was a man trying to be the hero, and clean up Gotham with a vengeance, however the Joker came along and showed Harvey his dark side, which he embraced in a half confused and angry way. Batman went through the same thing in this, he tried to create the perfect Gotham, but the funny thing is him doing so created these evil freaks, which the Joker was trying to get at all along. Two-Face reflects that good and bad of what Batman is doing, he personifies it to a great degree.

Two-Face in my view has always been to me a symbol of the "fall of man" or the turn to darkness. Not just a purely evil villain. That is what the core of the character is. The thing I think too many think is that his character is only this when half of his face is burned off and that he tries to commit crimes. Part of the Shakespearean tragedy (that TDK was) is really showing some one try to do good, and in the end fall and embrace some of the evil that he fought so hard to fight. Which is what Batman in in TDK, he did not kill the Joker, he wanted to, but he let him live, in a sense he understood the Joker they need each other, just as much man has good and evil in him. But still Batman chose to live his life by the good side of what he is doing and he took the higher road. However Harvey did not, and lets something else do the deciding for him (his coin) so that he would not have to accept any of the responsibility. And all of these things mentioned were done in TDK, and reflected very well the themes and lessons Batman had to learn about himself.

The thing is about the classic tragedy is it usually happens in the end, it usually has a man who is good for a long bit, then falls in the end. To have Two-Face longer in TDK would have just taken away from the impact and the slow unravel of everything he tried to hold together. And in the end it makes a great impact to see the man fall. Usually it ends poorly for them because they do not want to accept their own responsibilities.

Now where I'm getting with this is the fact that some think Two-Face should have transformed in TDK, and become the main villain in TDKR. Doing so would not have the same thematic impact by any means. TDK is about falling, and that is the core of what Two-Face is mainly about. The fact of the matter is when you have a act, or part of a story that has the hero falling, the next has to be him rising, or having a redemption. Two-Face would not work very well in this thematic element. What would Batman learn from him? Once you have Two-Face fall, his character really just continues to symbolize that and thematically you would have to have the same thing in TDKR. So in the end it was smart to have him just in one film, have his life, his fall.

What I am saying is that Two-Face has really never to me, nor do I think meant to really be primarily about internal conflict. I think Two-Face was really always about the man that gave up. In our daily lives we deal with deciding to do good or bad all the time, it is hard, painful and not everyone always wins. Two-Face takes the cheap way out and lets chance decide for him if he will be good or evil. The Joker is the pure evil in TDK, Batman is the pure good. And Dent shows us what we are, conflicted all the time. Dent just decided to let chance decide what he will be, and not himself. Which again mirrored to Batman, and this is something he overcame and took a different path then what Dent took. Dent took the easy way out, he just lets the coin decide what he will do. Batman took the hard and painful road to continue on his crusade to do good, no matter how painful it was (taking blame for murders and being hated by everyone) Now he has to overcome this in TDKR, and redeem himself most of all. TDK he decided that he must keep doing what he’s doing but he’s not quite there yet.

As others have mentioned screen time means nothing, what matters is how it reflects to the hero. Having Two-Face in a third one would really be no new revelations to Batman. The revelation of the tragic figure, and the folly of man would have already happened in TDK if they would have had him transform, then become the main villain in the third installment. So again these stories are all about Batman learning something new about himself, and to me the best theme that Two-Face always personified was that of the fall of man, they used it. Yes you can have other stories with him, and to a point maybe some different themes but not the right ones or really good ones. Two-Face can never be changed back, so redemption would be moot to try to do and have a villain that cannot really give any element of redemption. The best for the redemption story is the dark mirror, which Bane who is the anti-Batman is. Where he will struggle with himself after the fall, and come to the realization of who he is and what he needs to do.

Though not much screen time, Harvey did have some of the best scenes, I just think some got lost in the character of the Joker (which was beyond amazing) but just forgot that the whole story was about a man trying to do good, and hit his breaking point when evil took everything from him, and started to untangle everything he worked so hard to do. And of course this is all mirrored to Batman which is the core component. I think actually Harvey was very under-rated. I remember in a Screenplay trade magazine (website) they had an interview with J. Nolan and the screen play guys were just praising the story of Two-Face and how the classic Greek Tragedy took place in it. It is subtle but it is all there.

I know fans like to see "more" of their characters. But Two-Face/Harvey did everything in this film that he is most famous for, which is his fall. Half of the fall of Dent was mirrored by Batman and vice versa. So half of the character (no pun intended) was seamlessly intertwined in Bruce's story. So yea everything needed was there, we did see the struggle, not just always physically with Harvey but with Bruce as well. That is the point of superheroes, half of their inner thoughts and demons are personified by physical villains. And so Two-Face was fully fleshed in TDK. Yes he was cut out quickly but remember this is for three films not hundreds of issues of comics. And honestly using him in the third would thematically just not really have been appropriate for the redemption story that is needed after the "falling" story.

Two brilliant posts

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

My two cents on that is the fact that someone there kinda touched upon....

(Don't mean to cut this off, it was just a long post, I didn't want to quote the whole thing)

I mean I can't really disagree except to say this is a very narrow view of Two-Face, and that he's proven to be an expansive character beyond the theme of "falling" you're trying to pigeonhole him into. You could in essence say all Batman's villains are "tragic figures" who have fallen. Joker is most certainly a "fallen" individual, for that matter so is Batman. I don't really want either of those characters to be crammed hastily into the last fifteen minutes of a film even if it makes certain sense.

Plot wise, there is nothing wrong with the way Two-Face was handled -- that is to say it wasn't as though he came from no where just to wrap up the movie. Would he have less impact if he were saved for the third? That's a pretty ridiculous statement considering the character has been used pretty consistently since the 1940s and hasn't lost his thematic punch. As I say, and I feel like this is routinely getting ignored he's over 60 years old, and probably second only to Joker in the list of Bat rogues.

How about addressing this question: Alfred, a newer character, were he to be crammed into the last 15 minutes, and then completely tied off -- would you say they did the character justice? If your answer is "no", then this is no different. You can certainly say Two-Face was well done in the sense that he was well-acted, well-cast, had a good visual appearance, and even perhaps was a good addition to the plot (frankly I found the ending rather disjointed, I don't think he added to the Joker's "plan" at all -- it just served to set up a cliffhanger, which was rather baffling and stupid in it's own right). You certain can't say they did a justice to a character that's a 60 year rival to the caped crusader -- that's just insane. Something can be 'good', doesn't mean they used the character's full potential.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

no, i totally get and understand that. most of these movies are centered around the main hero and the main villain. TDK was batman vs. joker. no problems there.

my problem is, they suddenly decided to cram two-face in at the end. and instead of leaving it open to later explore the characters full potential which he deserves, they just killed him off as soon as they introduced him.

it was too much for the movie and did too little for the character.

I feel like people are living in Bizzaro world -- the ending was probably the weakest point of the film. It set up a very flimsey cliffhanger that hinged upon you believing that Gordon could dupe the entire GCPD into believing the man who just saved a bunch of cops and citizens from the Joker was, in fact, a cop killer. That they would somehow hide the fact that Dent went on a killing spree despite the fact that he left one of his victims alive to "fight another day, officer". Yes, Aaron Eckhart did a wonderful job, but outside of being a plot device to kill off a bunch of loose ends he never amounted to the threat Joker made him out to be. By the time the Joker was apprehended there really was no need to continue the movie. I would've much rather been left wondering what Two-Face was going to do next. Empire Strikes Back is a good template for how a movie can end with a very ominous sense of dread and still be effective as a conclusion.

 

[truth]

It's a simple case of trying do too much. I give Nolan credit for trying to go all out, but it was simply beyond him. It's a very hard skill trying to balance numerous characters. In the end, Two Face was just too much of a character in this film.
But looking at part 3, it's the same old story. Bane, Catwoman, Talia Al'Ghul...what happened of the good old hero versus villain thing that works so well?

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

It's a simple case of trying do too much. I give Nolan credit for trying to go all out, but it was simply beyond him. It's a very hard skill trying to balance numerous characters. In the end, Two Face was just too much of a character in this film.
But looking at part 3, it's the same old story. Bane, Catwoman, Talia Al'Ghul...what happened of the good old hero versus villain thing that works so well?

I think Nolan stopped just short of 'too much' for The Dark Knight, and could've certainly saved Two-Face for the next film. I really worry the third one will be a complete clusterf***, I have this suspicion Nolan doesn't know how to top Heath Ledger so he's just going to throw a bunch of random crap at us and hope it tops it. I don't wish to be unfair to his abilities, I just feel like anyone would've been lost after Ledger died.

 

[truth]

Well, if he had actually held Two Face back, then you could still have an interesting part three. But once you now have Joker and Two Face gone, how will part two and part three flow?
You really have to look at the screenwriters. Goyer ain't the best, but Begins was a very good film with only a few hiccups, and he wrote it. Tdk to me is the weaker film and that's where Nolan and his bro wrote it and it really felt they were out of their element in this genre. Too much stuff happening and cramming in stuff and trying to tie loose ends with big speeches are signs of the writing going awry.

 

[Fudgie]

My two cents on that is the fact that someone there kinda touched upon.

First and foremost these films are about Batman. Not Two-Face, not the Joker. His rouges are mirrors and conflicts that teach and evolve Batman as a character. They give the thematic elements and the core principles that are tested that Batman may have to overcome obstacles to come to realization or revelations. Some I think really forget this and get into the main mindset that the villains make the film, and that we fans want as much screen time for our favorite villains.

Yes villains are extremely important, they are the mirror darkly, they are the prods that spark Batman's inner demons and lets him face not only them but himself in the process. TDK was about falling. It was about loss. It was about losing control of everything you worked so hard at. And Harvey was the symbol of this throughout the entire film. Harvey was a man trying to be the hero, and clean up Gotham with a vengeance, however the Joker came along and showed Harvey his dark side, which he embraced in a half confused and angry way. Batman went through the same thing in this, he tried to create the perfect Gotham, but the funny thing is him doing so created these evil freaks, which the Joker was trying to get at all along. Two-Face reflects that good and bad of what Batman is doing, he personifies it to a great degree.

Two-Face in my view has always been to me a symbol of the "fall of man" or the turn to darkness. Not just a purely evil villain. That is what the core of the character is. The thing I think too many think is that his character is only this when half of his face is burned off and that he tries to commit crimes. Part of the Shakespearean tragedy (that TDK was) is really showing some one try to do good, and in the end fall and embrace some of the evil that he fought so hard to fight. Which is what Batman in in TDK, he did not kill the Joker, he wanted to, but he let him live, in a sense he understood the Joker they need each other, just as much man has good and evil in him. But still Batman chose to live his life by the good side of what he is doing and he took the higher road. However Harvey did not, and lets something else do the deciding for him (his coin) so that he would not have to accept any of the responsibility. And all of these things mentioned were done in TDK, and reflected very well the themes and lessons Batman had to learn about himself.

The thing is about the classic tragedy is it usually happens in the end, it usually has a man who is good for a long bit, then falls in the end. To have Two-Face longer in TDK would have just taken away from the impact and the slow unravel of everything he tried to hold together. And in the end it makes a great impact to see the man fall. Usually it ends poorly for them because they do not want to accept their own responsibilities.

Now where I'm getting with this is the fact that some think Two-Face should have transformed in TDK, and become the main villain in TDKR. Doing so would not have the same thematic impact by any means. TDK is about falling, and that is the core of what Two-Face is mainly about. The fact of the matter is when you have a act, or part of a story that has the hero falling, the next has to be him rising, or having a redemption. Two-Face would not work very well in this thematic element. What would Batman learn from him? Once you have Two-Face fall, his character really just continues to symbolize that and thematically you would have to have the same thing in TDKR. So in the end it was smart to have him just in one film, have his life, his fall.

What I am saying is that Two-Face has really never to me, nor do I think meant to really be primarily about internal conflict. I think Two-Face was really always about the man that gave up. In our daily lives we deal with deciding to do good or bad all the time, it is hard, painful and not everyone always wins. Two-Face takes the cheap way out and lets chance decide for him if he will be good or evil. The Joker is the pure evil in TDK, Batman is the pure good. And Dent shows us what we are, conflicted all the time. Dent just decided to let chance decide what he will be, and not himself. Which again mirrored to Batman, and this is something he overcame and took a different path then what Dent took. Dent took the easy way out, he just lets the coin decide what he will do. Batman took the hard and painful road to continue on his crusade to do good, no matter how painful it was (taking blame for murders and being hated by everyone) Now he has to overcome this in TDKR, and redeem himself most of all. TDK he decided that he must keep doing what he’s doing but he’s not quite there yet.

As others have mentioned screen time means nothing, what matters is how it reflects to the hero. Having Two-Face in a third one would really be no new revelations to Batman. The revelation of the tragic figure, and the folly of man would have already happened in TDK if they would have had him transform, then become the main villain in the third installment. So again these stories are all about Batman learning something new about himself, and to me the best theme that Two-Face always personified was that of the fall of man, they used it. Yes you can have other stories with him, and to a point maybe some different themes but not the right ones or really good ones. Two-Face can never be changed back, so redemption would be moot to try to do and have a villain that cannot really give any element of redemption. The best for the redemption story is the dark mirror, which Bane who is the anti-Batman is. Where he will struggle with himself after the fall, and come to the realization of who he is and what he needs to do.

Though not much screen time, Harvey did have some of the best scenes, I just think some got lost in the character of the Joker (which was beyond amazing) but just forgot that the whole story was about a man trying to do good, and hit his breaking point when evil took everything from him, and started to untangle everything he worked so hard to do. And of course this is all mirrored to Batman which is the core component. I think actually Harvey was very under-rated. I remember in a Screenplay trade magazine (website) they had an interview with J. Nolan and the screen play guys were just praising the story of Two-Face and how the classic Greek Tragedy took place in it. It is subtle but it is all there.

I know fans like to see "more" of their characters. But Two-Face/Harvey did everything in this film that he is most famous for, which is his fall. Half of the fall of Dent was mirrored by Batman and vice versa. So half of the character (no pun intended) was seamlessly intertwined in Bruce's story. So yea everything needed was there, we did see the struggle, not just always physically with Harvey but with Bruce as well. That is the point of superheroes, half of their inner thoughts and demons are personified by physical villains. And so Two-Face was fully fleshed in TDK. Yes he was cut out quickly but remember this is for three films not hundreds of issues of comics. And honestly using him in the third would thematically just not really have been appropriate for the redemption story that is needed after the "falling" story.

Best post in the whole thread.

 

[truth]

Hmmmm, I studied Shakespeare and I don't get how Tdk was...Shakespearian????

 

[Fudgie]

You don't understand the difference between an opinion and a fact either. So kel surprise.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2008/jul/23/thedarkknightbatmanisaha

http://billiedoux.blogspot.com/2008/07/dark-knight-shakespeare-in-tights.html

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/movies/2008/07/the-dark-knight.html

http://www.examiner.com/movie-in-ft-myers/rewind-the-dark-knight-s-relationship-to-shakespeare

 

[Motown Marvel]

the sheer amount of B.S. in that novel of a post is too overwhelming to even make sense of.

 

[truth]

You don't understand the difference between an opinion and a fact either. So kel surprise.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2008/jul/23/thedarkknightbatmanisaha

http://billiedoux.blogspot.com/2008/07/dark-knight-shakespeare-in-tights.html

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/movies/2008/07/the-dark-knight.html

http://www.examiner.com/movie-in-ft-myers/rewind-the-dark-knight-s-relationship-to-shakespeare

I'll make my point again. I studied Shakespeare and the film I've seen several times is not Shakespeare.
I don't give a damn what some critics or writers say. I refuse to even get into a discussion of Tdk being...Shakespeare. This is Nolan we're talking about. Not Mario Puzo or Frank Darabont.

 

[truth]

the sheer amount of B.S. in that novel of a post is too overwhelming to even make sense of.

Well, I won't go and call someone's take B.S. But I will say that I had to stop reading once I saw the words "Shakespeare" and "tragedy". Guys, are you for real? Have you read Shakespeare's stuff? Come on guys.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Solidus spoke very well. I think all of us on first viewing of TDK, the knee jerk reaction was disappointment. Or maybe it was just me because I was predicting Two-Fae would lead into a third one. But silly me, Nolan likes his Batman films to be standalone.

Eckhart's performance and that character was one of my favorite aspects of TDK and why I love it so much and why I get so much out of it. If you take his story out and leave the Joker, it's not of good as a film. Dent makes up more of the quality than the Joker. Now as El Payoso said, he will always be what we loved and he was truly amazing, but Dent adds a whole other dimension to the depth and the themes of the film. Joker is simply a catalyst for what happens. He brings the right amount of presence. No depth is necessary because he doesn't require it. It's why Nolan made Dent the backbone. He knew he needed to put in a sympathetic character. Dent also is born out of Bruce's journey. Dent has always been a fascinating character to me on his own. Two-Face is a consequence of his actions and beliefs. Unfortunate and tragic because here is a man who firmly believed in a system of justice and worked within it. Believed so much in it, working alongside Gordon and even someone who works outside the system like Batman to do whatever he could to do what was right. Even if he asked for that outside help, he wanted to root out evil. Which in a way, was his Achilles heel. It wasn't ego. He isn't an idealist like Batman or Gordon, he's a man who does his job and works within what his job permits him to do to any extent possible. Dedicated. That is the right type of man. And the best as Gordon says at the end of TDK. He's more selfless than Bruce is in TDK. A man who takes the blame of being Batman and putting himself in harm's way. Harvey is willing to take on the responsibility of being that "hero" of Gotham. Bruce is being selfish and naive here. What about Harvey? Bruce just wants to throw all of this in Dent's lap and live his own life? Talk about cold, like the Joker says.

It's so tragic, because this was the best man out of the three. He went from choice to chance. A brilliant storytelling component of the writers. The true definition of insanity. He's insane by the end. He's lost everything. A man who tried to make an effort stands before Batman and Gordon, two idealists. Dent is a living consequence of their idealistic ways and actions. Actually both Bruce and him have lost Rachel. Now it all goes into Bruce's lap. What he intended to Harvey goes all the way back to him. The person who he tried to lobby for is now a madman, the person who he originally thought would take his place turns into someone he naively underestimates (like the Joker, a "freak" who turned the best man into the worst kind of man) Remember that time when Bruce thought being Batman was going to be a temporary thing? What happens to Dent proves otherwise. Batman and Dent are at fault.

So all in all, Bruce's journey would not have been as good if it had not been for Dent's journey. Because both seemed like bosom buddies in a mad house. One came out tarnished and insane, the other managed to break free but paid the consequence for leading him into that madhouse. It got worse and worse; worse than the other could imagine it to be. Each paid for it and it changed them forever.

Eckhart should have gotten more recognition. He was the unsung hero of that film. Dent is a hard part to play. That interpretation is my favorite version of Dent because of Nolan and Eckhart.

And what would have Two-Face done after TDK? Rob the second national bank on a Tuesday? You have to look at what he was doing. He knew he wouldn't escape. He knew this would be the last of him. He was prepared to die. All he wanted to do was seek vengeance (the very thing Bruce managed to overcome in BB) on the people who had something to do with Rachel's death. It would have completely taken away what this film was about. Now maybe there could have been something, but this was treated from the forefront of development as a standalone film. We have to keep that in mind.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Well, I won't go and call someone's take B.S. But I will say that I had to stop reading once I saw the words "Shakespeare" and "tragedy". Guys, are you for real? Have you read Shakespeare's stuff? Come on guys.

Come on man. Shakespeare has influenced many works. It's not hard to figure out. That's a bad attitude. I hope you're not saying this is below Shakespeare because it's a comic book film and there's no way you can have that in a movie about Batman.

 

[truth]

Come on man. Shakespeare has influenced many works. It's not hard to figure out. That's a bad attitude. I hope you're not saying this is below Shakespeare because it's a comic book film and there's no way you can have that in a movie about Batman.

Of course not. If anything can be compared to something of a higher art than its genre, it's the Superman 1 movie. There are far deeper storytelling themes in that film than there are in any comic-book film that has ever been made

 

[truth]

Solidus spoke very well. I think all of us on first viewing of TDK, the knee jerk reaction was disappointment. Or maybe it was just me because I was predicting Two-Fae would lead into a third one. But silly me, Nolan likes his Batman films to be standalone.

Eckhart's performance and that character was one of my favorite aspects of TDK and why I love it so much and why I get so much out of it. If you take his story out and leave the Joker, it's not as good as a film. Dent makes up more of the quality than the Joker. Now as El Payoso said, he will always be what we loved and he was truly amazing, but Dent adds a whole other dimension to the depth and the themes of the film. It also is born out of Bruce's journey. Dent has always been a fascinating character to me on his own. Two-Face is a consequence of his actions and beliefs. Unfortunate and tragic because here is a man who firmly believed in a system of justice and worked within it. Believed so much in it, working alongside Gordon and even someone who works outside the system like Batman to do whatever he could to do what was right. Even if he asked for that outside help, he wanted to root out evil. Which in a way, was his Achilles heel. It wasn't ego. He isn't an idealist like Batman or Gordon, he's a man who does his job and works within what his job permits him to do to any extent possible. Dedicated. That is the right type of man. And the best as Gordon says at the end of TDK. He's more selfless than Bruce is in TDK. A man who takes the blame of being Batman and putting himself in harm's way. Harvey is willing to take on the responsibility of being that "hero" of Gotham. Bruce is being selfish and naive here. What about Harvey? Bruce just wants to throw all of this in Dent's lap and live his own life? Talk about cold, like the Joker says.

It's so tragic, because this was the best man out of the three. He went from choice to chance. A brilliant storytelling component of the writers. The true definition of insanity. He's insane by the end. He's lost everything. Actually both Bruce and him have lost Rachel. Now it all goes into Bruce's lap. What he intended to Harvey goes all the way back to him. The person who he tried to lobby for is now a madman, the person who he originally thought would take his place turns into someone he naively underestimates (like the Joker, a "freak" who turned the best man into the worst kind of man) Remember that time when Bruce thought being Batman was going to be a temporary thing? What happens to Dent proves otherwise. Batman and Dent are at fault.

So all in all, Bruce's journey would no have been as good if it had not been for Dent's journey. Because both seemed like bosom buddies in a mad house. One came out tarnished and insane, the other managed to break free but paid the consequence for leading him into that madhouse. It got worse and worse; worse than the other could imagine it to be. Each paid for it and it changed them forever.

Eckhart should have gotten more recognition. He was the unsung hero of that film. Dent is a hard part to play. That interpretation is my favorite version of Dent because of Nolan and Eckhart.

And what would have Two-Face done after TDK? Rob the second national bank on a Tuesday? It would have completely taken away what this film was about. Now maybe there could have been something, but this was treated from the forefront of development as a standalone film. We have to keep that in mind.

All that you are saying is interesting, but it just was not put across well in the movie.

The way it was done was a series of big scenes accompanied by big speeches. To me, that's pretty lazy writing.

Let's talk about Silence of the Lambs since that has been used. Hannibal Lector was used sparingly but in his scenes, you get to know just enough about him without knowing too much. Hopkins of course gives an insane performance but the writing allows us to get into this man's head. The conversation he has with Foster is the backbone of the film and the amount of psychological back-and-forth between them two is what you call stellar writing.

For Dent or Two Face, the writing was thin and plain. Really, what in the writing, was so deep? Don't give me this stuff about trajedy and shakespeare, how well was Dent or Two Face written?

I think that our love for the comic book and the characters and the fact that the film APPEARS so real, propels the film to a level that it does not deserve. Against other films that have done the same thing, it comes up short because you still feel that you are watching a "comic-book" movie, albeit a realistic and well-made one.

Two Face should not be a character who is used as a plot-device. Even so, the plot-device was not that powerful because Batman the centre character was non-existent.

It's just unfortunate because you can really have a very deep and for this insallment, personal film with Two Face as a main villain. Just the idea of the character is so amazing.

It's funny though. A friend said this to me. People gave grief to Burton about killing Joker but where is the grief we should give Nolan for killing Two Face who was not done anywhere near as good as Joker was in Burton's film

 

[The Joker]

Solidus spoke very well. I think all of us on first viewing of TDK, the knee jerk reaction was disappointment. Or maybe it was just me because I was predicting Two-Fae would lead into a third one. But silly me, Nolan likes his Batman films to be standalone.

Eckhart's performance and that character was one of my favorite aspects of TDK and why I love it so much and why I get so much out of it. If you take his story out and leave the Joker, it's not of good as a film. Dent makes up more of the quality than the Joker. Now as El Payoso said, he will always be what we loved and he was truly amazing, but Dent adds a whole other dimension to the depth and the themes of the film. Joker is simply a catalyst for what happens. He brings the right amount of presence. No depth is necessary because he doesn't require it. It's why Nolan made Dent the backbone. He knew he needed to put in a sympathetic character. Dent also is born out of Bruce's journey. Dent has always been a fascinating character to me on his own. Two-Face is a consequence of his actions and beliefs. Unfortunate and tragic because here is a man who firmly believed in a system of justice and worked within it. Believed so much in it, working alongside Gordon and even someone who works outside the system like Batman to do whatever he could to do what was right. Even if he asked for that outside help, he wanted to root out evil. Which in a way, was his Achilles heel. It wasn't ego. He isn't an idealist like Batman or Gordon, he's a man who does his job and works within what his job permits him to do to any extent possible. Dedicated. That is the right type of man. And the best as Gordon says at the end of TDK. He's more selfless than Bruce is in TDK. A man who takes the blame of being Batman and putting himself in harm's way. Harvey is willing to take on the responsibility of being that "hero" of Gotham. Bruce is being selfish and naive here. What about Harvey? Bruce just wants to throw all of this in Dent's lap and live his own life? Talk about cold, like the Joker says.

It's so tragic, because this was the best man out of the three. He went from choice to chance. A brilliant storytelling component of the writers. The true definition of insanity. He's insane by the end. He's lost everything. A man who tried to make an effort stands before Batman and Gordon, two idealists. Dent is a living consequence of their idealistic ways and actions. Actually both Bruce and him have lost Rachel. Now it all goes into Bruce's lap. What he intended to Harvey goes all the way back to him. The person who he tried to lobby for is now a madman, the person who he originally thought would take his place turns into someone he naively underestimates (like the Joker, a "freak" who turned the best man into the worst kind of man) Remember that time when Bruce thought being Batman was going to be a temporary thing? What happens to Dent proves otherwise. Batman and Dent are at fault.

So all in all, Bruce's journey would not have been as good if it had not been for Dent's journey. Because both seemed like bosom buddies in a mad house. One came out tarnished and insane, the other managed to break free but paid the consequence for leading him into that madhouse. It got worse and worse; worse than the other could imagine it to be. Each paid for it and it changed them forever.

Eckhart should have gotten more recognition. He was the unsung hero of that film. Dent is a hard part to play. That interpretation is my favorite version of Dent because of Nolan and Eckhart.

And what would have Two-Face done after TDK? Rob the second national bank on a Tuesday? You have to look at what he was doing. He knew he wouldn't escape. He knew this would be the last of him. He was prepared to die. All he wanted to do was seek vengeance (the very thing Bruce managed to overcome in BB) on the people who had something to do with Rachel's death. It would have completely taken away what this film was about. Now maybe there could have been something, but this was treated from the forefront of development as a standalone film. We have to keep that in mind.

Another excellent post

This article I found a while ago really echos a lot of what you said:

The final monologue that Commissioner Gordon brings the themes from Batman Begins to their logical conclusion: Namely, that as a man, Bruce Wayne’s powers to evil crime are rather limited. As a man, he can be corrupted, he can be killed, and ultimately, he can be defeated. As a symbol he can become far more, and at the end of The Dark Knight, he becomes, to society, an uncontainable force in very much the same way the Joker was. He becomes hunted, making people believe that he cannot be controlled, that he has lost all respect for societal norms and the rule of law. As Gordon realizes he needs to blame the murders on Batman, he acknowledges not only the need for society to push their fears onto something, but their hopes as well (which he allows them to do by preserving Dent’s good name).

In order to keep from tearing itself to shreds, society needs to believe in the incorruptibility of good and the relative remoteness of evil. The Dark Knight points us to ways in which we cope with this need.

Simultaneously, it’s also made clear that, in fact, Batman never succumbs to his own dark, inner urges. In the movie, Bruce Wayne says the line, “I’ve seen what I have to become to fight men like him,” and he rejects the path he has to take to stop Joker, a man who has no rules whatsoever. In one of the more memorable scenes from the film, the two have a showdown in Gotham’s city streets, the Joker manically screaming “Hit me!” as Batman is propelled towards him in the bat pod. As much as Batman wants to annihilate the Joker, he knows he can’t violate his own moral code, and almost sacrifices himself to prevent this from happening (albeit as part of a broader ruse to capture him). Still, Batman doesn’t seek to kill evildoers, but to bring them to justice. The dichotomy that the film sets up between Joker and Batman is one of chaos vs. order. The dichotomy between Joker and Dent is one of good vs. evil…

“You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”

These words, spoken by Harvey Dent in the film and its trailers, portend the inevitable corruptibility of heroes in the Batman universe. At the beginning of the film, Dent represents absolute good, a goodness that’s so pure, that has so much potential to change Gotham, that even Batman is thinking of hanging up his spurs.

Dent is referred to frequently as Gotham’s “White Knight,” a term used throughout the course of the film. I was speaking with a friend about this movie today and he pointed out that when he went to see the movie he did not anticipate “The Dark Knight” could actually also refer to Dent, a clever yet profound subtext to the film (and that’s not even mentioning the night/knight pun, which I will choose never mention again after this sentence). Indeed, Dent’s journey from light to darkness is handled plausibly and adeptly in the film, which makes his story arc monstrously tragic.

Many people have remarked on how depressing the film is and I would say that I mostly agree: The Joker’s ability to destroy that which Dent loves and turn him to the evil that he becomes is sad in a way that can only be experienced by seeing the film. But the apparent relative ease with which Joker does this is what makes the Dent storyline strike so close to home: The film makes us realize that we, as humans are limited, and that our capacity to be good is subject to the vagaries of fate and whatever the hell else decides to destroy what we love. Dent is not just a proxy for hope, he’s a proxy for us as well, reminding us of the duality that lies within each of us.

Link: http://www.slashfilm.com/assessing-the-themes-of-the-dark-knight/

There's also some great stuff about the Joker in that link, too.

 

[Solidus]

(Don't mean to cut this off, it was just a long post, I didn't want to quote the whole thing)

I mean I can't really disagree except to say this is a very narrow view of Two-Face, and that he's proven to be an expansive character beyond the theme of "falling" you're trying to pigeonhole him into. You could in essence say all Batman's villains are "tragic figures" who have fallen. Joker is most certainly a "fallen" individual, for that matter so is Batman. I don't really want either of those characters to be crammed hastily into the last fifteen minutes of a film even if it makes certain sense.

Plot wise, there is nothing wrong with the way Two-Face was handled -- that is to say it wasn't as though he came from no where just to wrap up the movie. Would he have less impact if he were saved for the third? That's a pretty ridiculous statement considering the character has been used pretty consistently since the 1940s and hasn't lost his thematic punch. As I say, and I feel like this is routinely getting ignored he's over 60 years old, and probably second only to Joker in the list of Bat rogues.

How about addressing this question: Alfred, a newer character, were he to be crammed into the last 15 minutes, and then completely tied off -- would you say they did the character justice? If your answer is "no", then this is no different. You can certainly say Two-Face was well done in the sense that he was well-acted, well-cast, had a good visual appearance, and even perhaps was a good addition to the plot (frankly I found the ending rather disjointed, I don't think he added to the Joker's "plan" at all -- it just served to set up a cliffhanger, which was rather baffling and stupid in it's own right). You certain can't say they did a justice to a character that's a 60 year rival to the caped crusader -- that's just insane. Something can be 'good', doesn't mean they used the character's full potential.

Again for most of those points I still just point back to my post. Because I really don't want to just go around in circles. I will with certainty say they did justice to the character. You claim that they did the character well, just.....not enough and some how that makes him unjustly used. I'm sorry I just don't see it that way. First, again Two-Face was through out the entire film, Harvey Dent IS Two-Face it is a huge HUGE part to who he is, so the character was through out the whole film, not just the physical deformity that you seem to want to see more of.

The Joker could have been used so much more, same with Batman same with Scarecrow, you could argue any of these. The Joker could have a whole series and still would not be given justice. To that point you have to understand, these are 3 two and a half hour films. At most you have 7.5 hours to tell stories about characters that have dictionaries they could fill. Any of these characters used you could put so much more into. But it is the core of the character that matters most, and Nolan gets this. Two-Face is (whether one likes it or not) most known for his origin story and fall. That is his most famous story. Yes there are other great stories out there with Two-Face, but the ones that most refer back to and are re-made a lot is his origin and his fall.

I'm not saying that Two-Face is not interesting beyond that I love the character to death. However, these films are limited in time frame, unlike comics you can go on forever and ever and ever. But what was important to me was the core of Harvey/Two-Face was well represented throughout all of TDK, either through the looking glass/mirror of Batman, the Joker or Harvey himself it all did go back to him. I don't want films that use the same villians again and again. Small cameos are great, but if we are only getting these from Nolan I want to see other aspects and other themes, and other mirrors (villains) looked at.

Your argument consists of saying not enough screen time robbed the character, and that him being the second most favorite villain means he needs to be used more. And my original post still stands. And I just don't agree with that at all. I felt he was used for his most famous and best story, and was done very well throughout the entire film. And was the thematic and story core of the film. You apparently think that more of the character needed to be used to be justified and I don't agree with that. And we will just have to leave it at that I suppose.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

All I keep hearing is how deep and awesome Two-Face was, as if the posters in this thread were making the point that Aaron Eckhart was some awful addition to the movie. We're not saying we didn't 'like him', we're saying we liked him enough that we felt his character deserved more of a role than to be used as a plot device at the end of the movie.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Again for most of those points I still just point back to my post. Because I really don't want to just go around in circles. I will with certainty say they did justice to the character. You claim that they did the character well, just.....not enough and some how that makes him unjustly used. I'm sorry I just don't see it that way. First, again Two-Face was through out the entire film, Harvey Dent IS Two-Face it is a huge HUGE part to who he is, so the character was through out the whole film, not just the physical deformity that you seem to want to see more of.

The Joker could have been used so much more, same with Batman same with Scarecrow, you could argue any of these. The Joker could have a whole series and still would not be given justice. To that point you have to understand, these are 3 two and a half hour films. At most you have 7.5 hours to tell stories about characters that have dictionaries they could fill. Any of these characters used you could put so much more into. But it is the core of the character that matters most, and Nolan gets this. Two-Face is (whether one likes it or not) most known for his origin story and fall. That is his most famous story. Yes there are other great stories out there with Two-Face, but the ones that most refer back to and are re-made a lot is his origin and his fall.

I'm not saying that Two-Face is not interesting beyond that I love the character to death. However, these films are limited in time frame, unlike comics you can go on forever and ever and ever. But what was important to me was the core of Harvey/Two-Face was well represented throughout all of TDK, either through the looking glass/mirror of Batman, the Joker or Harvey himself it all did go back to him. I don't want films that use the same villians again and again. Small cameos are great, but if we are only getting these from Nolan I want to see other aspects and other themes, and other mirrors (villains) looked at.

Your argument consists of saying not enough screen time robbed the character, and that him being the second most favorite villain means he needs to be used more. And my original post still stands. And I just don't agree with that at all. I felt he was used for his most famous and best story, and was done very well throughout the entire film. And was the thematic and story core of the film. You apparently think that more of the character needed to be used to be justified and I don't agree with that. And we will just have to leave it at that I suppose.

You clearly haven't read enough Batman then. I mean The Killing Joke is probably Joker's best story, and I hardly want them to make that story alone into a movie. In fact, had Ledger not died I would've very much liked to see more of him, and I don't think anyone in this thread would be lobbying for Heath Ledger to never be used ever again.

You keep saying this was his only story, but clearly the comics indicate otherwise. Almost all characters are introduced with the hope that they will catch and stand the test of time, and most characters don't. There is a reason Two-Face has continued beyond his first story -- and by the by most Batman villains were either indefinitely apprehended or "killed" during their first appearances, and were only brought back if there was additional demand for them. Two-Face (and Joker) are good examples of characters that started out with single stories and expanded.

You mean you've never read The Long Halloween or Dark Victory? You haven't read the abundance of Two-Face stories since his appearance in the 1940s? It's pretty inane to talk about a 60 year character who has risen enough in popularity to be featured in most of the fiction and claim that his "best" story was his origin, and everything since then isn't worth enough to make a movie out of. The fact that you claim Two-Face and Harvey Dent are one in the same also makes me wonder how familiar you are with the character. Harvey Dent is a front, it's a mask he wears to hide his true self. Harvey secretly likes to be bad, this much was explored in the film, he also seeks power and control - hence the coin, and his obsession with chance. No, there is much more to that character than what was done, or could've been done in that last fifteen minutes.

By the way Shakespeare never introduced characters in the last 15 pages to be used simply as plot devices to set up a cliffhanger. Which is basically what Dent 'Two-Face' was. The performance was fine, but I simply didn't need yet another villain to tie off that movie for me. The ending with Joker hanging, gloating about how he and Batman would be squaring off for a long time was really the perfect ending for me. It was omnious, creepy and left me wanting more. I still to this day don't understand why Two-Face needed to die, especially when Joker set him up as such a unique threat to the city of Gotham. It almost seemed to me like Two-Face's revenge scheme was something they added onto the script, and that the original cliffhanger was to be Joker's speech about what would happen when Gotham "gotta load of Harvey". Harvey promised so much, and delivered so little as a villain. In comparison to the Joker's spree, Harvey Two-Face seemed weak and uninteresting. For the first 80% of the movie we're treated to an omnipresent terrorist. We were suppose to watch the city slip into madness at the sight of their old D.A., instead we watch Batman and Gordon come up with some very flimsey and inane logic to justify pinning the crimes on Batman.

 

[Fudgie]

By the way Shakespeare never introduced characters in the last 15 pages to be used simply as plot devices to set up a cliffhanger.

Thats good cos Dent wasnt introduced in the last 15 pages of the TDK script. He was there since the start of the flick.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Thats good cos Dent wasnt introduced in the last 15 pages of the TDK script. He was there since the start of the flick.

That's great and all, but Harvey Dent and Two-face are as different as Bruce Wayne and Batman. How'd you like a Batman movie where you never see Batman save for the last fifteen minutes of a two plus hour long movie? They are not the same character, if you believe they are, I'd pick up some Batman comics at your local comic shop.

 

[Fudgie]

That's great and all, but Harvey Dent and Two-face are as different as Bruce Wayne and Batman. How'd you like a Batman movie where you never see Batman save for the last fifteen minutes of a two plus hour long movie? They are not the same character, if you believe they are, I'd pick up some Batman comics at your local comic shop.

Thats a stupid comparison cos a Batman movie couldnt work with him only being in it for 15 minutes cos its Batmans movie. Villains are dispensable and can be used as much or as little as needed to serve the story, which Two Face did.

Just like with Lecter, he totally worked and he didnt even need a back story like Dent.

 

[truth]

It's not just about quantity, Solidus. It's about quality. And I have to disagree with you that Two Face was used for 15 minutes AMIDST Joker causing hell, batman sorting things out, plot-devices happening and so forth. So it did seem like stuff was crammed in.

I'll say this again. If Tdk was not in a genre where 9/10 films released are complete garbage, people would not be calling it Shakespearian and so forth.

Yes, Long Halloween is a comic and has more time but just when you see what Loeb did with Dent and Two Face...THAT'S the character I want to see on screen. That is what I call great writing, something that Nolan can take lessons from.