Something interesting I read, not sure if anyone here has heard it before.
The original thought for the make-up was to employ fake teeth on an external appliance and a contact lens to push down the skin under the eye - to create a look more like the comics.
Tommy Lee Jones wouldn't do it.
COOL! That would've been sweet! This is quite a revelation. I always wondered why he didn't have that look in the film. Where did you hear this?
It was in an interview with Rick Baker, who did the make-up. He did the intial design work in photoshop.
I wish we could see that design, because I really hated Two-Face's look in BF, it wasnt very convincing to me.
I'd be interested to see that concept art, if it exists. To me, Two Face's scarring and burns are something that you really can't overdo or go too far with. The more extreme he looks, the more convincing the pathos of the character become.
I guess Jones wanted to still be recognizable under all the make up. Jerk.
In hindsight it's probably a good idea that he didn't have the exposed eye and teeth. That would've been better if he gave a darker performance IMO.
Having given little thought to the matter I always thought they didn't do the teeth and eye thing because it would've been too scary for kids, since that's what they were going for.
Does anyone know if Tommy Lee Jones did a mostly zany Two-Face because he was told to do so or because he personally wanted to?
Quote from: batass4880 on Fri, 9 Jan 2009, 22:58
Does anyone know if Tommy Lee Jones did a mostly zany Two-Face because he was told to do so or because he personally wanted to?
probably because he had no true knowledge of the character and didnt research to find a good medium like Eckhart did.
Warners wanted another flamboyant villain like Nicholson's Joker, in an effort to reclaim B89's success, as if Jack was the only reason the film did well. Unfortunately, they did the same with Jim Carrey. The only probpem was flamboyant only worked for the Joker.
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Sat, 10 Jan 2009, 08:21
Warners wanted another flamboyant villain like Nicholson's Joker, in an effort to reclaim B89's success, as if Jack was the only reason the film did well. Unfortunately, they did the same with Jim Carrey. The only probpem was flamboyant only worked for the Joker.
Your totally right on that one!
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Fri, 9 Jan 2009, 23:08probably because he had no true knowledge of the character and didnt research to find a good medium like Eckhart did.
Hey, Eckhart made a good Harvey but his Two Face? Not so much. He felt like "Harvey going crazy" instead of being a legitimate split personality.
Still better than TLJ though.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 10 Jan 2009, 20:30
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Fri, 9 Jan 2009, 23:08probably because he had no true knowledge of the character and didnt research to find a good medium like Eckhart did.
Hey, Eckhart made a good Harvey but his Two Face? Not so much. He felt like "Harvey going crazy" instead of being a legitimate split personality.
It was more "realistic" to have that. Blame Nolan.
Quote from: Darrell Kaiser on Sat, 10 Jan 2009, 23:16
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 10 Jan 2009, 20:30
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Fri, 9 Jan 2009, 23:08probably because he had no true knowledge of the character and didnt research to find a good medium like Eckhart did.
Hey, Eckhart made a good Harvey but his Two Face? Not so much. He felt like "Harvey going crazy" instead of being a legitimate split personality.
It was more "realistic" to have that. Blame Nolan.
Ya blame Nolan for giving us the best portrayal of Two-Face ever done live action on screen, felt like a split personailty to me, if you read any of the interviews he did, he explained how he researched split personalities.
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Sun, 11 Jan 2009, 07:35
Quote from: Darrell Kaiser on Sat, 10 Jan 2009, 23:16
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 10 Jan 2009, 20:30
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Fri, 9 Jan 2009, 23:08probably because he had no true knowledge of the character and didnt research to find a good medium like Eckhart did.
Hey, Eckhart made a good Harvey but his Two Face? Not so much. He felt like "Harvey going crazy" instead of being a legitimate split personality.
It was more "realistic" to have that. Blame Nolan.
Ya blame Nolan for giving us the best portrayal of Two-Face ever done live action on screen, felt like a split personailty to me, if you read any of the interviews he did, he explained how he researched split personalities.
I have to disagree with you there. I personally think, while he did a good job of showing how far his frustration could take him with the coin/goon scene "Let's go again!", which makes his insanity later easier to swallow, there was nothing remotely split about him except his dependence on the coin. In fact, at the film's climax I was extremely disappointed that there seemed to be no conflict within Harvey at any point. It really destroys everything Nolan created in his 'White Knight' image. I expected to see some fight to regain control, even if he failed, but not even that.
Also:
"Ya blame Nolan for giving us the best portrayal of Two-Face ever done live action on screen"
Really? Do we have to throw the ?BEST EVER? title around...I mean?Two Face has been done on the big screen like...two other times, only one other time as Two-Face...doesn't seem like there was a whole lot of competition. Not to undermine your opinion or anything, but that seems?a tad overzealous.
Back on topic, I think Tommy Lee was the perfect choice, but the direction WB wanted the character to go in (Joker) and the character design made for medicore results.
We dont have the throw around "BEST EVER" but I decided to because thats my opinion on the subject, its obvious others dont have to agree, but thats just what I was saying. Also it will be the "BEST EVER" for a long time ( that is if we ever do in the next 50 years get another bat-film with TF), so I wouldnt look forward to seeing anymore of TF in any live action film for a long time if ever again. I can see your point in a way, but to me I see a good split from what he was in the start of the film, to what he was at the end of the film, completly different person.
I really liked Aaron Eckhardt as Harvey Dent. I never liked Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face because it seemed that he was just trying to outdo Jack Nicholson,and he was too cartoony.
If I am perfectly honest in 1995, I would have liked to have seen Billy Dee Williams as Two-Face.
The problem I have with the Two-Face character in The Dark Knight is his fall into evil. It wasnt done very well. That is not Eckhardts fault, but the story and the third act is crammed, it doesnt give much room for the character development of Two-Face due to the film was already 2 hours long. Thats why I personally think it was a mastake to kill him off!!
Also, I dont see how his converstaion with the Joker in the hospital would make him blame Gordan for Rachels death! If that were me the first person I would have killed is the Joker, not the Gordan family.
And as some people have said there was no 'split' personality as such. That said though, I think Aaron Eckhardt done a great job, and was only overshadowed because of the Ledger death etc.
The best story I have seen about the origin of Two-Face for me has to be the animated series. I was very impressed by that for a light hearted cartoon, it was very sophisticated and multi-layered and dark.
I agree with you 81, I would have loved to see Billy Dee play Two-Face I think it wouldve been very interesting to watch!
There was an article I read back in 1995 that said Carrey's make-up took longer to apply than Jones'. I always found that hard to believe.
Agreed on BTAS being the best loved the slight double personality and the confronatations between him and Batman as batman tries to convince harvey to do the right thing and harvey internally fighting between personas. The bad harv mean streak seems touched upon once in TDK (interogating the shooter ect) but it is done lazily harv reverts back to the shining knight after that one brief spark :'(.
I honestly think Nolan and Co underestimated Twoface's popularity among fans our they would have streached out his decent into madness after the burning. Harvey is probably bats most complex foe more Complex then Joker and was Bruce/batmans friend before the burning which adds weight to thier battles. everything before that was done well though, but i would have reduced the stupid CGI to prosthetics which are amazing today compared to 1995.
Quote from: damiean dark on Tue, 13 Jan 2009, 04:49
Agreed on BTAS being the best loved the slight double personality and the confronatations between him and Batman as batman tries to convince harvey to do the right thing and harvey internally fighting between personas. The bad harv mean streak seems touched upon once in TDK (interogating the shooter ect) but it is done lazily harv reverts back to the shining knight after that one brief spark :'(.
I honestly think Nolan and Co underestimated Twoface's popularity among fans our they would have streached out his decent into madness after the burning. Harvey is probably bats most complex foe more Complex then Joker and was Bruce/batmans friend before the burning which adds weight to thier battles. everything before that was done well though, but i would have reduced the stupid CGI to prosthetics which are amazing today compared to 1995.
Ill have to disagree with you completly on that one, they knew what they were getting themselves into, its quite obvious, thats almost a silly statement to say. Werent you aware that for both BB and TDk, Nolan and co. worked very very closely with DC Comics on the films, with creative input from alot of higher ups?
I think Nolan just liked the character and decided to include him in this movie, even if it meant he would be shortchanged some screen time. He wasn't planning on making a six-film saga. If that was the case, he would've definitely left Two-Face out of it, or at least save his resolution for a different film.
It's hard for us to understand because, given the opportunity, every one of us would make Batman movies for the rest of our lives.
Speaking of Two-Face, I think TLJ was perfect for the role. Billy Dee Williams was quite boring b/c it seemed as though he was playing a modern Lando Calrissian. Plus he seemed more fit to play Lucius Fox (not that I'm racist, but he fits the bill). However, I think that they should've had TLJ look & act similar to the B:TAS version of Two-Face.
Quote from: The Batman Returns on Fri, 16 Jan 2009, 04:39
Speaking of Two-Face, I think TLJ was perfect for the role. Billy Dee Williams was quite boring b/c it seemed as though he was playing a modern Lando Calrissian. Plus he seemed for fit to play Lucius Fox (not that I'm racist, but he fits the bill). However, I think that they should've had TLJ look & act similar to the B:TAS version of Two-Face.
Agreed. Yeah BDW seemed like a typical politician to me in that movie, not Harvey.
One thing that I thought that was very uncharacteristic about Harvey was that he was smoking on a cigar (or smoking in general). He seemed like a president & not the district attorney we all know.
BTW Batass, did you name yourself after those ass shots in the Schumacher films? I thought Kilmer's was the funniest!
Quote from: The Batman Returns on Fri, 16 Jan 2009, 05:17
BTW Batass, did you name yourself after those ass shots in the Schumacher films? I thought Kilmer's was the funniest!
LOL No actually I got it from the script for Batman Forever. The first thing Two-Face says to the bank guard is "Counting on Batass to save you?" ;D
The monlogue Two-Face gives sounded like the TF we know & love, until he started laughing & saying things like "doo-dah". What a waste of character development in that scene!
Definitely, Jones was perfect for the role but alas the movie seemed to be made for one reason--bring back the people who were disturbed by Returns.
Quote from: The Batman Returns on Fri, 16 Jan 2009, 04:39
Speaking of Two-Face, I think TLJ was perfect for the role. Billy Dee Williams was quite boring b/c it seemed as though he was playing a modern Lando Calrissian. Plus he seemed for fit to play Lucius Fox (not that I'm racist, but he fits the bill). However, I think that they should've had TLJ look & act similar to the B:TAS version of Two-Face.
Well I dont see how you can say that. Billy Dee didnt have much screen time to say if he was right or wrong.
I would have loved to see him reprise his role in Batman 3 because, firstly continuity, and I liked him in Batman. I think he would have made an interesting villian. I'm not bothered he was black, or smoking a cigar!!
There was no space for Lucis Fox in Batman, and he wasnt in the early comics!!!
Oh, and backing up about Nolans research into Harvey dent, he considered putting him into Batman Begins. But he put Rachel in it instead!
I absolutely HATE Rachel Dawes in Begins. I wished Bruce had blocked her slap & gave her a back fist to knock her unconscious before the second slap. Imagine that! :D Thank God for Maggie in TDK! A much more talented actress. :) As for Harvey, I not trying to put him down b/c he was played by a mixed actor (I'm not racist/prejudice). I think BDW could've played the Matt Hagen Clayface from B:TAS or even the mayor.
Its not in Bruce's nature to slap a woman back like that, and plus he deserved it for his bad morals.
Getting back to the whole make-up issue: I didn't have a problem with not having an exposed eyeball and teeth. The make-up for that would have been cumbersome and might have limited facial expressions to the extent of him having no expression whatsoever. At the same time, I didn't like the use of CG in The Dark Knight because it turned his face into a special effect. I would do a combination of the two, the more realistic burns with the jagged edge in the middle but with an eyelid and burned lips. I thought they could put a milky contact in the left eye and make it look like it has cataracts.
As far as Tommy Lee Jones performance, I blame Joel Schumacher and his, and I Quote: "Remember, people, we're making a cartoon" direction.
I read somewhere a Schumacher quote (I think in a 1995 CineScape/CineFantasque or something issue with this Val Kilmer picture as the cover)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.batmanmovieonline.com%2Fgallery%2Fthumbs%2F1232712730.jpg&hash=5e34dbe972f8cb580f89a86dc26d33a442c89952) (http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/gallery.php?showpicture=2268)
that they wanted Two-Face to be more like a "comic" and not a "horror" villain. I think this might be a reason that the horror make-up with exposed eyes and teeth was scrapped and they went with the lollipop look.
I'd love to see concept art of course.
Quote from: silenig on Tue, 24 Feb 2009, 21:18
I read somewhere a Schumacher quote (I think in a 1995 CineScape/CineFantasque or something issue with this Val Kilmer picture as the cover)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.batmanmovieonline.com%2Fgallery%2Fthumbs%2F1232712730.jpg&hash=5e34dbe972f8cb580f89a86dc26d33a442c89952) (http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/gallery.php?showpicture=2268)
that they wanted Two-Face to be more like a "comic" and not a "horror" villain. I think this might be a reason that the horror make-up with exposed eyes and teeth was scrapped and they went with the lollipop look.
I'd love to see concept art of course.
What a wasted opportunity.
Two-Face already looked like a horror villain since his first appearance back in the 40's. There was really no need to make him look like a "lollipop" as you said. Just look at B:TAS. He looked quite frightening, but parents didn't send any complaints about that.
Agggh. I like Forever, but let's face it, it's half-cooked. And since it differed a lot from Burton's films (especially its successor), they're not worth tying together.
I bet if Burton directed Forever, (it wouldn't be called that as well, I remember Burton saying how he hated the title) he'd have Two Face die as well.
I just think it's something he'd do, ending the Billie Dee Williams Harvey Dent arc.
I wonder how he would have done it. I imagine it would have been an extended death sequence ala The Penguin, not a quick moment as in Forever.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 25 Feb 2009, 00:19
I bet if Burton directed Forever, (it wouldn't be called that as well, I remember Burton saying how he hated the title) he'd have Two Face die as well.
I just think it's something he'd do, ending the Billie Dee Williams Harvey Dent arc.
I wonder how he would have done it. I imagine it would have been an extended death sequence ala The Penguin, not a quick moment as in Forever.
I agree w/ you about Two-Face's death. His death in Forever made no sense. Bruce gave Dick a speech about how killing is wrong, yet he threw those coins in the air at the same time as Two-Face's. He lost his balance while trying to find & catch it, thus leading him to his doom. Bruce knew that Harvey was prone to that. Why didn't he just try another method to save the day w/o causing Two-Face to die (so much for that speech of his)?
Why, Schumacher, why? :-\ :P
At least in Returns Batman didn't do a thing to kill Penguin. Penguin just played with a toy he didn't understand, and it cost him his life.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 25 Feb 2009, 00:34At least in Returns Batman didn't do a thing to kill Penguin. Penguin just played with a toy he didn't understand, and it cost him his life.
Agreed. It does beg the question of what exactly Batman was going to use that device for though...
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 25 Feb 2009, 04:21
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 25 Feb 2009, 00:34At least in Returns Batman didn't do a thing to kill Penguin. Penguin just played with a toy he didn't understand, and it cost him his life.
Agreed. It does beg the question of what exactly Batman was going to use that device for though...
It looked as if he fully intended on letting Penguin decide is own fate. He didn't put up much of a fight in keeping the device and didn't appear to want to keep it.
True, Batman didn't put up a fight at all. It was literally all in Penguin's hands. He had no idea what the thing was, tried to be clever, and it cost him. In turn, his lair was blown to smithereens, and he fell into the waste.
I imagine if Batman had control of the device for a little while longer, he would have tried to negotiate with him, explaining what the thing did, etc. Only after Penguin went crazy after seeing 'his babies' would his mind-set change. There'd be no point talking to him, because he's not in that mood and wouldn't listen anyway. He thinks he's the one in control because he's stolen an item from Batman.
Batman couldn't have known where they would face off, though - near a sky light that drops into the toxic waste. It was just what eventuated. When Penguin got in the duck and tried to escape, that changed things.
^ Ya know what? I buy that. When Batman lit up the flame breather, he didn't mince words or waste time. He just rotated the Batmobile and had himself a carbeque.
When he 'sploded the strong man, again, he didn't mess around. He just dropped the bomb down the dude's drawers, dropped the dude himself down a pipe and went on about his business.
Clearly he was giving Penguin some room in that scene. If Batman had wanted to whack the guy, he would've. By doing what he did, he let the Penguin make his own choices.
The tragic irony/poetic justice (you tell me) of using bats on the Penguin to make him fall (who himself had used bats on the ice princess to make her fall) probably went through Oswald's mind on the way down.
Yep, Batman didn't go near Penguin after he scrambled on the ground for it, he didn't go to save him from the bats either. He only moved forward after he had fell down the skylight, looking down to see where he had fell.
Whatever the make-up looked like and whatever Tommy Lee Jones did in the role, the Two-Face character in Forever was way off from the get-go by being only the psychopathic killer. Fans of Forever have pointed out that, in the script, Two-Face was the dark Yin to to Riddler's Yang to provide contrast; the problem is that said contrast is supposed to be within Harvey himself.
As to the make-up, I'm not entirely opposed to the design they went with. The bigger problem is the colouration, not the overall look. I don't think the exposed eye/teeth look was all that successful in The Dark Knight, to be honest, and I think going less extreme would be better for film.
And Billy Dee not getting to play Two-Face is probably my biggest disappointment with the character in Forever, even beyond the campiness and lack of duality.
To me, I think that only Pengiun had been killed off. Joker may have come back and CatWoman never died at the end. Therefore, they may not have killed off Two-face.
I think that the make up in Forever was too perfect...just this line going down the middle.
I think the best two-face thus far is in TDK. I think with realism involved, you need to go with the second appearance of Two-face. Acid eating away is only going to leave redish muscles and other. The explosion will burn it away and leave an illusion of green as money.
Billy Dee is also a good one, he'd look pretty grusome with half his face messed up in the same way, just rid of the stache. A serious politition usually doesn't have much of a difference with a race change. I think Dent was black or mixed in the animated series too. Character didn't feel changed a bit despite being a kid safe show. Not like the job they did in DD with Kingpin where they use the race to change him into a typical black urban mob boss, thus changing who he is.
Quote from: zDBZ on Sat, 23 May 2009, 18:01
I don't think the exposed eye/teeth look was all that successful in The Dark Knight, to be honest, and I think going less extreme would be better for film.
I agree in a way.
I remember seeing an early Two Face action figure concept months before the film's release, and the facial burn took up only a segment of his face - not a clean half. That's more realistic if you ask me.
Im actually totally satisified with TF's look in TDK, I think it looks great and the closest we've seen to the comics yet.
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Mon, 8 Jun 2009, 14:31
Im actually totally satisified with TF's look in TDK, I think it looks great and the closest we've seen to the comics yet.
This appearance sort of reminds me of Tim Sale's drawing of Two-Face.
I do like how he looks as well. I'm just nit picking really. Eckhart's performance is one of the greats in Batman films. Rivalling Ledger in my book.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 8 Jun 2009, 14:37
I do like how he looks as well. I'm just nit picking really. Eckhart's performance is one of the greats in Batman films. Rivalling Ledger in my book.
Im glad someone agrees with me on that front, I always felt that way and it makes me angry that Ledger overshadows that whole film, kinda the same way Nicholson did with 89.
Quote from: ral on Sun, 7 Jun 2009, 01:54
Quote from: TheBatMan0887 on Sat, 6 Jun 2009, 21:47
Joker may have come back
Not likely
Well, I was thinking that if Burton were at the helm more, he may have got to thinking and pulled the same thing as the comic. He's fell from heights and other impossible things before.