is it just me or did Two-Face feel out of place in this film?

[riddler]

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.

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?

[Dagenspear]

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.

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.

[riddler]

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.

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.

[Dagenspear]

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.

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.