Two Face!

Indeed Batman had not many other choices to save everybody.Using the throwing blades from his gauntlets would have been too dangerous, he could've hurt Gordon's son in the process, and he knew Two-Face was on a rampage, he had to act fast, despite the risks.Anyway I'm highly disappointed, they briefly introduced a great villain in a great manner just to remove him from the franchise so fast we couldn't fully enjoy it.I hope this is a commercial move and like 1 week before the release of the third movie they'll publish a teaser poster wich says something like:
"There's always another face of the medal" or "Half-Dead, Half Alive, Twice Deadly" with TF in the shadows armed with guns.

Originally posted by K3VIL
Indeed Batman had not many other choices to save everybody.Using the throwing blades from his gauntlets would have been too dangerous, he could've hurt Gordon's son in the process, and he knew Two-Face was on a rampage, he had to act fast, despite the risks.Anyway I'm highly disappointed, they briefly introduced a great villain in a great manner just to remove him from the franchise so fast we couldn't fully enjoy it.I hope this is a commercial move and like 1 week before the release of the third movie they'll publish a teaser poster wich says something like:
"There's always another face of the medal" or "Half-Dead, Half Alive, Twice Deadly" with TF in the shadows armed with guns.

Not going to happen. Two Face was perfect. That included his end. It completely takes away from the gravity of the conclusion if Dent's alive...

Originally posted by Kovacs86
Not going to happen. Two Face was perfect. That included his end. It completely takes away from the gravity of the conclusion if Dent's alive...

I agree completely...

Originally posted by Kovacs86
Absolutely correct. Batman was half-dead and didn't exactly have the time to try to wrestle the kid away from Dent, or whatever. What is not always conveyed very effectively in these films, I think, is how fast you can kill someone with a gun. Batman had no time. If Dent realised he was moving, he'd have shot James Jr., swiftly followed by Batman and the rest of Gordon's family, I believe.

And yall can make excuses for him all you want but Batman killed Dent and that's pretty lame for this Two Face fan. Definitely not the kind of ending I wanted to see for him and nope I don't think the story ended perfectly on a completely fangirlish tip. If this movie was just a regular crime drama with no consideration for who the characters are then the ending IMO would have been perfect except Batman taking the blame would be kind of corny. But being that this was a Batman film him killing Two Face, not even seeming upset, Gordon not seeming the least bit emotional over it either and then running off is lame.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
Dent wouldn't have shot anyone without the coin's permission. If there is any proof of that it's the fact that the there is the Joker.

Dent looked like he was about to shoot the kid to me. Batman did what was necessary to make sure he didn't. He probably didn't intend to kill Dent, but he did, and that was unfortunate. It was hardly murder. I had more of a problem with Batman letting Ra's die, to be honest.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
And yall can make excuses for him all you want but Batman killed Dent and that's pretty lame for this Two Face fan. Definitely not the kind of ending I wanted to see for him and nope I don't think the story ended perfectly on a completely fangirlish tip. If this movie was just a regular crime drama with no consideration for who the characters are then the ending IMO would have been perfect except Batman taking the blame would be kind of corny. But being that this was a Batman film him killing Two Face, not even seeming upset, Gordon not seeming the least bit emotional over it either and then running off is lame.

What does it take to make people realise that Batman doesn't show his emotions so openly? He's an extremely controlled individual. Of course he was upset. I'm sure Gordon was too, but he was probably more considered about the safety of his family and their rescuer at the time, than about the health of the psycho who tried to kill them.
And why the hell was Batman taking the blame "corny"? It would have been quite corny to have a clear cut ending with Two Face being taken away by the cops and swearing that he would have his revenge...

I think Batman taking the blame in the context of the comic book movie and him being Batman was fine. I said if it was a straight out crime drama and the character WASN'T Batman but like just some detective and the villain was just another villain and not Two Face the ending to me would have been fine except the detective taking the blame would have been kind of corny.

And I think the ending lacked the emotional impact it should have with Dent being dead. Perhaps it will be covered in the next film the mourning over Dent. And I get Batman doesn't show his emotions but he was just too cool about it. Not like he was holding anything in just like "hmmm, well I killed this guy, but the Joker can't win...so tell you what I'm gonna take the blame. And I'm out!"

And Dent to me didn't look like he was gonna just shoot that kid. Otherwise why would he have bothered flipping the coin. And Batman also put the kid's life at risk by rushing him off with Dent too because the kid could have easily fallen. The whole situation was kind of dumb. And that was a dumb way for Dent to die.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
I think Batman taking the blame in the context of the comic book movie and him being Batman was fine. I said if it was a straight out crime drama and the character WASN'T Batman but like just some detective and the villain was just another villain and not Two Face the ending to me would have been fine except the detective taking the blame would have been kind of corny.

Oh, right. I agree, then. Though most things Batman does would seem pretty stupid if done by an average detective.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
And I think the ending lacked the emotional impact it should have with Dent being dead. Perhaps it will be covered in the next film the mourning over Dent. And I get Batman doesn't show his emotions but he was just too cool about it. Not like he was holding anything in just like "hmmm, well I killed this guy, but the Joker can't win...so tell you what I'm gonna take the blame. And I'm out!"

Did you really not feel the ending's "emotional impact"? I thought the Dent memorial and the breaking of the Bat Signal pretty powerful.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
And Dent to me didn't look like he was gonna just shoot that kid. Otherwise why would he have bothered flipping the coin. And Batman also put the kid's life at risk by rushing him off with Dent too because the kid could have easily fallen. The whole situation was kind of dumb. And that was a dumb way for Dent to die.

A) Nah, he wasn't going to shoot James Jr. He held the gun by his head for... um... decoration...?
B) Batman grabbed James Jr. so he didn't fall...
C) You're dumb. Now that's a comeback!
D) In all seriousness, the ending was not dumb. It fitted in perfectly with how the film played out. Dent had to die for the ending to work in such a way. The Joker won.
E) Does it not strike you as being somewhat "dumb" to suddenly go off a film just because a character died? It doesn't change the quality of the film.

Originally posted by Kovacs86
Oh, right. I agree, then. Though most things Batman does would seem pretty stupid if done by an average detective.

Did you really not feel the ending's "emotional impact"? I thought the Dent memorial and the breaking of the Bat Signal pretty powerful.

A) Nah, he wasn't going to shoot James Jr. He held the gun by his head for... um... decoration...?
B) Batman grabbed James Jr. so he didn't fall...
C) You're dumb. Now that's a comeback!
D) In all seriousness, the ending was not dumb. It fitted in perfectly with how the film played out. Dent had to die for the ending to work in such a way. The Joker won.
E) Does it not strike you as being somewhat "dumb" to suddenly go off a film just because a character died? It doesn't change the quality of the film.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
Dent wouldn't have shot anyone without the coin's permission. If there is any proof of that it's the fact that the there is the Joker.

And yall can make excuses for him all you want but Batman killed Dent and that's pretty lame for this Two Face fan. Definitely not the kind of ending I wanted to see for him and nope I don't think the story ended perfectly on a completely fangirlish tip. If this movie was just a regular crime drama with no consideration for who the characters are then the ending IMO would have been perfect except Batman taking the blame would be kind of corny. But being that this was a Batman film him killing Two Face, not even seeming upset, Gordon not seeming the least bit emotional over it either and then running off is lame.

Not arguing with your post at all Selina, but imo I didn't Batman as killing Dent, it sorta looked like that, but he tackled him to stop him from shooting anyone. Watch, I wouldn't doubt it if in the next film, they'll show Batman trying to hang on to Dent, and they'll show him slipping. Something to that nature.

Niether do I see Gordon giving a rat's ass about Dent's death since he was hodling a gun to his loved ones. Batman went on that "Gotham's white knight" lecture, and the turning of his face over to the good side was supposed to be symbolic imo. For a dude who just got shot, and fell after tackling someone, not much emotion Batman can show, not to mention the fact that, he's...Batman...

But you do raise a very good point in that you, just like myself, being a Two-Face fan, that wasn't right...

I'm a bigger Scarecrow fan and I still don't like what they did with the character at all!

Yes, yes, we are all Two Face fans and have all the debating high ground here...now back to actual arguments. Goron as well as Batman were extremely emotionally movied by Dents fall and death. It's ridiculous to insist otherwise. The storyline was exactly set up to play out like this and it was a genius move to show how, although Batman isn't perceived like it and doesn't perceive it like that himself he is truly the hero of Gotham. As for Batman killing Dent, well, we don't know whether he intended to save Dent as well. All we know is that Two Face had a gun to a little child's face and that there was a fifty-fifty chance he'd pull the trigger. A severely limited and wounded Batman did what he had to do to eliminate the threat and protect the innocent boy.

Like Kovac, I have a much bigger problem with him not rescuing Ra's

Him not rescuing Ra's was not good either but overall I think the only villain who got good treatment in this series is the Joker. The rest of them though they were apart of well crafted movies got the shaft. Two Face simply deserved a LOT better IMO than to be a pawn in the Joker's game.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
Him not rescuing Ra's was not good either but overall I think the only villain who got good treatment in this series is the Joker. The rest of them though they were apart of well crafted movies got the shaft. Two Face simply deserved a LOT better IMO than to be a pawn in the Joker's game.

Nonsense. All of the villains were handled brilliantly- Ra's, The Joker, The Scarecrow and, indeed, Two Face. I see no reason why Nolan should need to try to fit 70 years of a character's history into each film. The films worked. You can't expect a series of films (perhaps a trilogy, perhaps a longer series with multiple directors) to perfectly replicate the comics. Villains coming back again and again would be both dull and "unrealistic". Nolan's too good a director to reuse characters over and over.

Originally posted by Kovacs86
Nonsense. All of the villains were handled brilliantly- Ra's, The Joker, The Scarecrow and, indeed, Two Face. I see no reason why Nolan should need to try to fit 70 years of a character's history into each film. The films worked. You can't expect a series of films (perhaps a trilogy, perhaps a longer series with multiple directors) to perfectly replicate the comics. Villains coming back again and again would be both dull and "unrealistic". Nolan's too good a director to reuse characters over and over.

Then in TDK, he's basically a petty peddler trying to possibly make a deal for his fear gas. He was way more epic in Gotham Knight.

Originally posted by Scythe
I really disagree with Scarecrow. He used fear gas, was a psychologist who practically had Harley Quinn's job, and was defeated in a rather odd way. The horse galloping away with him knocked out didn't look to good for him.

Then in TDK, he's basically a petty peddler trying to possibly make a deal for his fear gas. He was way more epic in Gotham Knight.

Well, I disagree. I actually prefer the Begins portrayal of Crane to any I've seen in the comics, oddly enough. The idea of him working at Arkham fitted the storyline brilliantly, and also makes more sense to me than him being a loony teacher.
He's also clearly not just taking Harley Quinn's job, as his character is a lot more realistic, and, in my opinion, simply a superior villain. I even liked how he was defeated in Begins; with the chaos in the Narrows, it made sense that Batman couldn't save everyone, and Crane's no Ra's, he wasn't going to really be able to offer much of a fight. His defeat was brilliantly handled, I think.
I didn't like his portrayal in GK. I think that episode may have been by David Goyer, but it was so different in tone to the two films, and I found it really disappointing. It didn't have the realism which I loved in the films. I really didn't want to see Waylon Jones anywhere near the series.
As for the TDK portrayal, I was again delighted with the character. It was great to see a cameo for a past villain, as foes reemerge in the comics, and thought that the fact that they showed he had really plunged from grace was brilliant.

Originally posted by Scythe
I really disagree with Scarecrow. He used fear gas, was a psychologist who practically had Harley Quinn's job, and was defeated in a rather odd way. The horse galloping away with him knocked out didn't look to good for him.

Then in TDK, he's basically a petty peddler trying to possibly make a deal for his fear gas. He was way more epic in Gotham Knight.

Those are cool points Kovac, I respect that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What exactly do you feel is missing from the comic Scarecrow?

Well, I'm not too sure. It would take awhile for me to think of how I'd want to see one of my favorite Batman villains portrayed. I know I wouldn't want him to be knocked out by a stun gun and just get carried off on horseback as his limbs flail about.

Originally posted by Kovacs86
Nonsense. All of the villains were handled brilliantly- Ra's, The Joker, The Scarecrow and, indeed, Two Face. I see no reason why Nolan should need to try to fit 70 years of a character's history into each film. The films worked. You can't expect a series of films (perhaps a trilogy, perhaps a longer series with multiple directors) to perfectly replicate the comics. Villains coming back again and again would be both dull and "unrealistic". Nolan's too good a director to reuse characters over and over.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
Then he needs to not do two villains a film because he ends up severely shafting one of them. I didn't like what he did with Ra's but it was better than what Scarecrow got. And The Joker got better than Two Face.

For both films, the use of several villains was used very effectively in the storyline. Unlike Spider-Man 3 or X-Men 3, the multiple villains worked brilliantly, IMO. Who cares if a character gets half an hour or 90 minutes screen time as long as they're portrayed well?

Originally posted by Kovacs86
For both films, the use of several villains was used very effectively in the storyline. Unlike Spider-Man 3 or X-Men 3, the multiple villains worked brilliantly, IMO. Who cares if a character gets half an hour or 90 minutes screen time as long as they're portrayed well?

I agree. To me it doesn't matter how many villains are in the film. I want to see how they are portrayed and if the actor/actress read any source material.