The OFFICIAL The Dark Knight thread

[Delorean90 42]

Batman doesn't kill people, Two-Face dying would mean Batman killed him.

That's the only argument I've seen that makes me think Two-Face might come back.

Exactly. It seems to me that Batman would have some kind of reaction if he had just, inadvertently or not, killed a man--and not just that, but one he highly respected. This makes "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" look mild in comparison. The implications of this would be pretty big. If Harvey is indeed dead, then this needs to be addressed.

I agree to some degree with Vaderbait: Harvey living would not at all invalidate Batman's decision. I disagree with those who say the character has nowhere to go. A redemption story following along the lines of the two-parter from the animated series would be welcome after the darkness of the second film, and could parallel the presumable redemption that Batman and Gotham would be going through. As I've posted previously, there is plenty of room for the story to go--and I felt that the moral dilemmas presented (such as Harvey's dialogue about chance during the climax) could have been further explored (again, see the "Two-Face" two-parter for some of this). There are a lot of ways you can go with the whole thing. One thing that needs to happen is that Batman somehow needs to be cleared of the murder charges.

[Joe Brausam 214]

I personally just believe that Dent has served his purpose in the story and there really is no where for his character to go now. I don't think his character as he is now can drive an entire movie on its own - that's why I believe he is dead. Dent's story arc is over, that's that.

[Delorean90 42]

Have you seen the two-parter from the animated series? Especially when you think about where the story pretty much needs to go in the third film, to me it seems like a no-brainer.

[Ollie 1,059]

Batman doesn't kill people, Two-Face dying would mean Batman killed him.

That's the only argument I've seen that makes me think Two-Face might come back.

On the other hand, if Dent is still alive, then it invalidates the decision made by Batman in the final moments of the movie. The whole movie is building toward Batman having to take the hatred of the public upon himself, so that Gotham can still believe that a Harvey Dent -- a pure, white knight -- can happen. If Dent is still alive, then all of a sudden the entire movie is meaningless from a thematic point of view.

Do you guys really think Christopher Nolan is stupid enough to commit that kind of a blunder?

Another good point, I'm glad there are a few others who somewhat agree with me.

[Morlock 11]

Didn't we have this discussion before?

Morlock- who agrees with Mark's agreement.

[Ollie 1,059]

Yes, I bring it up whenever someone says Dent should/will be back for a third film.

[Delorean90 42]

True, and haven't we already established Harvey living or dying is irrelevant to Batman's sacrifice? The murders were commited, the damage is done, and this the case whether Harvey lives or not.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

wrong, if Two Face lives then Batman's sacrifice is in vein, he can't protect a living monster.

Mark and BB are correct, the rest of you are quite wrong.

[Henry B 50]

And I wonder if Batman made that sacrifice partly because he felt so bad about killing Two-Face.

[Delorean90 42]

Maybe, but I didn't get any impression of that at all in the movie. There was no reaction, no remorse, nothing. He just talks about what he needs to do--and more on that in a second.

wrong, if Two Face lives then Batman's sacrifice is in vein, he can't protect a living monster.

Mark and BB are correct, the rest of you are quite wrong.

How is it in vain? What Batman is doing is not saving Harvey's image just for Harvey's sake; he didn't want the hopes of the people to be dashed by the revelation of their White Knight as a murderer. It wouldn't matter if they shipped Harvey off to a space colony on Mars, those murders still happened and have to be accounted for, and if it got out that Harvey was the culprit, then that would be a major blow, and Batman didn't want that to happen, so he took the fall. No, he doesn't want Harvey to be disgraced like that, but it's not just for Harvey's sake, but for the sake of the people of Gotham as well; he's protecting the people, not just "a living monster."

[Nick Parker 3,040]

On a perhaps aforementioned note, what would they do with The Joker? Though the character survived, the actor did not. Will they just "send him" to Arkham Asylum, where he would never be seen again, save for obscure cameos portrayed by a Heath Ledger impersonator? Mysteries, mysteries....

[Henry B 50]

They could end the movie with the Joker appearing using deleted footage/dialogue from The Dark Knight, maybe with a stand-in. But nothing more than a cameo, please. They shouldn't recast the part.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Hm, Jack Nicholson seems pretty keen on reprising his role...

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

[Morlock 11]

I'M BLINDED!!!!

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Yeah the orange poncho is a little bright.

But it's the perfect contrast to the bat suit.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Mark and BB are correct, the rest of you are quite wrong.

Well if you say so, it must be true.

[Ollie 1,059]

It is.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

they are just not very wise are they Mark?

If two faced is alive and Batman pretends to have killed those people, then in effect the Joker wins.

Its so obvious, its like walking face first into Dolly Parton's chest.

[indy4 155]

For once I agree with Joe and Mark.

[Red 75]

Harvey Dent is dead. Whether or not Two-Face is alive, Batman would still have had to make that sacrifice to save Dent's image. His sacrifice has nothing to do with whether or not Two_Face comes back. He made his decision to protect the image of Harvey Dent, who did die. Two-Face is all that is left. Alive or dead, he must be kept a secret (bring in Gordon already having lied about Dent's supposed demise after the hospital explosion).

So no, having Two-Face survive invalidates nothing really.

Harvey Dent and Two-Face are one in the same. If Dent was still alive he would still be Two-Face, a murdering crazy man instead of the hope (the white knight) that Gotham has depended upon. So unless Dent was somehow cured of his psychosis and facial wounds him not dying would negate Batman's decision and pretty much make the ending useless.

As for the Batman killing Two-Face issue; think about the circumstance. Two-Face was threatening to kill a little boy, and he said it himself that he wasn't going to walk away. The guy wanted blood.

[Morlock 11]

We were saying the same thing 15 pages ago. I'll be damned if my love for this film was not deminished by conversation-overkill.

[Ollie 1,059]

This film is too good to let that happen.

they are just not very wise are they Mark?

If two faced is alive and Batman pretends to have killed those people, then in effect the Joker wins.

Its so obvious, its like walking face first into Dolly Parton's chest.

Correct, plus it's just dumb to use certain plot devices twice in one film.

I mean what's next? Rachel survived the explosion as well?

[Vaderbait1 1]

wrong, if Two Face lives then Batman's sacrifice is in vein, he can't protect a living monster.

Mark and BB are correct, the rest of you are quite wrong.

What? He's not protecting Dent. He's protecting Gotham by preserving the image of Dent. Two_Face being alive does nothing to invalidate that. Plus, do you see anyway to redeem Batman without having Two-Face emerge to shock Gotham? What are they going to do? Have Batman come out and explain everything?

Harvey Dent is dead. Whether or not Two-Face is alive, Batman would still have had to make that sacrifice to save Dent's image. His sacrifice has nothing to do with whether or not Two_Face comes back. He made his decision to protect the image of Harvey Dent, who did die. Two-Face is all that is left. Alive or dead, he must be kept a secret (bring in Gordon already having lied about Dent's supposed demise after the hospital explosion).

So no, having Two-Face survive invalidates nothing really.

Harvey Dent and Two-Face are one in the same. If Dent was still alive he would still be Two-Face, a murdering crazy man instead of the hope (the white knight) that Gotham has depended upon. So unless Dent was somehow cured of his psychosis and facial wounds him not dying would negate Batman's decision and pretty much make the ending useless.

As for the Batman killing Two-Face issue; think about the circumstance. Two-Face was threatening to kill a little boy, and he said it himself that he wasn't going to walk away. The guy wanted blood.

I don't think Dent is psychotic in this one. It was pretty clear that he doesn't have two personalities, just that he gets furious with rage and revenge (which could happen to anyone), and uses the coin (the only fair thing in the world) since the Joker and Gordon and Batman had just crushed everything he had relied on for judgement.

So no, Dent died. Now he's Two-Face, at least in Nolan's universe, I'm betting.

[Ollie 1,059]

I'll be disappointed if Dent comes back for the third film.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

My friend told me in pretty much all of Eckhart's scenes, there is a shadow over half of his face. Can anyone verify this?

[Ollie 1,059]

Uh you saw the film quite a bit, didn't you notice?

But yes, during the final confrontation with Gordon half his face is in the shadows for a good portion of the sequence.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I saw the movie twice, didn't notice it both times.

[Ollie 1,059]

Oh I thought you saw more than twice.

[Red 75]

I don't think Dent is psychotic in this one. It was pretty clear that he doesn't have two personalities, just that he gets furious with rage and revenge (which could happen to anyone), and uses the coin (the only fair thing in the world) since the Joker and Gordon and Batman had just crushed everything he had relied on for judgement.

So no, Dent died. Now he's Two-Face, at least in Nolan's universe, I'm betting.

How was he not psychotic? He was, the only reason why you'd think he wasn't is that he had a very clear motive for he did, which was a kind of misshapen sense of justice that he had pre-scarring. Harvey is driven over the edge and becomes Two-Face, it's pretty simple.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Actually, Rachel did survive the explosion. In a completely true interview with Christopher Nolan (conducted by John McMadeup), he revealed that the events in the film were just Bruce Wayne's daydreams during a particularly boring staff meeting. Heath Ledger will reprise his role as "The Joker". It transpired that the corpse found in Ledger's apartment that fateful day was not his, but rather Slyvester Stallone's.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Not Stallone!!

[John Crichton 4]

[M. Night Shamalan]What a twist![/M. Night Shamalan]

[indy4 155]

(to everybody)

[Nick Parker 3,040]

In another John McMadeup-conducted interview, it was revealed that John Rambo in "Rambo" was portrayed by Stallone's frequent stunt double Danny DeVito. He is to reprise his role in the sequel "Rambo V: First Blood Part 3: Revenge of the Rambo".

[indy4 155]

John McMadeup

[John Crichton 4]

I always thought he looked a little pudgy in that one.

[Delorean90 42]

Harvey Dent is dead. Whether or not Two-Face is alive, Batman would still have had to make that sacrifice to save Dent's image. His sacrifice has nothing to do with whether or not Two_Face comes back. He made his decision to protect the image of Harvey Dent, who did die. Two-Face is all that is left. Alive or dead, he must be kept a secret (bring in Gordon already having lied about Dent's supposed demise after the hospital explosion).

So no, having Two-Face survive invalidates nothing really.

Harvey Dent and Two-Face are one in the same. If Dent was still alive he would still be Two-Face, a murdering crazy man instead of the hope (the white knight) that Gotham has depended upon. So unless Dent was somehow cured of his psychosis and facial wounds him not dying would negate Batman's decision and pretty much make the ending useless.

As for the Batman killing Two-Face issue; think about the circumstance. Two-Face was threatening to kill a little boy, and he said it himself that he wasn't going to walk away. The guy wanted blood.

I don't recall him saying he wasn't going to walk away. Man, I've only seen this film once and I want to see it again so badly!

Anyway, again, the murders are really the big stain. If Harvey is alive, Gordon would've seen to it that he was taken somewhere safe, presumably Arkham, to be rehabilitated--or at least, for attempts to be made in that direction. If Harvey didn't kill anyone, there might not be a big issue, but he did. As I said before: those murders have to be accounted for. It makes perfect sense that Batman would take the fall, and if Harvey's dead, the secret's kept by Batman and Gordon; if he's alive, then those murders still happened, and so Batman is taking the blame for them so the public won't think of Harvey as a murderer.

Killing: Yes, let's think about the circumstances: the Joker had killed and was going to keep on killing, yet in honor of his code, Batman actually wiped out on the Batpod to avoid killing the Joker. Now, if Harvey is dead, it's not like Batman was trying to kill him (or if he was, then "Harvey: Dead or Alive?" is the least of our concerns), but nonetheless, his direct action led to Dent's death. Did Dent contribute? Sure, absolutely, but Batman did the pushing. Yes, he was trying to stop another murder from happening, but if he's going to go to such extremes to avoid killing the Joker, who is much farther gone and more unreasonable than Harvey will ever be, then wouldn't Batman show some kind of real reaction and/or say something pertinent to the fact that he just contributed to this man's death? I would think that it would be addressed--it should have been addressed, and if Dent is indeed dead, then it would need to be addressed in the next film.

I for one do hope Harvey's alive. I think a redemption story is the natural course for the series to go in, and it will be multi-faceted: Batman, Harvey Dent, and Gotham City would all be experiencing some degree of redemption. I think it would be terrific. People can say that would be too sweet, or too cliched, or too whatever, but I for one think that after the events of TDK, the direction you need to go is up.

[crocodile 8,013]

Harvey Dent is dead. Whether or not Two-Face is alive, Batman would still have had to make that sacrifice to save Dent's image. His sacrifice has nothing to do with whether or not Two_Face comes back. He made his decision to protect the image of Harvey Dent, who did die. Two-Face is all that is left. Alive or dead, he must be kept a secret (bring in Gordon already having lied about Dent's supposed demise after the hospital explosion).

So no, having Two-Face survive invalidates nothing really.

Harvey Dent and Two-Face are one in the same. If Dent was still alive he would still be Two-Face, a murdering crazy man instead of the hope (the white knight) that Gotham has depended upon. So unless Dent was somehow cured of his psychosis and facial wounds him not dying would negate Batman's decision and pretty much make the ending useless.

As for the Batman killing Two-Face issue; think about the circumstance. Two-Face was threatening to kill a little boy, and he said it himself that he wasn't going to walk away. The guy wanted blood.

I don't recall him saying he wasn't going to walk away. Man, I've only seen this film once and I want to see it again so badly!

He said to Gordon when he noticed there is police already on the spot and when Gordon tells him they can compromise: "Do you think I want to run away from this? There is no running away from this!" Or something along the lines.

And yes, his disfigured face is hidden in shadows for much of the scene.

Karol - who saw the film three times and will see it again on thursday.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Wow. Two times was enough for me....

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Same for me. I saw it twice in theaters, and about the first 30 minutes after I saw The Mummy 3, as well as about 10 other minutes while I was waiting for Pineapple Express to let in.

[Henry B 50]

I for one think that after the events of TDK, the direction you need to go is up.

Similarly, after the events of The Empire Strikes Back, the direction you need to go is ... wait ... oh God!

[John Crichton 4]

[Red 75]

I wouldn't be worried about that, unless Nolan jumps ship and the next one is given to a different director.

[Delorean90 42]

EDIT: D'oh! Got in too late.

But yeah, there's no way Nolan and crew would go that far off track.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

a different director

Danny DeVito.

[Henry B 50]

But yeah, there's no way Nolan and crew would go that far off track.

I agree.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Danny DeVito is a very artistic director who can capture the most subtle of nuances from an actor.

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

What an absurd analogy. You really think that if Nolan and crew are going to go up in tone (or at least resolution) for the next film, that he's going to do something like ROTJ? Please.

I wouldn't mind Michael Caine being surrounded by little furry penguins that laugh at his one joke.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Hopefully, we will not be subjected to a "Special Edition" dance number involving Morgan Freeman and Christian Bale singing in Huttese, ultimately resulting in Micheal Caine's death at the hands of The Clayface Beast.