If Nolan, his brother, or Goyer could come back to expand on this particular Batman universe through novels, graphic novels, or video games even, should it be done? And if so, which stories should be told? Some possibilities would be the adventures of John Blake's Batman, expanded origins for Ra's al Ghul or Bane, and maybe even more villains added to the roster reinvented in that Nolany way, of course.
Discuss...
On a side note, I am already aware of there being a direct-to-DVD movie called Batman: Gotham Knight that takes place between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. But that doesn't look or feel the least bit like it's part of the same universe at all. Does anyone actually consider that canon?
I don't really care to see the adventures of John Blake. In fact, this universe is pretty much done for me. I accept the trilogy we have but I don't see much need to continue it beyond what we have.
Agreed. And anyway, I really doubt Blake would've had many adventures. I could see him getting offed in his first night out.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, 04:22Agreed. And anyway, I really doubt Blake would've had many adventures. I could see him getting offed in his first night out.
It does push the bounds of credibility quite a lot. I can buy that someone who was trained by a ninja death cult could do the stuff Bruce does in that trilogy because it kinda sorta totally has to be that way. That's the entire premise of Batman. If I can't get on board with that, I'm watching the wrong movie.
But I guess if you
had to show Blake's adventures as Batman, you could develop him as being a lot more cautious than Bruce was. Bruce would charge headlong into situations without necessarily formulating much of a plan. Blake doesn't have Bruce's chops so he might rig booby traps for his prey, stake places out more carefully, only pick fights he already knows how to win, call the police for backup, gather evidence secretly without necessarily engaging his mark, etc.
On the other hand, who the hell wants to watch the "adventures" of a passive Batman??
I hope that Blake wouldn't take the Batman persona but rather someone like Nightwing. But this just my own wish, with no real basis in the films.
In my mind he wouldn't take on the Batman mantle either. Nightwing would be my preference. I think he could assist the police by sharing the batcave databases, like Alfred mentioned in the film. "They don't have the tools to analyze it" - "They would if you gave it to them." But indeed, I'm still struggling to see an effective, crash bang hero with Blake.
To me, I see the trilogy as a fully contained story. "Batman" is ultimately an idea that can be carried to another generation by another person, although the public never knows the identity is changing hands. Plays quite a bit to the tune of the Phantom if you think about it. I liked the fact Nolan gave Bruce Wayne a happy ending without it being at the expense of Batman (my interpretation). Given his physical afflictions from playing the part, I doubt there would be anything to add except the redundancy of retelling it through the eyes of Blake. I'm fine with the way it is.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri, 9 Oct 2015, 17:05To me, I see the trilogy as a fully contained story. "Batman" is ultimately an idea that can be carried to another generation by another person, although the public never knows the identity is changing hands. Plays quite a bit to the tune of the Phantom if you think about it. I liked the fact Nolan gave Bruce Wayne a happy ending without it being at the expense of Batman (my interpretation). Given his physical afflictions from playing the part, I doubt there would be anything to add except the redundancy of retelling it through the eyes of Blake. I'm fine with the way it is.
For a lot of fans, there's this idea that Bruce should never give up. He should be Batman forevermore. I can understand their enthusiasm.
But ultimately I think they're wrong. Bruce does what he does because he's psychologically deformed in some pretty critical ways. He's misshapen... but over time, I think he'd mentally recover enough to the point where he'd experience what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity and realize he didn't somehow "fail" his parents, they loved him, they wanted the best for him and they would never have wanted him to be what he's become.
He's done a lot of good, sure, but he'd decide it's time to retire and move away from Gotham City.
TDKRises doesn't give us that
exactly but it's pretty close. Close enough for me to overlook a
LOT with the movie. Nolan understood that Bruce can't do this forever. He's right. That may be for the wrong reasons, I'll grant you that, but he's still right in his sentiment. It needed to end at some point. So I'm okay with that stuff.
The old series was just the opposite. Bruce came to terms with being Batman, and he chose to be Batman...forever. :)
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 13 Oct 2015, 06:17
The old series was just the opposite. Bruce came to terms with being Batman, and he chose to be Batman...forever. :)
And did so without carrying a burden any longer. 8)
As for TDKR's ending? I read an improvised ending that BatmAngelus came up with from a few years ago which I thought was much better:
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sun, 17 Mar 2013, 07:17
A lot of TDKRises fans chalk up the critics as fanboys who can't let go of the fact that Batman quit and think he should go on forever. To me, it's not about that. It's the execution.
Want to give Batman a definite ending and have Bruce Wayne hang up the cowl? Okay, Chris. But do it in a way that fits with the themes you were setting up in the last two movies, that keeps Bruce as the heroic figure we've been rooting for since Begins, and doesn't make us ask a ton of logic questions to ourselves before the credits roll.
It also would've helped if Bruce hadn't already quit being Batman for eight years before the film started. If the movie's about how Bruce needs to give up on being Batman, don't start with him having already done it 'cause then you've defeated the purpose.
Hell, I'm not even convinced "Batman" had to die at the end either, but things would've sat a lot better with me if "Batman died but Bruce Wayne lived" in the eyes of Gotham City. It still wouldn't have solved things like "How did he get out of the Bat in time?" but this would've helped a lot of other issues.
By staying in Gotham as Bruce, he wouldn't have come across as a selfish jerk, like in the current ending, for making his friends and allies, including the man who raised him, think he was dead. Everyone who knew he was really Batman would know that he was still alive.
You also wouldn't have people wondering "Why hasn't anyone figured out that Bruce was Batman if they both died?" or "How/when the heck did Bruce have time to write his will?"
This ending also would've eliminated the restaurant reunion, which means Alfred wouldn't end up broadcasting the movie's ending in the first fifteen minutes or saying that he never wanted Bruce to come home from his travels (which was never remotely hinted at in Begins in the first place, so this wouldn't have been much of a loss). And Bruce and Selina wouldn't magically be able to dine at the same restaurant in Italy at the same time.
Instead, Bruce and Alfred might've actually had a real, heartfelt reunion/reconciliation in Wayne Manor, instead of just a nod and a grin, now that Bruce had finally moved on from being Batman.
(Honestly, if I were Alfred, I wouldn't have been smiling upon seeing Bruce. I would've been pissed that the kid made me think he was dead this whole time).
On a big thematic level, Bruce Wayne could actually regain his fortune, which would've fulfilled how Batman always "picks himself up" after tragedy (instead of quitting and running away from it all).
Instead of leaving Gothamites to pick up the pieces from all of Bane's destruction so he could hook up with Selina in Europe, Bruce could've put funding back into the orphanage himself and used his resources to help the city rebuild itself, like his father did, finally shedding the playboy persona and living up to the Wayne family name, truly bringing the themes all back to Batman Begins (and fulfilling what Alfred advises earlier in the film anyway).
We'd actually get to witness "the day that Gotham wouldn't need Batman" that was hinted at way back in 2005.
Too bad that was all contradicted in the current ending with the return of the Bat Signal and Blake getting the Batcave.
Honestly, I don't think the TDKRises fans would love the film any less if Nolan went for this ending. The movie would've lost very little, yet gained so much.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 13 Oct 2015, 09:28And did so without carrying a burden any longer. 8)
As for TDKR's ending? I read an improvised ending that BatmAngelus came up with from a few years ago which I thought was much better:Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sun, 17 Mar 2013, 07:17
A lot of TDKRises fans chalk up the critics as fanboys who can't let go of the fact that Batman quit and think he should go on forever. To me, it's not about that. It's the execution.
Want to give Batman a definite ending and have Bruce Wayne hang up the cowl? Okay, Chris. But do it in a way that fits with the themes you were setting up in the last two movies, that keeps Bruce as the heroic figure we've been rooting for since Begins, and doesn't make us ask a ton of logic questions to ourselves before the credits roll.
It also would've helped if Bruce hadn't already quit being Batman for eight years before the film started. If the movie's about how Bruce needs to give up on being Batman, don't start with him having already done it 'cause then you've defeated the purpose.
Hell, I'm not even convinced "Batman" had to die at the end either, but things would've sat a lot better with me if "Batman died but Bruce Wayne lived" in the eyes of Gotham City. It still wouldn't have solved things like "How did he get out of the Bat in time?" but this would've helped a lot of other issues.
By staying in Gotham as Bruce, he wouldn't have come across as a selfish jerk, like in the current ending, for making his friends and allies, including the man who raised him, think he was dead. Everyone who knew he was really Batman would know that he was still alive.
You also wouldn't have people wondering "Why hasn't anyone figured out that Bruce was Batman if they both died?" or "How/when the heck did Bruce have time to write his will?"
This ending also would've eliminated the restaurant reunion, which means Alfred wouldn't end up broadcasting the movie's ending in the first fifteen minutes or saying that he never wanted Bruce to come home from his travels (which was never remotely hinted at in Begins in the first place, so this wouldn't have been much of a loss). And Bruce and Selina wouldn't magically be able to dine at the same restaurant in Italy at the same time.
Instead, Bruce and Alfred might've actually had a real, heartfelt reunion/reconciliation in Wayne Manor, instead of just a nod and a grin, now that Bruce had finally moved on from being Batman.
(Honestly, if I were Alfred, I wouldn't have been smiling upon seeing Bruce. I would've been pissed that the kid made me think he was dead this whole time).
On a big thematic level, Bruce Wayne could actually regain his fortune, which would've fulfilled how Batman always "picks himself up" after tragedy (instead of quitting and running away from it all).
Instead of leaving Gothamites to pick up the pieces from all of Bane's destruction so he could hook up with Selina in Europe, Bruce could've put funding back into the orphanage himself and used his resources to help the city rebuild itself, like his father did, finally shedding the playboy persona and living up to the Wayne family name, truly bringing the themes all back to Batman Begins (and fulfilling what Alfred advises earlier in the film anyway).
We'd actually get to witness "the day that Gotham wouldn't need Batman" that was hinted at way back in 2005.
Too bad that was all contradicted in the current ending with the return of the Bat Signal and Blake getting the Batcave.
Honestly, I don't think the TDKRises fans would love the film any less if Nolan went for this ending. The movie would've lost very little, yet gained so much.
The film is about how he can't be batman anymore and he needs to let go of his parents death. Not about how he needs to give up being batman.
Everyone knew he was still alive by the end too.
He wrote his will before he gave his company to Miranda.
He isn't batman anymore. But letting go of it all and moving on does show that he picks himself up. He does put stuff into the city.
The day that gotham won't need batman wasn't going to happen. That was realized at the end of tdk.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 13 Oct 2015, 06:17The old series was just the opposite. Bruce came to terms with being Batman, and he chose to be Batman...forever. :)
Indeed. And I think there's validity to that idea in that it shows Bruce coming to terms with his parents death and not being so dark and whatnot anymore.
I just happen to think that when he inevitably makes that realization, the change he'll make is giving up Batman permanently instead of giving up just the darkness.
By the way, I'm not saying I actually want to see the story where Bruce peacefully retires and moves off. Some things are better left to the imagination. I'm only saying I think that's the most logical outcome.
Quote from: mrrockey on Sun, 27 Sep 2015, 09:26
On a side note, I am already aware of there being a direct-to-DVD movie called Batman: Gotham Knight that takes place between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. But that doesn't look or feel the least bit like it's part of the same universe at all. Does anyone actually consider that canon?
I believe Gotham Knight was only made to cash in the anticipation of the second film, but it has nothing to do with Nolan's continuity.
Besides, in one of the film's short stories called Walking Through Pain, Alfred arrives in the 1989 Batmobile to help a wounded Batman.
(https://i.imgur.com/azVtBRD.jpg)
One more possible Burton reference is Batman resembling a lot like Michael Keaton in another short called In Darkness Dwells.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mtv.com%2Fshared%2Fpromoimages%2Fmovies%2Fg%2Fgotham_knight%2Fblog_07032008%2F281x211.jpg&hash=922c20093da2588a08c1261ba5e009d8b549915f)
It might have been unintentional on the producers' part, for all we know. But if this film was meant to be an official part of the Nolan canon, it would've avoided making a homage to a previous era of the film franchise.
No. Personally I think that Nolan's "more grounded in reality" Batman universe is ultimately a dead end. Trying to keep everything grounding really limits what you can do. Also most of Batman's big name villains that could fit into Nolan's world had already been used. So really I don't see a point.
That's a fair point, Vampfox.
I know some fans wanted Penguin or Riddler, but I don't know just how you could make them "grounded" and not strip them of their identity.
Quote from: Max Shreck on Fri, 8 Jan 2016, 18:10
That's a fair point, Vampfox.
I know some fans wanted Penguin or Riddler, but I don't know just how you could make them "grounded" and not strip them of their identity.
Even if they did the Riddler properly, they would have to improve Batman's intellect ten-fold to challenge him. While he could carry out basic investigative tasks when he's given the tools to work with i.e. eavesdropping on crooks, collecting a bullet from a crime scene, he's utterly useless without Lucius Fox's help. Which doesn't scream "World's Greatest Detective" to me at all. Unless you want to point out that contrived scene in TDK where he connected the entire sonar network on cellphones. If he couldn't understand how the Scarecrow's fear toxin works and needed Fox to make the antidote, and couldn't understand the Joker's psychological profile, then how the hell did he suddenly become adept in making that technology work? Anyway, I digress.
As for the Penguin? Comedian Patton Oswalt actually starred as a Nolanized version of him in a comedy skit called Batman Disturbs the Penguin, which pokes fun at Batman breaking his moral code without realizing it.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fm1.wholesite.com%2F2016%2F1%2F8%2F962240fd-4c38-67e4-395e-b9bc1d568842%2F650x375_pattonoswalt.jpg&hash=760b3a080899d6d79606cbbde53a6e44b9b9f668)
I don't think Nolan did a stellar job with the villains that he got to make. Scarecrow, Ra's, Joker, and Bane weren't bad but far from the 'definitive take' IMO, and I liked Harvey Dent, but they way they turned him into Two-Face and finish him off was bad. And Anne Hathaway played Selina Kyle, the cat burglar... not Catwoman.
LOL at the "Penguin". And I agree about The Riddler.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 00:25Even if they did the Riddler properly, they would have to improve Batman's intellect ten-fold to challenge him. While he could carry out basic investigative tasks when he's given the tools to work with i.e. eavesdropping on crooks, collecting a bullet from a crime scene, he's utterly useless without Lucius Fox's help. Which doesn't scream "World's Greatest Detective" to me at all. Unless you want to point out that contrived scene in TDK where he connected the entire sonar network on cellphones. If he couldn't understand how the Scarecrow's fear toxin works and needed Fox to make the antidote, and couldn't understand the Joker's psychological profile, then how the hell did he suddenly become adept in making that technology work? Anyway, I digress.
Technology isn't chemistry. I wouldn't really call connecting sonar to all the cell phones in the city as detective work myself personally.
Quote from: Max Shreck on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 00:50I don't think Nolan did a stellar job with the villains that he got to make. Scarecrow, Ra's, Joker, and Bane weren't bad but far from the 'definitive take' IMO, and I liked Harvey Dent, but they way they turned him into Two-Face and finish him off was bad. And Anne Hathaway played Selina Kyle, the cat burglar... not Catwoman.
That's Catwoman too. The character is like that in some versions. Joker was good, as was Ra's and Scarecrow and Bane. As far as definitive in general, I wouldn't say that's so. As far as adaptions, Arkham Origins Bane was really well done for me. The animated series Ra's was was as well, I thought. Mark Hamill's Joker does really well and Troy Baker is about neck and neck with Heath and Nolan's Joker. I don't know what was bad about Harvey's turn and conclusion.
God bless you both! God bless everyone!
It was bad that Two-Face was just a pawn in Joker's scheme and his vendetta was a secondary plot thread at best... and a forgettable one at worst.
As I said, those other villains weren't bad. And Hathaway's Selina, while true to the original character, couldn't hold a candle to the other versions from my point of view, unfortunately.
Quote from: Max Shreck on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 08:28
It was bad that Two-Face was just a pawn in Joker's scheme and his vendetta was a secondary plot thread at best... and a forgettable one at worst.
As I said, those other villains weren't bad. And Hathaway's Selina, while true to the original character, couldn't hold a candle to the other versions from my point of view, unfortunately.
It is a point of view. But what you said before wasn't the case. Being a pawn and having a secondary plot thread isn't really an indicator of being done poorly. And he wasn't forgettable.
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Sorry but I still like Two-Face better when he's not just part of a plan set by another villain.
I'm glad you liked him better, to each their own. :)
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 12:16
It is a point of view. But what you said before wasn't the case. Being a pawn and having a secondary plot thread isn't really an indicator of being done poorly. And he wasn't forgettable.
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.
That was my point...they did well with Harvey but they crammed Two-Face in the final part of the movie without much consideration.
Quote from: Travesty on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 22:54I 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.
It wasn't a waste. It was one of the more dramatic parts of the movie. I know personally for me it was the scene where I, and this doesn't happen often, was like, "This just got real." I'm fairly certain I swore when I said it though. Him as the main villain takes away the point of his character in the movie. He is the personified conflict of Batman and the Joker. His character is what the point of the movie is.
Quote from: Max Shreck on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 23:20That was my point...they did well with Harvey but they crammed Two-Face in the final part of the movie without much consideration.
How was it without consideration? Two-face was the point of the movie. He is the physical and psychological manifestation of the whole story of the movie. There is no conclusion to it without Two-face at the end.
God bless you both! God bless everyone!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sun, 10 Jan 2016, 07:55
Quote from: Travesty on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 22:54I 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.
It wasn't a waste. It was one of the more dramatic parts of the movie. I know personally for me it was the scene where I, and this doesn't happen often, was like, "This just got real." I'm fairly certain I swore when I said it though. Him as the main villain takes away the point of his character in the movie. He is the personified conflict of Batman and the Joker. His character is what the point of the movie is.Quote from: Max Shreck on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 23:20That was my point...they did well with Harvey but they crammed Two-Face in the final part of the movie without much consideration.
How was it without consideration? Two-face was the point of the movie. He is the physical and psychological manifestation of the whole story of the movie. There is no conclusion to it without Two-face at the end.
God bless you both! God bless everyone!
But his vendetta against the corrupt cops and Maroni merely took a few minutes, and I did like what they tried with the ending and Gordon, but not that he was killed, just like that. And once again, I didn't like that he just spared the guy that was responsible for everything, namely the Joker, and instead went after Maroni. Yeah, I know he thought "Joker's just a mad dog", but it didn't make much sense for him to be left alive by the supposedly insane Dent.
Thank you and God bless you :)
Quote from: Travesty on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 22:54
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 12:16
It is a point of view. But what you said before wasn't the case. Being a pawn and having a secondary plot thread isn't really an indicator of being done poorly. And he wasn't forgettable.
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 agree. My gripes about Two-Face aside, Eckhart himself put in a great performance.
Quote from: Max Shreck on Sun, 10 Jan 2016, 14:40But his vendetta against the corrupt cops and Maroni merely took a few minutes, and I did like what they tried with the ending and Gordon, but not that he was killed, just like that. And once again, I didn't like that he just spared the guy that was responsible for everything, namely the Joker, and instead went after Maroni. Yeah, I know he thought "Joker's just a mad dog", but it didn't make much sense for him to be left alive by the supposedly insane Dent.
Thank you and God bless you :)
How long it took isn't the point of the situation. You say killed just like that like it wasn't a troubling character sequence. He didn't spare the Joker. He flipped the coin. It landed on heads. Yeah, it doesn't make a lot of sense, but madness doesn't always work with that. Thank you very much for your politeness.
God bless you! God bless everyone!
It's not that it wasn't troubling, but let me put it this way: I saw a lot of Harvey Dent that I liked in the movie, but not enough of Two-Face. They finished his story too quickly for my taste.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sun, 10 Jan 2016, 07:55It wasn't a waste. It was one of the more dramatic parts of the movie. I know personally for me it was the scene where I, and this doesn't happen often, was like, "This just got real." I'm fairly certain I swore when I said it though. Him as the main villain takes away the point of his character in the movie. He is the personified conflict of Batman and the Joker. His character is what the point of the movie is.
It took time to get my head around that because I was rather dogmatic about "how things ought to be". I believed Two Face deserved more time than he was given in TDK. He's a layered, nuanced character and I wanted every last bit of drama in his character and story to be on the screen... in a separate movie if need be.
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.
If you're interested, my breakthrough on this came when I rewatched Superman- The Movie and I realized precisely
NONE of what makes Lex Luthor work as a character from the Bronze Age comics is represented in that film. Nothing at all. It works in terms of what Donner was trying to achieve with his film but that character truly is Lex In Name Only.
I wouldn't go so far as two call Eckart's character Two Face In Name Only, of course. But the parallel was my then growing disenchantment with STM had come to be very similar to my reservations with TDK and I realized why.
TDK isn't a bad movie, don't get me wrong. I'm speaking here as a Batman fan who wanted
MORE... which in a sense is a major compliment to Nolan.
Gene Hackman was fun, but not the "real" Lex Luthor, I agree.
And a final word on Two-Face in Nolan's film: His death is probably my least favorite part of all that trilogy. I wish that was avoided because Eckhart had it in him to be Two-Face as the main villain.
QuoteI 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:
Quote
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!
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.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 11 Jan 2016, 07:15I 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!
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 11 Jan 2016, 06:57
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.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 12 Jan 2016, 10:11Man...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!
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 12 Jan 2016, 10:11Man...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.
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.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 14 Jan 2016, 08:58But 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.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 14 Jan 2016, 08:58I 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.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 14 Jan 2016, 09:19This 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.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 14 Jan 2016, 08:58Very 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.
QuoteGrrrrr, 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!
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.
I don't mind Singer's X-Men as much now, they have their style and the newer films have theirs, but he's not a great comic book film director. At least not as good as other successful ones.