lol it was late at nite when i wrote that ok! my main point was to explain about nolan fanboys, those questions would be raised, but nolan fanboys cant convince burton fanboys which movie they see is better and the other way around too.
but anyways, SelinaandBruce is also correct the burton movies can barely hold up today since TDK came out, a revision of the batman 89 score on rotten tomatoes gave it a 69% rotten. Saying, while it succeeds as entertainment, it does nothing for the legacy of Batman, and rings dissappointingly hollow.
i like BB and TDK more than bats89 and returns, so when i see something like that at rotten tomatoes, it strikes me as a reaffirmation and if i wanted to be a pure nolan fanboy, that is a decent thing to use in an argument. what is my point, nolan fanboys got a bit more with what they can throw at burtonboys since BB and TDK improved upon those films. again, i ask, Is it possible to argue that the NES is better than Wii? and can these two be compared? since they are not only from different ages in time, but very different in style and substance
ok im jus gonna put this out there... cuz ive seen several peopl say things along the lines of wat selinaandbruce said above..
sal maroni did have a part in the scarring of dent and creation of two-face! he bought off/threatened detective ramirez and that fat cop into bringing rachel and harvey to where the joker had set up his big ole bombs..
I know that Sal had people working in the Gotham police department but the Joker orchestrated all of that. Sal still didn't do it. It's like saying it would be the same thing in Batman 1989 if Joe Chill helped the Jack Napier rob Batman's parents, but Jack Napier still shot him. It's clearly a deviation from the origin story. I'm not complaining really like I said the the movie was a stand alone ignoring the source material was wonderful and the storyline worked really well the way they did it, but as a Two Face fan I was sort of hoping he'd get the acid to the face or something similar to that even though this way was obviously more dramatic.
And if he did [SPOILER - highlight to read]: die then his use in the movie is highly disappointing as he was nothing more than a mere pawn and never allowed to be a true villain.
__________________ Bruce: You've got, sort of a dark side, don't you?
Then that isn't Two Face, because Two Face is a Batman villain. And one of the reasons he was one of my favorite villains particularly in the animated series was because Batman was so desperate to save him somehow even though he couldn't and he constantly felt guilt and anguish even when he had to stop Two Face. Like I said I get and am fine with what happened in the context of the movie, with no source material considered (just like I am fine with the Joker killing Batman's parents in 1989 if I just go by the movie alone) but as a Two Face fan I feel like he got shafted in this series to go out like that, as I am sure some Scarecrow and Ras fans might not be thrilled with what happened to that character.
Now the Joker, he got the perfect treatment in my opinion in the context of the movie and outside of it bad make up aside.
__________________ Bruce: You've got, sort of a dark side, don't you?
clearly he lived long enough to become the villain, and if he's in the next one, maybe bats or bruce can talk to him, and two faced dent will see how he became the villain.
Harvey Dent was gothams white knight, but two face is another story.
Hate to double post, but in the movie, Harvey didn't see himself become a villain because he didn't think he was being a villain... He was completely wrapped up in what he thought was fair...
To me Harvey Dent died in that fire. Two Face was the one who was obsessed with fairness. There really was no Harvey Dent left at that point because there's no way I believe the guy in the beginning of the movie would point a gun at a child and realistically consider killing him. All the other times he threatened someone before the accident he knew he was bluffing and that he'd never hurt them he was only trying to intimidate them but he felt it was okay because he already knew harming the person was not possible. Two Face didn't know if he was going to hurt someone or not but he was perfectly okay with either outcome. That's not Harvey, IMO.
__________________ Bruce: You've got, sort of a dark side, don't you?
and IF he is in the next one, im sure Batman or Bruce will make him see how he has become the villain since Two Face Dent does not realize he is doing anything wrong so far
Two face did enjoy being evil though. When he shot the people and killed them he seemed to enjoy it. Anytime he had to let someone go he still did something to them ex: What happened to Ramirez.
__________________ Bruce: You've got, sort of a dark side, don't you?
Exactly... He thought they were getting what they deserved, so he got a sort of closure from it... Like, "I don't have to feel bad for them because they jipped me and Rachel"... That doesn't mean he loved being evil... He didn't revel in holding the kid hostage, like Joker would have... He was merely doing what he thought he should do, what he thought was fair... And when he killed, he didn't do it because he got a kick out of it, or because he loved doing it, he killed because the coin told him to, and because he gave them a fair chance, like Rachel got, but it ended up not being in their favor...
Two-Face was pretty messed up in the head by the end of the movie, but I wouldn't really call him a "villain", he's just doing what he thinks is fair... Like a child, really... He's sorta like Catwoman from Returns...
KMC Community Forums
Jul 24th, 2008 05:51 AM
my main point was to explain about nolan fanboys, those questions would be raised, but nolan fanboys cant convince burton fanboys which movie they see is better and the other way around too. 
