Is it just me or did Two-Face feel a little out of place in this film? It's not that he didn't fit the plot or the themes of the film, but his visual transformation came off a little silly for me. I really like the idea of the Joker wanting to prove how beneath all of our good deeds, we can all be evil, terrible people like him but I find it a little silly that it had to be symbolized with the character who makes that transformation to literally have half his face burned off, leaving him looking half-man, half-monster.
It just comes off a little cartoony in this ultra realistic universe Nolan created, to have a character looking so spelled out for us with his appearance. If they had Dent look the same yet still act like Two-Face, I think I would have been able to take his character a little more seriously. I'm not sure would fans accept it, though.
I don't know, am I the only one who finds his appearance in the film a little silly?
Discuss...
I do agree with you that his disfigurement was completely out of place and didn't gel with the attempt at realism here. It was over-exaggerated. It would've made a lot more sense if they used similar make-up for the type of facial disfigurement in Mel Gibson's The Man Without a Face. Yes, it might've looked less "spectacular" but it would've been more believable and fit the realistic tone that Nolan was supposed to be going for.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.giantbomb.com%2Fuploads%2Fscale_super%2F15%2F153795%2F2193692-tosuckmel.jpg&hash=77f865fe2bd18be6bd0b76e19c4f0866d3dd77e3)
But really, the biggest problem was Two-Face's transformation itself. I didn't buy it one bit and instead thought it was ludicrous. This is the same man who took matters into his own hands to find out the Joker's whereabouts when Rachel's life was in danger, yet when Joker did kill her (or at least was an accessory to her death, I don't know if Joker or Maroni came up with that plan), Dent allows Joker to manipulate him instead of shooting him. It makes absolutely no sense. When Harvey became Two-Face in BTAS, he swore to get revenge at Rupert Thorne and his gang because their blackmail threats were responsible for causing his disfigurement in the first place. Two-Face didn't misdirect his anger out on Gordon, Batman or anyone else in the corrupt legal system. He simply wanted to get back at the people who have been trying to ruin his life. That character motivation makes way more sense, whereas in TDK it feels so incredibly out-of-character and terribly forced.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 8 Aug 2015, 06:55
I do agree with you that his disfigurement was completely out of place and didn't gel with the attempt at realism here. It was over-exaggerated. It would've made a lot more sense if they used similar make-up for the type of facial disfigurement in Mel Gibson's The Man Without a Face. Yes, it might've looked less "spectacular" but it would've been more believable and fit the realistic tone that Nolan was supposed to be going for.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.giantbomb.com%2Fuploads%2Fscale_super%2F15%2F153795%2F2193692-tosuckmel.jpg&hash=77f865fe2bd18be6bd0b76e19c4f0866d3dd77e3)
But really, the biggest problem was Two-Face's transformation itself. I didn't buy it one bit and instead thought it was ludicrous. This is the same man who took matters into his own hands to find out the Joker's whereabouts when Rachel's life was in danger, yet when Joker did kill her (or at least was an accessory to her death, I don't know if Joker or Maroni came up with that plan), Dent allows Joker to manipulate him instead of shooting him. It makes absolutely no sense. When Harvey became Two-Face in BTAS, he swore to get revenge at Rupert Thorne and his gang because their blackmail threats were responsible for causing his disfigurement in the first place. Two-Face didn't misdirect his anger out on Gordon, Batman or anyone else in the corrupt legal system. He simply wanted to get back at the people who have been trying to ruin his life. That character motivation makes way more sense, whereas in TDK it feels so incredibly out-of-character and terribly forced.
Insanity often doesn't make sense.
Since Nolanites claim their films are so bloody realistic.
If such an injury were suffered, the doctors would wrap up his entire face to apply proper pressure to the burned side. His speech would have been affected. Also with his eyelid being burned off completely that eye would be heavily irritated; the human eye blinks on average 6-10 times per minute to clean the eyeball from particles.
I posted this before but Harvey Dent/Two face basically got the same treatment Eddie Brock/Venom did in spider-man 3; pre-release, both were assumed to spend most of the film developing their characters before being set up to become the super villains the next film. Both became villains late in the film and killed off after a few scenes yet Sam Raimi got raked through the coals while Nolan got put on a pedestal.
I'm a big fan of the character so I was happy if only for Harvey Dent's presence in the film, but it's hard to deny that Two-Face was merely an afterthought and even a puppet to the Joker, and they killed him off at the end so no chance for a further appearance. And yes, his scarred half was quite unrealistic for Nolan standards...
I won't post pictures but you can Google images of people who have been burned by acid. I wouldn't think that type of effect is any less credible than what Nolan ultimately used for Two Face. The reason to use fire rather than acid is because it ties in with the other fire imagery associated with TDK already. It's not like I know Nolan personally or anything so I don't want it to sound like I'm crawling inside his head but the above would be my reason for scarring Dent with fire instead of acid.
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 8 Aug 2015, 14:59Since Nolanites claim their films are so bloody realistic.
If such an injury were suffered, the doctors would wrap up his entire face to apply proper pressure to the burned side. His speech would have been affected. Also with his eyelid being burned off completely that eye would be heavily irritated; the human eye blinks on average 6-10 times per minute to clean the eyeball from particles.
I posted this before but Harvey Dent/Two face basically got the same treatment Eddie Brock/Venom did in spider-man 3; pre-release, both were assumed to spend most of the film developing their characters before being set up to become the super villains the next film. Both became villains late in the film and killed off after a few scenes yet Sam Raimi got raked through the coals while Nolan got put on a pedestal.
It's not about realism. The first film had a microwave emitter, the flower and other stuff. The second had Two-Face, the Joker's planning and other stuff. The third had the bat, the bomb and Bruce's back. It's not about it being realistic. It's about it having realism in it. Spider-Man 3 is fine.
I wish he got scarred and then a tease/slight reveal of his face was shown at the very end, that lead into him being the main threat for the third film. Dent was my favorite thing about TDK, but his Two-Face was rushed, and I hate how they killed him off so quickly.
The BTAS Two-Face is still top dog.
I liked Aaron Eckhart's Harvey a lot. He was likeable and firm. However I agree it's a shame he was killed off so quickly. The character has been getting the short end of the stick lately, even in the Arkham games. Two-Face is one of the best villains in the Batman universe and he deserves more.
A film devoted to Aaron Eckhart on a warpath would've been pretty exciting. Two-Face works because he's a close friend and gives a solid reason to why Bruce *tries* to believe in the possibility criminals can be rehabilitated.
To be honest, I think they missed a dramatic scenario with TDK, leading into TDK Rises. The idea Two-Face is on the loose whacking people left right and centre, with Batman and Gordon initially trying to hush everything up, is more appealing to me. Say, they could've had the confrontation with Gordon's family, and the bullet that Dent fires keeps Batman down. Dent lips the coin, and thankfully for Gordon, it comes up good. And Dent leaves, but swears it's not over.
But they chose to go down a completely different narrative structure. Mine is more exciting, IMO, and would've given us a direct TDK sequel without having the 8 year time jump. You would have seen the public's reaction of horror and disappointment when they see with their own eyes what Dent has become - not just being told by Bane via a letter which is hardly an form of proof whatsoever. In TDK Rises we never see what the pubic thinks of the Dent revelation.
But that ship has long sailed.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 10 Aug 2015, 11:53
The BTAS Two-Face is still top dog.
I liked Aaron Eckhart's Harvey a lot. He was likeable and firm. However I agree it's a shame he was killed off so quickly. The character has been getting the short end of the stick lately, even in the Arkham games. Two-Face is one of the best villains in the Batman universe and he deserves more.
A film devoted to Aaron Eckhart on a warpath would've been pretty exciting. Two-Face works because he's a close friend and gives a solid reason to why Bruce *tries* to believe in the possibility criminals can be rehabilitated.
To be honest, I think they missed a dramatic scenario with TDK, leading into TDK Rises. The idea Two-Face is on the loose whacking people left right and centre, with Batman and Gordon initially trying to hush everything up, is more appealing to me. Say, they could've had the confrontation with Gordon's family, and the bullet that Dent fires keeps Batman down. Dent lips the coin, and thankfully for Gordon, it comes up good. And Dent leaves, but swears it's not over.
But they chose to go down a completely different narrative structure. Mine is more exciting, IMO, and would've given us a direct TDK sequel without having the 8 year time jump. You would have seen the public's reaction of horror and disappointment when they see with their own eyes what Dent has become - not just being told by Bane via a letter which is hardly an form of proof whatsoever. In TDK Rises we never see what the pubic thinks of the Dent revelation.
But that ship has long sailed.
Two-face played into the story of that movie.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sun, 9 Aug 2015, 04:17
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 8 Aug 2015, 14:59Since Nolanites claim their films are so bloody realistic.
If such an injury were suffered, the doctors would wrap up his entire face to apply proper pressure to the burned side. His speech would have been affected. Also with his eyelid being burned off completely that eye would be heavily irritated; the human eye blinks on average 6-10 times per minute to clean the eyeball from particles.
I posted this before but Harvey Dent/Two face basically got the same treatment Eddie Brock/Venom did in spider-man 3; pre-release, both were assumed to spend most of the film developing their characters before being set up to become the super villains the next film. Both became villains late in the film and killed off after a few scenes yet Sam Raimi got raked through the coals while Nolan got put on a pedestal.
It's not about realism. The first film had a microwave emitter, the flower and other stuff. The second had Two-Face, the Joker's planning and other stuff. The third had the bat, the bomb and Bruce's back. It's not about it being realistic. It's about it having realism in it. Spider-Man 3 is fine.
seriously? This is a perfect example of selective evidence. Nolan supporters claim their films are better because they are grounded and gritty but when logic holes get pointed now, now it's okay not to be realistic?
Quote from: riddler on Mon, 10 Aug 2015, 23:28
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sun, 9 Aug 2015, 04:17
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 8 Aug 2015, 14:59Since Nolanites claim their films are so bloody realistic.
If such an injury were suffered, the doctors would wrap up his entire face to apply proper pressure to the burned side. His speech would have been affected. Also with his eyelid being burned off completely that eye would be heavily irritated; the human eye blinks on average 6-10 times per minute to clean the eyeball from particles.
I posted this before but Harvey Dent/Two face basically got the same treatment Eddie Brock/Venom did in spider-man 3; pre-release, both were assumed to spend most of the film developing their characters before being set up to become the super villains the next film. Both became villains late in the film and killed off after a few scenes yet Sam Raimi got raked through the coals while Nolan got put on a pedestal.
It's not about realism. The first film had a microwave emitter, the flower and other stuff. The second had Two-Face, the Joker's planning and other stuff. The third had the bat, the bomb and Bruce's back. It's not about it being realistic. It's about it having realism in it. Spider-Man 3 is fine.
seriously? This is a perfect example of selective evidence. Nolan supporters claim their films are better because they are grounded and gritty but when logic holes get pointed now, now it's okay not to be realistic?
I haven't said that. Check out my Batman tv series idea in general batchat and you'll find Solomon Grundy, Mr. Freeze and Zatanna among the cast. The grittiness I'm sure is a draw for most people, but I never found it to be realistic in the sense that people use.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 11 Aug 2015, 11:06
Quote from: riddler on Mon, 10 Aug 2015, 23:28
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sun, 9 Aug 2015, 04:17
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 8 Aug 2015, 14:59Since Nolanites claim their films are so bloody realistic.
If such an injury were suffered, the doctors would wrap up his entire face to apply proper pressure to the burned side. His speech would have been affected. Also with his eyelid being burned off completely that eye would be heavily irritated; the human eye blinks on average 6-10 times per minute to clean the eyeball from particles.
I posted this before but Harvey Dent/Two face basically got the same treatment Eddie Brock/Venom did in spider-man 3; pre-release, both were assumed to spend most of the film developing their characters before being set up to become the super villains the next film. Both became villains late in the film and killed off after a few scenes yet Sam Raimi got raked through the coals while Nolan got put on a pedestal.
It's not about realism. The first film had a microwave emitter, the flower and other stuff. The second had Two-Face, the Joker's planning and other stuff. The third had the bat, the bomb and Bruce's back. It's not about it being realistic. It's about it having realism in it. Spider-Man 3 is fine.
seriously? This is a perfect example of selective evidence. Nolan supporters claim their films are better because they are grounded and gritty but when logic holes get pointed now, now it's okay not to be realistic?
I haven't said that. Check out my Batman tv series idea in general batchat and you'll find Solomon Grundy, Mr. Freeze and Zatanna among the cast. The grittiness I'm sure is a draw for most people, but I never found it to be realistic in the sense that people use.
I'm not saying yourself personally but the 'everything is grounded' is the number one argument Nolan supporters use for why their films are better than any other interpretation of the character.
Quote from: riddler on Tue, 11 Aug 2015, 13:17
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 11 Aug 2015, 11:06
Quote from: riddler on Mon, 10 Aug 2015, 23:28
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sun, 9 Aug 2015, 04:17
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 8 Aug 2015, 14:59Since Nolanites claim their films are so bloody realistic.
If such an injury were suffered, the doctors would wrap up his entire face to apply proper pressure to the burned side. His speech would have been affected. Also with his eyelid being burned off completely that eye would be heavily irritated; the human eye blinks on average 6-10 times per minute to clean the eyeball from particles.
I posted this before but Harvey Dent/Two face basically got the same treatment Eddie Brock/Venom did in spider-man 3; pre-release, both were assumed to spend most of the film developing their characters before being set up to become the super villains the next film. Both became villains late in the film and killed off after a few scenes yet Sam Raimi got raked through the coals while Nolan got put on a pedestal.
It's not about realism. The first film had a microwave emitter, the flower and other stuff. The second had Two-Face, the Joker's planning and other stuff. The third had the bat, the bomb and Bruce's back. It's not about it being realistic. It's about it having realism in it. Spider-Man 3 is fine.
seriously? This is a perfect example of selective evidence. Nolan supporters claim their films are better because they are grounded and gritty but when logic holes get pointed now, now it's okay not to be realistic?
I haven't said that. Check out my Batman tv series idea in general batchat and you'll find Solomon Grundy, Mr. Freeze and Zatanna among the cast. The grittiness I'm sure is a draw for most people, but I never found it to be realistic in the sense that people use.
I'm not saying yourself personally but the 'everything is grounded' is the number one argument Nolan supporters use for why their films are better than any other interpretation of the character.
I very much support the Nolan Batman films. But I think by realistic the term is meant that it has realism in it. Because the events of these movies couldn't happen in the real world by their very nature. It also doesn't make it automatically better. But I don't think I've seen anyone say that this version is better than the DCAU Batman. Personally I like the version that isn't great at everything. But I think the DCAU version is better.