Was Two-Face accidentally killed?

[Slash Man]

I just want to mention that many people were expecting to see Two-Face return, unconvinced he was dead; even I didn't know. It was only Aaron Eckhart's confirmation afterwards that said Face was indeed dead. I was actually a little disappointed at first; I liked Eckhart's spontaneous and vengeful Two-Face... what could we have seen from him if he had enough time to formulate a grand plan?

I don't feel too strongly one way or the other, but if this Batman had that strict of a code, I'd imagine there's more he could've done... maybe he intentionally didn't?

Anyways, I had no problem with the logic of Joker attempting to kill hundreds of people, and Batman not hesitating to knock him off a bell tower.

[The Laughing Fish]

I just want to mention that many people were expecting to see Two-Face return, unconvinced he was dead; even I didn't know. It was only Aaron Eckhart's confirmation afterwards that said Face was indeed dead.

I remember a friend of mine kept forgetting that Dent died. Yet another example of Nolan not knowing how to shoot action properly.

I was actually a little disappointed at first; I liked Eckhart's spontaneous and vengeful Two-Face... what could we have seen from him if he had enough time to formulate a grand plan?

I thought Harvey Dent's character had a lot of problems. For all the talk about being "The White Knight", we don't get to see the public's actual view of him or Batman. We're just supposed to be believe that he's the city's great big hope because the movie says so...despite the fact that it's actually Batman who is more effective than Dent i.e. bringing Lau back from Hong Kong, defeating League of Shadows, saving Dent's life TWICE. Dent is useless without Batman's help, and it makes it impossible to believe that anyone could be convinced that Batman murdered him and four other people for no good reason.

And once again, Dent's transformation into Two-Face is the worst attempt at character development I've ever seen on film. 

Eckhart was okay as Harvey Dent, but I thought he overracted as Two-Face. His constant shouting was borderline over the top as Tommy Lee Jones in Batman Forever.

[The Laughing Fish]

I don't feel too strongly one way or the other, but if this Batman had that strict of a code, I'd imagine there's more he could've done... maybe he intentionally didn't?

Like I said before, the problem is that the Nolans wanted to have it both ways. It got ridiculous how Maroni and Joker taunt Batman for having "rules" when in fact it wasn't the case at all. I believe that the filmmakers only added a no-kill policy because they wanted to force Batman to engage in a moral conflict with his confrontations with the Joker. The problem is that the moral dilemma is completely hollow if his actions constantly contradict what's being told on screen.
And the worst thing is the filmmakers didn't bother to address any of these inconsistencies. This totally warrants criticism in my opinion.

I'll admit this though: it may not be the first time that Batman contradicted himself. Batman did claim that he and Catwoman aren't above the law in Batman Returns, despite the fact that he ruthlessly offed villains beforehand. Having said that, it was never established he had a moral code. In contrast, I really do think it's much worse in the Nolan films because not only does Batman break his rule right after announcing it, he keeps a mass murdering Joker alive for no good reason, which endangers an entire town and many people die as a result. But at the same time, the ending goes to show that lethal force is required under certain situations when Dent tried to murder Gordon's son.

So Batman wanted to save Gordon's son? Okay then...he should've saved Gotham by killing Joker when he was about to kill millions, and killed many more beforehand. After all, he condemned Ra's al Ghul because he tried to wipe out Gotham. Why did Ra's deserved to be punished more than Joker? It doesn't make any sense.

If filmmakers want to adapt the moral code, fine. But they can't have it both ways. Either Batman sees himself as a soldier, or he truly believes that non-lethal action always prevails. You don't get to break your rule whenever it's convenient and hope the audience has a short attention span. Fortunately for them, they got away with it.

[Slash Man]

Burton adapted the original Batman, that is the one who went by the ethic "as much as I hate to take human life, sometimes it's necessary" (paraphrased). Batman is operating within the law in the same sense that sometimes a police officer has to use lethal force to save his own life or the lives of others. Batman killing men who presented a current threat and Catwoman killing a man who was subdued are very different.

Now, I'll admit that Batman's no-kill code has also become just as much a part of the character in recent years (hence why some new audiences are surprised at Burton's films). Though with the comics, he's pretty serious about this code, and when he makes an exception, it's a big deal. One problem with adapting that was that Batman was breaking that code once (sometimes twice) per film, and it lost its impact. The Dark Knight Batman wasn't even in action for that long, so it definitely doesn't feel the same.