should there be a continuation of this universe in some way?

[The Laughing Fish]

I think Two-Face was kinda forgettable, but Harvey is a different story. Harvey is actually my favorite part of the movie. His entire arc was great, I just think they wasted Two-Face. I rather have him as the main villain for the third movie.

I thought Aaron Eckhardt was okay as Dent, but much like the writing, I didn't like his Two-Face. Thought he was unintentionally over the top with his screaming to the point I found it funny, when he was meant to be tragic.

And let's face it, that whole Two-Face arc occurred like this:

AARON ECKHART
You asshole, why did you kill my girlfriend?

HEATH LEDGER
I'm an agent of chaos. I just do things.

AARON ECKHART
Wow, that's some sophisticated characterization there. As soon as I get out of these surprisingly strong bandages, I'm going to kill you!

HEATH LEDGER
Look, you don't want to kill me for murdering her. You want to kill everyone else for failing to stop me from murdering her!

AARON ECKHART
That doesn't make any sense at all.

HEATH LEDGER
And yet, it's going to be your main character motivation for the rest of the movie. Now make with the murder, Sir Skins-A-Lot.

http://www.the-editing-room.com/thedarkknight.html

Most pathetic attempt of a character transformation I've ever seen. Made me appreciate BF's Two-Face. And that's saying something!

[Edd Grayson]

Batman Forever had the potential to be the best Batman. And even without fulfilling that, it's still better than Nolan's second Batman film for me in many ways.

[Dagenspear]

I thought Aaron Eckhardt was okay as Dent, but much like the writing, I didn't like his Two-Face. Thought he was unintentionally over the top with his screaming to the point I found it funny, when he was meant to be tragic.

And let's face it, that whole Two-Face arc occurred like this:
http://www.the-editing-room.com/thedarkknight.html

Most pathetic attempt of a character transformation I've ever seen. Made me appreciate BF's Two-Face. And that's saying something!

That's not true. Two-face wanted to kill him. He flipped the coin, but it landed on heads, so he let the Joker go. He did the same for everyone else. But he kinda bent his idea for Moroni. Though if the Joker was in a car at the time, I'm sure he would have done the same. If you don't like the movie, you're entitled to that, but I don't know why false statements are necessary. What you find funny is your opinion, but I don't see that or how a laughing angry Two-face is better than a serious angry one.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[The Laughing Fish]

But when you start analyzing the dynamics of TDK as a sort of tug-of-war with Batman on one side, the Joker on the other and Harvey (as a surrogate for the city itself) in between, TDK must include Two Face and it must conclude with either Batman or the Joker winning on some level or another. The structure of the film allows nothing else.

Nolan doing what he did served the film... though not particularly the fullness of Two Face as a character. That is regrettable but one does what one must when creating a film as a piece of art.

Man...don't take this as an offence, but I would've thought you out of all people would've called bullsh*t on Two-Face's role in TDK.

It's not that Nolan failed to portray Two-Face based on how people prefer him to be as a character; it's that he failed to portray him with a characterization that makes any sense at all. Dent's transformation is so rushed and unbelievably poorly written that it's exactly how that parody I quoted earlier described it.

Before the disfigurement, there's not even a hint of Harvey even having a troubled past. For example, the coin in The Eye of the Beholder comic was a "gift" given to him by his abusive father after it was used in a twisted game to punish Harvey when as a child. It played a significant role in Harvey's psychosis and made his transformation believable. But here – he looks at it with pride. No hints of any emotional abuse or troubled history at all. We know nothing about Harvey other than he's a determined, if rather arrogant, lawyer looking to prosecute crooks.

Fans love to point out that Harvey was psychotic when he threatened that schizophrenic, but I don't agree because A) he freaked out when he learned that Joker was going to make an attempt on Rachel's life (again), and B) he was acting out of desperation rather out of cold-blood. That alone should've motivated Harvey to shoot the Joker right between the eyes as soon as he was given the chance in the hospital!

Instead, he allows his girlfriend's murderer into manipulating him, and takes his anger out at Joker's accomplices and those who failed to stop him. Seriously, what sense does that make? And no, I don't buy that whole "Joker is a mad dog, I'm looking for those who let him of his leash" excuse either. I don't know about anyone else, but if I was driven insane over the murder of my girlfriend, I'd make sure I'd get revenge over everyone who had hurt me, including the perpetrator behind her death. Everything about what makes Two-Face unique such as his duality, pathological obsession over chance is stripped so he could be more of a vigilante...and yet the first thing he does is letting Rachel's killer go?! If the whole point was to dumb Two-Face down so that Joker in this movie could be unstoppable, then I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.

Perhaps the biggest sin of all – Two-Face makes Batman take the blame for everything he did so Gotham doesn't find out; which goes against everything Batman said about people believing in good earlier on. That would be like watching a Superman movie where a rather benevolent President Lex Luthor is suddenly brainwashed into becoming a homicidal maniac, and after Superman kills him, he takes the fall so the rest of the country doesn't find out what really happened. It's not exactly Truth, Justice, and the American Way, is it?

To me, the whole Two-Face ordeal was just a contrived plot point so he could be stuck in the middle of Batman and Joker's flimsy philosophical war with each other. The only way I could ever tolerate it is if we had a different ending where Batman lets the truth come out and prove to the Joker that the city believes in good once again. As it stands, Harvey Two-Face is just another reason why I think this film is a horrible mess to watch for me.

[Dagenspear]

Man...don't take this as an offence, but I would've thought you out of all people would've called bullsh*t on Two-Face's role in TDK.

It's not that Nolan failed to portray Two-Face based on how people prefer him to be as a character; it's that he failed to portray him with a characterization that makes any sense at all. Dent's transformation is so rushed and unbelievably poorly written that it's exactly how that parody I quoted earlier described it.

Before the disfigurement, there's not even a hint of Harvey even having a troubled past. For example, the coin in The Eye of the Beholder comic was a "gift" given to him by his abusive father after it was used in a twisted game to punish Harvey when as a child. It played a significant role in Harvey's psychosis and made his transformation believable. But here – he looks at it with pride. No hints of any emotional abuse or troubled history at all. We know nothing about Harvey other than he's a determined, if rather arrogant, lawyer looking to prosecute crooks.

Fans love to point out that Harvey was psychotic when he threatened that schizophrenic, but I don't agree because A) he freaked out when he learned that Joker was going to make an attempt on Rachel's life (again), and B) he was acting out of desperation rather out of cold-blood. That alone should've motivated Harvey to shoot the Joker right between the eyes as soon as he was given the chance in the hospital!

Instead, he allows his girlfriend's murderer into manipulating him, and takes his anger out at Joker's accomplices and those who failed to stop him. Seriously, what sense does that make? And no, I don't buy that whole "Joker is a mad dog, I'm looking for those who let him of his leash" excuse either. I don't know about anyone else, but if I was driven insane over the murder of my girlfriend, I'd make sure I'd get revenge over everyone who had hurt me, including the perpetrator behind her death. Everything about what makes Two-Face unique such as his duality, pathological obsession over chance is stripped so he could be more of a vigilante...and yet the first thing he does is letting Rachel's killer go?! If the whole point was to dumb Two-Face down so that Joker in this movie could be unstoppable, then I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.

Perhaps the biggest sin of all – Two-Face makes Batman take the blame for everything he did so Gotham doesn't find out; which goes against everything Batman said about people believing in good earlier on. That would be like watching a Superman movie where a rather benevolent President Lex Luthor is suddenly brainwashed into becoming a homicidal maniac, and after Superman kills him, he takes the fall so the rest of the country doesn't find out what really happened. It's not exactly Truth, Justice, and the American Way, is it?

To me, the whole Two-Face ordeal was just a contrived plot point so he could be stuck in the middle of Batman and Joker's flimsy philosophical war with each other. The only way I could ever tolerate it is if we had a different ending where Batman lets the truth come out and prove to the Joker that the city believes in good once again. As it stands, Harvey Two-Face is just another reason why I think this film is a horrible mess to watch for me.

That's false. Harvey did want to kill the Joker, but he listened to the coin, because that's become his source of focus due to his now cracked psyche. He's insane. You can't say that his characterization makes no sense, but then suggest that it make even less sense. You say that he was acting out of desperation in one situation, but imply that he was being cold-blooded in another. His act of not killing the Joker right off shows that he's not being cold blooded. In his fractured mind he's placed the rules of morality off of his shoulders and onto chance. That's become his new justice. Desperation can lead to what Harvey becomes and it does. Desperation is a part of his character in the last part of the movie. He's not a pure cold-blooded monster. He's angry and broken and hurting and vengeful and desperate. He's not cold-blooded. When he murders someone he is, but he would still be whether driven by desperation or not. And, like I've said before, Batman's belief isn't contradicted, because the movie shows him thinking of Batman as a bad thing, as something that brings pain and death onto people. Him thinking that people are ready to believe good is because he thinks they believe in Harvey Dent. He calls him Gotham's true hero in the movie.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[thecolorsblend]

Man...don't take this as an offence, but I would've thought you out of all people would've called bullsh*t on Two-Face's role in TDK.

For a long while I did. And while I don't anymore, it's only because I've come to better understand what Nolan was trying to do.

But just because I better understand what Nolan was up against doesn't mean I'm okay with how Two Face came off in that movie. Because I'm not. It didn't serve Harvey or Two Face as characters. But it served TDK as a film rather nicely. That, I suspect, was Nolan's top priority.

The end result of this is the definitive portrayal of Two Face in live action still eludes us. It's interesting how much closer Schumacher came than Nolan did in retrospect.

But Nolan wanted TDK to be a tug of war between the Joker and Batman rather than a psychologically-driven character piece featuring Two Face as the antagonist. He accomplished what he set out to do. And what he set out to do wasn't giving us the pitch-perfect adaptation of Two Face as a villain we've all dreamed of.

If you believe Nolan should be criticized for that, who am I to try stopping you? Indeed, I agree that Two Face was not served by that depiction. I'm simply saying it wasn't Nolan's intention to do Two Face the full measure of justice the character deserves.

So no offense taken here, sir. I understand and agree with your points. I just see a mitigating factor, that's all.

[The Laughing Fish]

Very well colors. But I still stand by what I said about Two-Face's part in the film being very contrived, and I don't believe it did the film many favours, no matter what others say. I guess I can compare my distaste for this entire plot line (and the film's entire third act) to how most Superman fans feel about Clark disappearing for five years and having a son in SR. We might get that Bryan Singer had plans to ask if the world would be better off without Superman and make him face fatherhood issues...but it doesn't necessarily mean we think they're good ideas. Especially if neither are really explored.

But as you say, we agree with each other about Two-Face's inadequacy here so I'm happy to leave it at that.

[thecolorsblend]

But as you say, we agree with each other about Two-Face's inadequacy here so I'm happy to leave it at that.

All at once I'm not because you mentioned a very sore point for me.

I guess I can compare my distaste for this entire plot line (and the film's entire third act) to how most Superman fans feel about Clark disappearing for five years and having a son in SR. We might get that Bryan Singer had plans to ask if the world would be better off without Superman and make him face fatherhood issues...but it doesn't necessarily mean we think they're good ideas. Especially if neither are really explored.

This right here. For one thing, as you say, those aren't conflicts I care to watch Superman grapple with. For two things though, again as you say, if Singer was going to introduce those issues, he owed it to the audience to at least explore them. Resolve them or don't resolve them but for crying out loud at least play with those concepts a little.

Grrrrr, that movie pisses me off to this day and I'm so happy to have MOS rather than floating turd of stinkfest crapola movie stinking everything up.

The day will eventually have to come when fans recognize Singer as the overrated, one trick pony he is. And I hope it's soon.

[Dagenspear]

This right here. For one thing, as you say, those aren't conflicts I care to watch Superman grapple with. For two things though, again as you say, if Singer was going to introduce those issues, he owed it to the audience to at least explore them. Resolve them or don't resolve them but for crying out loud at least play with those concepts a little.

Very well colors. But I still stand by what I said about Two-Face's part in the film being very contrived, and I don't believe it did the film many favours, no matter what others say. I guess I can compare my distaste for this entire plot line (and the film's entire third act) to how most Superman fans feel about Clark disappearing for five years and having a son in SR. We might get that Bryan Singer had plans to ask if the world would be better off without Superman and make him face fatherhood issues...but it doesn't necessarily mean we think they're good ideas. Especially if neither are really explored.

I'm sorry, but I don't get the impression that it was an issue of fatherhood in that movie or if the world would be better off without Superman. The movie is about, from what I can see, Clark feeling alone and being disconnected from the people he loves, until he finds out that he has a son, he has someone that he can connect to in a world where he can't fully connect with people. That's explored rather nicely in the film from what I can tell. Neither the SR or TDK things are really bad.

Grrrrr, that movie pisses me off to this day and I'm so happy to have MOS rather than floating turd of stinkfest crapola movie stinking everything up.

The day will eventually have to come when fans recognize Singer as the overrated, one trick pony he is. And I hope it's soon.

He isn't a one trick pony. Now, his recent movies haven't been that great, but the early x-movies are good and SR is decent.

God bless you both! God bless everyone!

[thecolorsblend]

Singer has directed one decent movie (Usual Suspects) and one great one (X2).

The rest of his films are mostly shlock that if anybody with any other rep had directed them, fans would've rebelled long ago.