Ok, let's get real for a sec

[thecolorsblend]

I enjoyed reading your explanation and I think had the film carved out situations in the movie for Batman to arrive at that moment, I would be in lock step with your thinking.

It did. Bruce was in denial for the entire movie up to that point. 1% chance, absolute certainty. His moment with Superman was his blinding realization that he, Batman, had been the bad guy all along.

No, it doesn't have scene after didactic scene of the character questioning his own motives (although Alfred did some of that) but this wasn't meant to be an organic evolution. It was supposed to be a sudden blast of understanding.

Or what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity.

[Catwoman]

Or what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity.

Talking in terms I understand now.

lol

[The Dark Knight]

I don't drink.

[Catwoman]

I don't either anymore but I still qualify as an alcoholic.

[The Laughing Fish]

Yes, Superman says, "You're letting him kill Martha." Which by itself is an odd thing to say to someone you don't know. Why even say her first name when that is his mother? Wouldn't he prefer to tell Batman it IS his mother by title?

Admittedly, I thought it was a bit too convenient for Superman to call out the name Martha. But even then, I can accept it because it made Batman reflect the name deeply on an emotional level and come to terms with what he was really about to do and learned how Lex was using him. I'll say it again, he did not stop fighting Superman because their mothers share the same name.

That being said, Catwoman has a point that it would've been better off they never mentioned Martha's name, because the idea for this dramatic effect isn't worth the hassle if it was going to go over people's heads.

Had he been a young Batman who was still wrestling with his demons as a result of his inexperience and just being a young man, I could reason and accept that moment to advance the story.

But here's the thing, even as an older man he's still haunted by his demons (literally, judging by the first nightmare in the family crypt). As I already explained, this is a man who has never gotten over his parents' violent deaths (similar to how Michael Keaton's Bruce was still traumatised by that incident), and still had to cope with more trauma along the way i.e. the death of Robin, painful betrayals and witnessing Metropolis getting torn apart by aliens from another world. Discovering that there are other beings in the universe that have powers to destroy the planet can make anyone paranoid, so this especially wasn't a normal situation for Bruce Wayne to cope with. Put that together with a disillusioned and volatile state of mind, is it really that surprising that Bruce had such a paranoid view of Superman in the first place? To borrow the phrase from the film, the feeling of powerlessness over time and every incident changed Bruce into something brutal and uncompromising.

As thecolorsblend already pointed out, Batman had been so caught up with fearing Superman as a threat, he didn't occur to him until that moment that he was acting the villain all along. Now, was this character arc perfect? Maybe. Maybe not. But the film does explore his character flaws and resolve them effectively. After all, the most compelling Batman stories are sometimes the ones where the character has his own psychological issues.

It played more like a poorly constructed plot device and audiences reacted accordingly. Which is why I say, knowing what the director WANTED to say, and demonstrating it are two different worlds. I believe as a director, you have to competently bring your audience onto that emotional ledge with the character. It can't just be a plot moment, it has to be a real emotionally charged moment because of the story responsibilities it carries. For myself, it almost came across as unintended humor the way he stepped back from hearing the name. It just didn't feel believable or remotely natural.

You want to talk about poorly constructed plot devices, once again, let's review Two-Face in The Dark Knight. That is the epitome of what you're talking about. That film never establishes Harvey Dent from suffering any mental illnesses before the hospital scene, and instead he is portrayed as a dedicated but arrogant lawyer, with a self-deprecating sense of humour and takes matters into his own hands to protect the woman he loves (albeit with restraint, as you see in his confrontation with the schizophrenic henchman). He even looks at his dad's lucky coin with fondness. In contrast to some of the comics, the coin was a symbol of his abusive childhood and manifested as a part of his diseased personality later on.

Yet, once he gets disfigured and Rachel dies, Harvey allows the Joker to manipulate him into starting a killing spree, and spares him...despite the fact the Joker was the same man who made an attempt on Rachel's life more than once and eventually succeeded in killing her. Despite the fact the Joker was the reason why Harvey took matters into his own hands in the first place.

Why, because the Joker makes some idiotic speech about chaos and how he doesn't plan anything (even though everything he does is precise and calculated)? Come on, THAT is a joke! It makes me laugh that people think they can ridicule BvS, but think this is better storytelling by comparison. Any sympathy for Eckhart's Two-Face was flushed down the toilet and made Tommy Lee Jones look better.

Anyway, I'm finishing this off. Back to talking about B&R.

[OutRiddled]

You want to talk about poorly constructed plot devices, once again, let's review Two-Face in The Dark Knight. That is the epitome of what you're talking about. That film never establishes Harvey Dent from suffering any mental illnesses before the hospital scene, and instead he is portrayed as a dedicated but arrogant lawyer, with a self-deprecating sense of humour and takes matters into his own hands to protect the woman he loves (albeit with restraint, as you see in his confrontation with the schizophrenic henchman). He even looks at his dad's lucky coin with fondness. In contrast to some of the comics, the coin was a symbol of his abusive childhood and manifested as a part of his diseased personality later on.

Yet, once he gets disfigured and Rachel dies, Harvey allows the Joker to manipulate him into starting a killing spree, and spares him...despite the fact the Joker was the same man who made an attempt on Rachel's life more than once and eventually succeeded in killing her. Despite the fact the Joker was the reason why Harvey took matters into his own hands in the first place.

Why, because the Joker makes some idiotic speech about chaos and how he doesn't plan anything (even though everything he does is precise and calculated)? Come on, THAT is a joke! It makes me laugh that people think they can ridicule BvS, but think this is better storytelling by comparison. Any sympathy for Eckhart's Two-Face was flushed down the toilet and made Tommy Lee Jones look better.

I 100% agree.  Never liked Eckhart's Two-Face.  At least Tommy Lee Jones is entertaining to watch. 

[The Dark Knight]

I actually don't hate TDK's Two-Face anymore. I just prefer other takes.

[thecolorsblend]

I actually don't hate TDK's Two-Face anymore. I just prefer other takes.

I've come to rationalize it that Harvey was a casualty in the Joker's war on Gotham. In that context, Two-Face not being as fleshed out as I'd like is more legitimate.

The part that I think trips fans up is the lack of understanding that this isn't Harvey or Two-Face's story. That may seem a bit Captain Obvious but saying it out loud helps a bit. "Oh, this isn't supposed to be a layered story about Dent's descent into madness. It's the story of how the Joker f**ked his s**t up real bad."

Understanding that has help me make better peace with TDK.

[The Dark Knight]

Yeah, that's right. Two-Face is an extension of the Joker. He caused chaos around the city by playing twisted games, and Dent was simply one of the casualties. Two-Face was tricked into thinking he had free will, when he was actually a pawn of the Joker. But this can only be achieved if there's an element of truth in what Joker said. Which is the most important aspect of all this.

[The Laughing Fish]

I actually don't hate TDK's Two-Face anymore. I just prefer other takes.

I've come to rationalize it that Harvey was a casualty in the Joker's war on Gotham. In that context, Two-Face not being as fleshed out as I'd like is more legitimate.

The part that I think trips fans up is the lack of understanding that this isn't Harvey or Two-Face's story. That may seem a bit Captain Obvious but saying it out loud helps a bit. "Oh, this isn't supposed to be a layered story about Dent's descent into madness. It's the story of how the Joker f**ked his s**t up real bad."

Understanding that has help me make better peace with TDK.

To me, that only makes it even worse because Two-Face knows that Joker ruined his life...but he still lets him go. Sorry, but I just can't get behind the idea of his painfully misguided revenge at all. This is a plot device that I always hated, especially since it was made up so Batman could put the blame on himself to spare Harvey in the end. It would've been just as stupid if BTAS Rupert Thorne manipulated Harvey into taking his anger out on Batman, Gordon and failed law officials...even though Thorne was the one who was directly responsible for ruining him in the first place.

I know we had this discussion before, but I'll clear up one thing: I would've been okay with Harvey turning bad in the same movie if his transformation was actually believable. I wasn't looking for the definitive live action Two-Face to date, I was only expecting that his transformation to make some sense. The point I was really making was the comics and BTAS were written in a way where Harvey's turn to insanity was gradual and believable. In contrast, TDK was sudden, and illogical even by a psychotic's standards. I understand what Nolan was trying to go for, but it was so poorly done. Some people can complain about Batman in BvS all they want, but at least that movie showed us how Lex was taking advantage of a damaged Bruce Wayne who was too blind to see he was becoming the irredeemable villain until the end of the fight with Superman, and begins to redeem himself. But people regularly sh*t on this, yet praise TDK's laughable treatment with Two-Face? You might be saying "But TLF, you're not getting what I'm saying, Batfleck had an arc in BvS", and that may be, but I'd rather Two-Face have something similar to that, because I personally think trying to justify his role as a contrived plot device is a cop-out.

Truth be told, I'd tolerate TDK's Two-Face a little better if Batman and Gordon told Gotham the truth about Harvey, but even then I'd still say his transformation is a point of contention for me. I'd rather they just kill Harvey off altogether because as it stands, I'd not only regard him as the worst villain in that series, but THE worst villain out of all Batman movies to date. Ugh.