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

[Edd Grayson]

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. 

[Travesty]

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.

[Edd Grayson]

That was my point...they did well with Harvey but they crammed Two-Face in the final part of the movie without much consideration.

[Dagenspear]

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.

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.

That 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!

[Edd Grayson]

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.

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.

That 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 

[The Dark Knight]

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.

[Dagenspear]

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 

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!

[Edd Grayson]

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.

[thecolorsblend]

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.

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.

[Edd Grayson]

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.