There are some great movie debates out there where you can understand where the other side is coming from, even if you don’t agree with them. However, this whole debate about if Two-Face was alive or dead at the end of The Dark Knight is one I never understood. He was clearly dead. There was no “debate” about it. I’ve said from the beginning that there was absolutely NOTHING in the movie to even remotely suggest that Two-Face might actually be alive and I never understood why anyone would believe otherwise.
Anyway, any debate about the matter has now been officially put to rest. Two-Face himself, Aaron Eckhart has officially come out and said “I’m Dead”. The folks over at AICN interviewd him recently and this is what he said:
Beaks: And now the obligatory question: can you conceive of any way in which you might be back in–
Aaron Eckhart: (Laughs) No.
Beaks: Not a chance?
Eckhart: No. I’m dead. I couldn’t even get the words out of my mouth. “Hey, Chris, am I–?” “No. You’re dead. You’re dead.”
I still have no idea why anyone ever thought he wasn’t. It’s not like the movie even suggested he was alive at the end of it. He was done. And when I would discuss it with people, the only argument they would usually make is something along the lines of “He’s not dead because he can’t be dead”. That’s some sharp logic right there folks. :)
Anyway, that settles that. On with our day.
65 Comments, Comment or Ping
Kristina
How could anyone have believed otherwise?
Come on people, he wasn’t breathing and Gordon didn’t bother to call for medical aid after the man fell.
Sep 4th, 2008
Michael Dance
Yeah — the arguments for him being alive all boil down to one thing: “I want him to still be alive.” Sorry, it’s not your movie, it’s Christopher Nolan’s. And he’s doing his own thing, which for the most part people love. It’s just that killing off a major character from the comics makes the Whiny Fanboy censor in fans flare up.
Sep 4th, 2008
Mauricio
Sorry John, Two face is dead. However, his death was left so ambiguous enough to suggest he may still be alive. Aaron Eckhart said if Chris wants him back, he’ll reprise the role for another movie.
Since Chris Nolan has expressed no interest in having the character return in another film, yes I have to say he’s dead.
But if Nolan were to change his mind, there’s a way to bring him back that I’m sure fans would love.
Sep 4th, 2008
Gordon Shumway
Poor Eckhart, he said he would love to come back. Does anyone remember that information that came out before the film about an innovative way of filming Two face, by splicing two takes. I dont think that happened did it?
Sep 4th, 2008
handle
Like OMGs Spoilers
Sep 4th, 2008
kompi
I’m sure, that isn’t true. Maybe not in the next movie, but in the follows will he appear.
Sep 4th, 2008
Doug Douglas
The reason so many people have assumed he must not be dead is because they spend the ENTIRE film building up Harvey Dent’s character, only to kill him off before he’s actually become Two Face. What could possibly be the point of having him take up so much of Dark Knight if Nolan was simply going to axe him before he’s been Two Face for more than half a day? Killing a couple corrupt cops and bungling a kidnapping an uber villain does not make.
Sep 4th, 2008
handle
Well if you look at it. Two-Face did all he wanted to do. He got revenge and then died. Even at the end he said “there is no escape from this.” He was done after he judged everyone.
Some site also said there is the Dark Knight script running around on the interwebs somewhere. It apparently states that DENT IS DEAD. Anywhere know where to find it?
Sep 4th, 2008
Tommy
Doug Douglas-
Well put … I couldn’t agree with you more. I think one reason why everyone is saying he’s not dead because he can’t be dead is because if he is dead then he is a huge pussy and not the criminal mastermind that Two Face is supposed to be. I mean talk about going out like a bitch.
I love Christopher Nolan … He is one of my favorite directors … Memento, the Prestige and both Batman flicks are some of my favorite movies … But if this is how Two Face’s story ends then I’m sorry but Christopher Nolan’s Batman Universe is very flawed.
Sep 4th, 2008
John
Hey Mauricio
How on earth can you say his death was “ambiguous”??? He fell, he died, they said he was dead, they had a funeral. How is any of that “ambiguous”? I don’t understand.
Sep 4th, 2008
Jacob
Doug Douglas - Two Face was fulfilled thematically in Nolan’s vision. The point was never to make Dent a villain. His story was the most realistic way to do the character: a righteous man who watches as everything he loved dies before his eyes and goes off on a suicide mission because he has nothing left to live for. He wasn’t supposed to survive that final ordeal. He was essentially committing suicide by getting revenge in the process and striking back at the callousness of the world by destroying the image people have of him. He would have to have some purpose in order to be brought back, but there is no purpose. His purpose deserted him when Rachel died.
Sep 4th, 2008
Hecticstairs
So does that mean that Batman kills Harvey at the end of Dark Knight? So it looks like the joker wins after all. He forced batman to break his one rule. Twice.
Sep 4th, 2008
Doug Douglas
I can understand, Jacob, that Nolan’s intent was not to make Dent a villain. In that case, he should have named the character Harvey Douglas, or Bob Smith, or Todd Tittysucker — not Harvey Dent. Do not spend a movie setting us up for a great, classic villain of the Batman universe only to make us all feel stupid for expecting Two Face to emerge. In that case, why not bring the riddler in as some guy who likes to do crosswords and kill him off in the second act as he’s getting fitted for tights; or have Penguin be an autistic hunchback who manages to rob a bank but can’t run fast enough to evade the cops. See what I mean? If dead, Harvey Dent’s existence is trivial, irrelevant and nonsensical.
Sep 4th, 2008
Alexis Lopez
Hey John,
Well I have to be with Mauricio on this one. I mean YES HE DIES in the movie I even saw it and heard in the big screen more than once jejeje. But there is a logical part to the arguement that not many people get. The only reason of why people want to believe that 2 face is not dead is because he was a kick ass villain that didn’t have a good run in the Dark Knight. What I mean with good run, is that the character was used up to quickly in the movie. And since we all know that there is going to be a 3 production of the movie, we all want the villains to be as good as in THE DARK KNIGHT. The main fear here is the eventual demise of a great franchise; this is coming from the fucked up directions of movies such as Spider Man 3 and X-Men 3; or even with the fall of The first franchise with Batman Forever. I hate to even brings those sad pathetic excuses of a movie to an arguement that involves the new Batman. So John maybe this could help you understand (if it makes any sense to you) why do people still argue that 2 face is alive and kicking. Its because of fear, they want to hold to something familiar and great from the DARK KNIGHT that makes them believe in Nolan’s final part to be as good as the sequel.
Sep 4th, 2008
GREG Z
Ok so it’s official Harvey Dent is dead and isn’t coming back well guess what, i was one of those people who thought maybe he isn’t, now i agreed with everyone who said Harvey Dent was dead…mentally, but perhaps Two-Face is rotting in some cell at Arkham??? Two-Face took the same fall as Batman dead and batman got up from it and ran away, i figured Two-Face was just knocked out or something, i never thought he died but now that it is official i will hang my head and walk away….
Sep 4th, 2008
Jawmuncher
Two Face shouldn’t have died, he was a great charcter. I liked him more than the joker in the film.
Sep 4th, 2008
Tommy
I’m responding to anyone who has said that bringing Harvey Dent/Two Face back wouldn’t work because he already fulfilled his purpose. People have been saying he would need a new reason to continue his mission because Rachel is dead and he doesn’t have a purpose.
Well in response to that I would like to quote Chris Rock and say “What ever happened to Crazy?!?” … Why does Two Face need a purpose? … He clearly lost his mind and went crazy, why can’t he just be crazy? Look at Joker … Does he really have a purpose? His purpose is he’s fucking crazy … Now before I get my balls cut off on this site, I’ll say he does have a great plan to take down Gotham and show Batman the true colors of Dent and the whole city … blah blah blah … But what fuels the Joker is that he is just fucking crazy … That is his purpose for doing what he does in TDK … He’s crazy as shit … I say the same could go for Two Face.
I agree with Doug Douglas in saying they should have chosen a different character to play out Dent’s story in TDK … Why waste Two Face … he is such a bad ass villain and as I said before he got the Venom treatment from Spiderman 3.
Everyone was so pissed about how Venom was treated in Spiderman 3 but no one seems to give a shit about Two Face getting treated just as bad … I know Dark Knight was an overall better film, but still … One of the elite Batman villains was wasted and we’re talking about a villain who has never gotten a proper silver screen adaptation … (Tommy Lee Jones in Batman Forever … Disgusting).
Sep 4th, 2008
Kryptonite
“I still have no idea why anyone ever thought he wasn’t [dead].”
Ummm…have you ever READ a comic book? People don’t stay dead in comics. Someone will always find a clever (or maybe even a not-so-clever) way to bring a dead character back to life in the comics, and this carries over to comic book movies (Jean Grey, anyone?). I believe Two-Face died in Dark Knight. But that’s not the issue. The issue is “how dead is he?” Is he comic book-dead, or real-dead? Maybe he’s just “mostly dead,” and Miracle Max can whip up a cure coated with chocolate (”the chocolate coating makes it go down easier”). Imagine a resurrected Two-Face with a Holocaust cloak! “….soon you will not be here. The Dread Pirate Roberts is here for your SOOOOUUULS!!!!!”
Sep 4th, 2008
Jacob
Doug Douglas - I don’t think you do understand. The only thing that matters is story. We should be judging it on its own merits. Dent was the entire cog that made the whole thing run. His self destruction validated everything the Joker was doing and forced Batman to be something that he had no desire to be. Of course those things you listed don’t work. They’re bad ideas. But Dent’s story was a masterstroke. In fact, I would say he is part of the reason why TDK transcends the confines of the superhero movie: it does not confer everything to the archetypical superhero role. It shows excellent pacing and structure as Dent is slowly maneuvered into position and destroyed. I’m not trying to be rude if I come across that way. I’m trying to call it like I see it. And Nolan’s story is wonderfully told, even if it doesn’t fit the mold of certain expectations.
Tommy - Joker does have a purpose. Everything in TDK has a purpose. That’s what makes Nolan so good. He understands exactly what he is doing and what needs to be done to get the desired result. He needs themes and characterizations to think up story ideas. After all, everybody is motivated by something, and it is a storyteller’s job to cut to the heart of that and show it to us in resonant and clear language. If he was simply “crazy”, then there would be no point, and it would undermine what Nolan is doing. It would undermine the ending of TDK completely.
Spiderman 3 had issues. Critics didn’t pan Venom’s inclusion because it was short (or at least they shouldn’t have). They panned it because it wasn’t well done, and it didn’t spend its time well at all. TDK had a complete vision that worked.
Sep 4th, 2008
finaljoe
Wow! Thanks a lot. I’ve carefully avoided spoilers from this film until now and then you put an unavoidable spoiler in the title.
Thanks JERK.
Sep 4th, 2008
LostGuy
Yes, I would have loved if they had developed the whole Harvey Dent’s revenge plot in the third movie, but they didn’t. So, I came out of the movies and had no doubt that Dent was dead. And I find it hard to be any different if we consider the way they portrayed Dent in the movie. Period.
As for the idea that Dent went crazy… come on, the Joker and Two-Face are COMPLETELY differente characters in the movie. Dent doesn’t go crazy. I can’t believe how some people can be so simplistic to say that “oh, he did bad stuff, so he is crazy”. I really wouldn’t buy the idea of Two-Face coming back to destroy Gotham or to commit crimes based on the number 2. Leave that for the comics. In the movie, Dent’s only intent after Rachel died was revenge. When she died, he finally started believing the system doesn’t work, so he goes on and starts doing justice with his own hands. It’s like “ok, I did everything right, I followed all the rules and, in the end, the woman I love gets killed and I lose half of my face. Ok, so f*** the rules. I’m gonna make those responsible for what happened pay with their lives”. And that is exactly what he does.
I don’t think it was a poor adaptation. I think that maybe they should have developed the revenge plot in the third movie. But as a matter of fact, it probably would have less impact than putting it all in this movie. Anyway, Dent is dead, so people can stop seeing him breathing or moving his eye. Let’s move on to the next movie, which, oh, it’s a BATMAN movie.
Sep 4th, 2008
Doug Douglas
“Doug Douglas - I don’t think you do understand. The only thing that matters is story. We should be judging it on its own merits.”
No, I do understand–the fact that I don’t agree doesn’t mean I don’t comprehend, but thanks for your concern. To a certain degree I agree with this sentiment; and my response would be, I have judged it on its merits: I loved the movie. For all its gaping holes (Batman falls off of buildings — twice — and survives, DESPITE the fact he makes a HABIT of dropping off buildings whenever a conversation loses his interest and pulls these off without effort, two of the big “will he live” moments involve falling. And then no reason is given for his having survived said falls. Also: Joker is a self-professed chaotic nutball, but manages to throw together HUGE feats of organization on no notice, rigging every corner of the city with explosives that would take trained pyrotechnics days or weeks. Also: Joker overthrows the city’s criminal overlords, despite the fact that after anyone worked with him once no one would ever work with him again. Also: Batman insists he won’t kill anyone, but blows up cars in his Tumbler when he’s on the chase without checking whether anyone is inside those cars; he also blows open windows on his Bat Pod in public spaces, heedlessly risking the lives of many people — why does he not use guns in person but rig his vehicles so heavily with them? I could go on (why does Rachel say that Bruce’s place is the safest in the city when she almost died there a couple nights previous?) but won’t.) it still holds together. The plot is complicated and borderline nonsensical; Bruce Wayne is two-dimensional and disaffected, shedding not so much as a tear when Rachel dies, but instead complaining of Harvey getting blown “half to hell”; and the second ending is a total buzz-kill to the perfect ending of Joker dangling from a rope and cackling. Despite all this I loved the film and will see it yet again. So, yes, I’m judging it on its merits, and cutting it a hell of a lot of slack.
“Dent was the entire cog that made the whole thing run.”
Wrong. The Joker was; secondarily, Batman was; thirdly, the Dent/Dawes duo was.
“But Dent’s story was a masterstroke.”
Until he pointlessly dies, yes, it is.
“In fact, I would say he is part of the reason why TDK transcends the confines of the superhero movie: it does not confer everything to the archetypical superhero role. It shows excellent pacing and structure as Dent is slowly maneuvered into position and destroyed.”
I’m a bit confused. How is it that The Joker gets off scott-free with his superhuman bouts of organization (as listed above) but it’s ok for Two-Face to be half-assed? If we’re going to “transcend” the genre (which, for the most part, I think this film does), then don’t for chrissakes turn Dent into Two-Face at the end, or make him a more realistic Two-Face, or somehow alter the character — but do NOT half-ass him, like Nolan did.
Sep 4th, 2008
Klendathu
He’s dead, just like Jim Gordon was when he was shot by the Joker and……wait a minute.
Sep 4th, 2008
JAY
I can’t beleive the number of doubters on this!
It’s also in the damn script!
Also note to: sour puss: @FINALJOE….what are you waiting for… DVD release to see this? Get your ass in the theatre.
Sep 4th, 2008
finaljoe
It’s a bit hard to get to the theatre when you’ve been bedridden with illness for over six months.
Sep 4th, 2008
Doug Douglas
Then stay off of movie blogs, keep your tv off, don’t listen to radio, read magazines or newspapers… The movie’s been out for almost 2 months. The fact that nothing was spoiled for you until today is actually pretty impressive.
Sep 4th, 2008
Mauricio
Hey John
I agree that he’s dead. By ambiguous I mean Nolan can come up with a creative story if he’d want two face back. Do I think he’ll come back? No. But John, wouldn’t it be awesome if Two-Face came back convincing Gotham PD to not trust Batman or Gordon for covering up and falsifying his death.
I have tickets to the IMAX showing at sacramento tonight at 6:30pm. I may be reading to much into it but the way the coin landed is capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways: Perhaps Harvey is dead but Two Face is alive if Nolan wants him in the future.
Sep 4th, 2008
Kevin C
Ill readily admit that I walked out of TDK thinking Dent may still be alive. I also think its ridiculous to say that you cant see how anyone could even think that. There was a tone of ambiguity there, whether intentioinal or not. With other characters in the film falling from similar heights and surviving, and Gordons comments about the “hope dying along with Dents reputation” it didnt feel like they were trying to say he was alive, but just leaving the door open a crack instead. However after hearing from the horses mouth, I stand corrected that Dent is in fact, dead.
Sep 4th, 2008
Ransom Betty
How can anyone complain about spoilers at this point? This movie is the film of the year and some people still HAVEN’T seen it?? WTF?? The whole Dent is alive theory was shot in the foot by the film itself and if you read the script is specifically says: “Dent lies at the bottom of the hole, his neck broken. DEAD.” It doesn’t get any clearer than that folks!
Sep 4th, 2008
Sir Jig-A-Lot
Ok if he is dead, this vindicates Campea’s fanaticism about it & totally confirms GLARING PLOTHOLE # 1 in the movie: Bats & Rachel fall 40+ floors with barely a scratch on ‘em & get to make jokes, while Harvey falls three lousy stories & dies. lame. just lame. Yep, Nolan is the definitely the next Spielberg as he makes flawed movies.
GLARING PLOTHOLE #2: After the fall, it cuts to the next day. I’m sorry did Batman just leave the Joker & his goons to terrorize his guests? in his crib? Puh-Leeze.
Sep 4th, 2008
Jacob
I still don’t think you understand. I never said that the Joker wasn’t a primary villain. I said that the Joker’s plans would be ineffectual without Dent. Two Face was the Joker’s trump card. One of the biggest points of the movie is that Batman sticks to his codes because so far the criminals aren’t willing to do everything it takes to stop Batman. They may not have rules, but they have things that bind them to the world, which means that there are methods to their downfall. Money is one thing. Batman busts them on that. But the Joker throughout the film dares Batman to do the one thing that he is not willing to do. The theme of the movie would be threadbare without the Joker’s final victory. Dent’s death is the one thing that makes it all complete. Without him the movie would still be great, but he is the one contrast to Batman and the one person who can be used by the Joker to create more havoc than he ever does in any of his bombings or robberies. And he can do this without even being the most important character or the second most important character. You still never answered why, despite all of this meticulous work planted by Nolan, Dent fails as a character. You keep saying he’s half assed but never explain it.
There is really no need to get beyond Dent in isolation, but since I was questioned about it, I might as well answer. The whole point of Joker’s speech to Dent wasn’t to suggest that he wasn’t elaborate. He was trying to manipulate Dent. He was trying to appeal to the whole Two Face concept by telling him that chaos was fair. No Country For Old Men had a very similar concept: chance is not biased. You either lived or died. Two Face played by these rules. He is trying to manipulate Dent by finding middle ground and suggesting that they both prescribe to the “fair rules of chaos”. Look at the Joker’s plans. He switches the addresses, effectively making it a race to see who will be rescued first. He tells no one which hospital will be blown up. He switches prisoners and captors. And he makes it a point to induce panic in order to get two boats to blow the other up. The Joker said that people don’t panic as long as things go according to plan. But if chaos is introduced, then people start going crazy. The other people try to limit chaos. He tries to exploit chaos. That’s the difference. And the Joker is a man of his word. He leaves the fate of his life in the hands of “chaos” because he thinks that the flip of a coin is fair.
I think that part of what you say is absolutely baseless. You use hyperbole to make it look like it’s impossible to carry out what he has done. His plans are big, but in an age where people blow up buildings and commit acts of terrorism every day, it’s not so hard to believe. Of course it is exaggerated, which I don’t have a problem with since the absurdity of most comic book movies, even the good ones, are far worse. He would need other people, and it’s also not hard to believe that he could inspire people to follow him. Not inspire because of any good qualities, but inspire because he can keep people in check. Maybe out of fear, maybe because he makes people think they’ll get what they want. Like I said before, as long as the mob has things that it values, it can be squeezed. You see criminals in TDK who risk their lives because they think that they’re going to get huge sums of money. Of course they think it’s worth it because they think the reward is huge. Other times people follow him because they have no choice. He’ll kill them if they try to leave, and so following him is their only hope for survival (the billiards scene). And they showed him using criminals from Arkham Asylum who will follow the Joker simply because they are demented.
Sep 4th, 2008
brian williams
ok, two face is dead, but what i got out of the movie was the ” hero to gotham” was dead. harvey dent, the hero to gotham died, but two face was alive. Batman and gordon couldnt let the city think that harvey turned to crime because he was the hero. if the city found out he had gone bad, the city would also go bad, i think the hero side of harvey dent is dead, but the two face side is still alive. and eckhart never said two face was dead, notice he said he was. nolan said he was dead dead, but maybe he meant that harvey dent was, but not two face.
Sep 4th, 2008
George
So will anyone who mocked me last week and treated me like I was some kind of asshole for saying this going to apologise???
I think I am owed an apology from a few folks :P
I could never understand how anyone could argue that he might be alive. It was clear as day he was dead and then when I pointyed out that the script said he was dead people still argued it.
I really hope this puts the debate (that I have ultimately won) to bed!!
Sep 4th, 2008
George
and he didn’t die pointelessly. It is part of the what makes the film so fucking great. The tragedy of his story. Look at where he starts and look at where he ends. That is what the joker did in just a few days.
That is why batman can never stop being batman.
Sep 4th, 2008
finaljoe
Doug Douglas:
Don’t be so inconsiderate and foolish. I have not entered any discussin forums on TDK because I know there will be spoilers but. But a news site? No, there should be no spoilers in TITLES. In the post yes. Even AICN put a spoiler warning on their post.
Ransom Betty :
It must be great that you live in a world without problems, but not everyone is able to do what they want. As much as I would love to see TDK I am physically incapable of doing so and I imagine others also cannot.
Sep 4th, 2008
George
Final Joe john has said this time and time and time again this is not a news site. Its a blog.
Theres a difference.
and as much as I a bummed for you this is a place where people talk about movies and there has to be some kind of spoiler time limitation. Once a film has been out for a while on a site like this it is going to be discussed.
Sep 4th, 2008
leeloo
it wasnt harvey dent/2face that fell.- it was a stunt double.
Sep 4th, 2008
Jeremy
(Type your comment here. Make sure you’ve read the commenting rules before doing so)
I have to disagree with John. I had the opposite reaction: Why would anyone think that Two-Face is dead? Nolan already faked the death of Lt. Gordon proving that we can’t really take anything at face value. Then Rachel is killed off-camera, which justified or not could cause some viewers to be suspicious since it’s a comic book movie. The memorial was just that, a memorial. You could argue Nolan could have had a funeral instead of a memorial with a giant photo. That also raises suspicion.
All of this seems silly of course but we’ve been trained to think this way because comic book movies have been so careless and stupid in the past faking deaths and bringing characters back for no other reason but to increase box office for a sequel. Everyone should have been skeptical until they heard it out of Nolan’s mouth. For the record, I wouldn’t want to see Two-Face return and I think his story arc came full circle brilliantly in The Dark Knight. He made the right call.
Sep 4th, 2008
tom.
Couldn’t it be possible that Detective James Gordon faked Harvey Dent’s death for the same reasons they blame his murders on Batman? Harvey Dent is Gotham’s White Knight, they can’t have him running around all deranged and disfigured. Also we see someone survive a fall from that distance earlier in the movie (I think… need to see it again).
Sep 4th, 2008
Spazmo
I was thinking along the same lines as Kryptonite as in “Comic book dead”. Oh well, new villain for number 3 then :-)
Sep 4th, 2008
George
tom no it couldn’t be possible.
the script said he died. the guy playing him just said he died. the director told the guy who was playing him he died.
how can there seriously BE someone still debating this?
HE IS DEAD.
why are people so obsessed with the idea of his survival???
Sep 4th, 2008
LostGuy
I think many of you are going through that denial stage. Only that can explain why you can’t believe Dent died in the movie. If it was a comic book, I would be sure that Two-Face would be coming back any time, but it’s NOT a comic book. The Two-Face from the movie is NOT the kinda guy who will rob the Second National Bank of Gotham. So, if his purpose was revenge and it was done in The Dark Knight, why the hell would they bring Dent back?
Sep 4th, 2008
Kristina
Guys,
What. The. FUCK.
There is no argument to be made here. HE IS DEAD. For realsies. DEAD.
Get over it. Seriously.
Sep 4th, 2008
handle
Eckhart was on Jimmy Kimmel tonight. From his own mouth, on tape, he said “I asked Nolan about negotations and he said…’You’re dead.’”
Sep 4th, 2008
Kenn
I know someone who didn’t die in the movie…the Joker. He’ll be back. Played, of course, by someone else.
Sep 4th, 2008
George
where were all you guys last week when rodney was all over me telling me I was wrong for stating dents death as fact??
haha
Sep 4th, 2008
Mauricio
Hey John,
I just got back from watching Dark Knight for the second time (1st time in IMax and Harvey Dent is dead.
I realized all the police force, Gordon and his family plus the dogs that chased Batman were all there surrounding the building. There’s no faking that. Harvey is gone.
Sep 4th, 2008
Shane
Dent is dead. His story arc went full circle. The Joker however is alive, and stated that he and Batman were destined to keep fighting “forever”. Obviously the tragic death of Heath Ledger has clouded many people’s views, making them think Joker is done and Two Face will live on.
The obvious intention was for Joker to come back, and I hope he does. He is the ultimate Batman villain. Two face was just a pawn in his game. There’s a lot more that can be done with Joker still in this ongoing story. Dent’s story however, is done.
Bringing Dent back would be pointless, because they would have to make a brand new story and motivation for him anyway. So why not spend that time developing a new villain for the franchise, and not have to worry about explaining a miraculous reincarnation or elaborately faked death in the process.
There’s no need to dwell on Dent, they can move on to some other interesting characters like Catwoman, Riddler, Robin and Mr Freeze. I’d love to see a Nolan take on each of those.
Sep 5th, 2008
Tommy
You guys are all so ridiculous. You get so upset because myself and some others believe that Dent could possibly be alive. Why do you care so much? You might be right that he is dead … You probably are … So why do you care what I believe? Why must I agree with you and share your beliefs? That is called Facism … I’m allowed to believe whatever I want … No matter how ridiculous you think I am … That’s the beauty of America … The fact that everyone seems so upset makes me just want to keep posting that Dent is alive … HARVEY DENT LIVES …
In response to whoever I was talking to earlier about Dent’s story coming full circle … What if we said hypothetically that the Jokers back story was that he lost his fiance to a tragic murder and that is what made him go crazy and become the psycho clown that he is. What if that happened at the end of Batman Begins. Everyone would be so pissed if Joker died at the end of Batman Begins like Two Face did at the end of TDK. Would you not want to see what he did to Gotham in TDK? Even if his story came full circle in Batman Begins he deserved to be in TDK as I believe Two Face deserves to go nuts on Gotham in the third film.
I believe in my heart that Two Face lives and I will not give up on that notion until they make the third film and I go and watch it and see he is not in it. You can all call me crazy or hate me … I don’t care … Two Face is my second favorite villain and I think and hope that he gets a movie all to his lonesome. Thanks for listening. You guys rock.
Sep 5th, 2008
Tommy
Oh and one more thing … Everyone is like “Lets just move onto another villain” … But in all honesty we are running out of villains that would fit into Christopher Nolan’s universe. Maybe that is a reason I am hoping that Two Face returns because he is perfect for Nolan’s Batman films.
Seriously though some villains cannot work in these more realistic Batman movies. Mr. Freeze … Penguin … No fucking way could these two survive in Nolan’s films … They’re too cartoony … Riddler maybe … But I think he’s too much like Joker to do right after they just did Joker … Catwoman might work but I think she needs to be a secondary villain because she is a love interest of Batman … Two Face is perfect … Not many others are left to do … Maybe Mad Hatter, maybe Scarface … But there are not a lot left.
Sep 5th, 2008
michael
I think the main problem people have is that the two face story was dealt with in another movie. Two-face was exellent in the dark knight and aaron eckhart played him perfectly. At the end of movie where he falls to his death (batman fell the same height so it’s conceivable to believe harvey survived), you feel that his storyline was a bit wasted and underdevelopped. In saying this, I can’t really imagine what they would do with the characther in a possible third installment either.
The characther would of felt much better if nolan & goyer stuck closer to source material by not introducing rachel dawes. Her characther was only created because they couldn’t find someone good enough to play harvey.
If harvey was used in begins, it would of opened alot more possibilities for a deeper harvey dent/two face storyline.
Sep 5th, 2008
Jacob
Batman also has a suit of armor. After he falls a few stories and crushes Scarecrow’s car, it’s easier to believe that he can survive falls that no one else can.
Sep 5th, 2008
gracie brazilian jiu jitsu technique
ummm, they killed superman in the 90’s (in the comicbooks) and brought him back to life. why can’t they bring back 2face. look, studios are watching the reaction on how the fans are reacting to the death of 2face, if there is enough intererest, they are definitely going to bring him back. why?…………………$$$$$$$$$$
have fun speculating whether 2face is dead or not put pace yourself. you don’t want to burn yourself out on it like many people do with star wars.
Sep 5th, 2008
Mauricio
Harvey died a “Hero” but Batman lived long enough to see himself become the villain.
Sep 5th, 2008
Doug Douglas
“I still don’t think you understand. I never said that the Joker wasn’t a primary villain. I said that the Joker’s plans would be ineffectual without Dent. Two Face was the Joker’s trump card. One of the biggest points of the movie is that Batman sticks to his codes because so far the criminals aren’t willing to do everything it takes to stop Batman.”
Ok, at this point it’s apparent YOU don’t understand. I’ve tried to be diplomatic and not insult you like a four year old, but sometimes one must fight condescension with condescension. I’ve seen the movie twice. I write about movies for a living. I’m not mentally disabled. I grasp the thematic and metaphorical and philosophical aspects of Dent’s character: he becomes the Joker’s ultimate proof of his thesis on chaos. And, by becoming chaotic, forces Batman to lose the sheen of his heroism in order to disprove that thesis, fallacious though this disproof may be. Get it. Got it on the first viewing. This movie isn’t Kant or Kierkegaard or Sartre or Nietzche– it just isn’t that abstruse.
But what YOU don’t get (or have willfully omitted to explain) is why Dent must have been that proof: Dent is an archvillain (whether you like it or not) and one half of Two-Face. Don’t. Use. Dent. For that part if the intention is merely to flesh out the characters of Batman and Joker and the main premise of Joker’s ideology.
“You still never answered why, despite all of this meticulous work planted by Nolan, Dent fails as a character. You keep saying he’s half assed but never explain it.”
Dent doesn’t fail as a character — Two-Face does. Thus, Two-Face must either survive to live another day, OR using Harvey Dent was confusing and unsatisfying. Because Dent is the beginning of Two-Face, just as Bruce Wayne is the beginning of Batman. Bruce Wayne would have failed as a character if he died the first time he swung from the rooftops as Batman, or the first time he tried to fight a gang of thugs.
“I think that part of what you say is absolutely baseless. You use hyperbole to make it look like it’s impossible to carry out what he has done.”
In the time frame he pulls off these stunts? Yes, it’s impossible. Given his chaotic nature and total lack of sanity? Yes, impossible. Do I cut him slack because he lives in a world where Batman can exist? Yes.
“He would need other people, and it’s also not hard to believe that he could inspire people to follow him.”
Please explain. After every stunt/crime/terrorist act he commits, he kills all or most of the men who worked with and for him.
“Not inspire because of any good qualities, but inspire because he can keep people in check.”
He more than keeps them in check. He kills them.
“Maybe out of fear, maybe because he makes people think they’ll get what they want. Like I said before, as long as the mob has things that it values, it can be squeezed.”
It can be squeezed temporarily and to a degree. Not indefinitely, and certainly not if the Joker insists on whacking every single person he wins over to his side.
“Other times people follow him because they have no choice. He’ll kill them if they try to leave, and so following him is their only hope for survival (the billiards scene).”
No, indulging him to get some of their money back, and in the hopes of defeating Batman, was their motivation — not survival. The Joker, in the real world, would have been taken out as soon as any of the crime syndicate had the chance, assuming one of the Joker’s own men didn’t do it first to avoid inevitable execution.
“And they showed him using criminals from Arkham Asylum who will follow the Joker simply because they are demented.”
He used them as bodies in a crowd, not as the integral organizers and executors of his large-scale stunts.
Sep 5th, 2008
Joey
Can we all agree that falling 20ft is a lame way for a character to die? I believe it is the death scene itself which leads people to debate if Two Face is dead. But if the Nolan says its true then its true. But before his comments it was absolutely debateable.
Sep 5th, 2008
John
Hey Joey,
I agree (and have always thought) the way Two Face died was stupid… but how on earth was it ever “debatable”? The movie showed he was dead, they said he was dead and they had a funeral. I still don’t get why anyone thought this was a mystery.
Sep 5th, 2008
alfie
He broke his neck. if you landed wrong from 6 feet you could break your neck.
Either way he is dead.
Sep 5th, 2008
Doug Douglas
People die without dying in films all the time, and my arguments above about the strange/immediate disappearance of Two-Face before he’s even emerged probably comprise 90% of most people’s queries about whether he’ll be in the next film.
Sep 5th, 2008
Jacob
Dent doesn’t have to be anything except what Nolan intended. There are parameters of course, but I always thought the great thing about the comic book tradition is that a character can be reinvented depending on the vision of the writer. If Batman can go through so many transformations, then certainly there can be different takes on Two Face. I’m not trying to insult your intelligence by saying that you don’t understand. I’m trying to say that you’re not going anywhere with your arguments.
I get your argument. But you haven’t made a case. You keep going on about what Dent should be and have yet to answer why, repeating the point about characters getting killed off early. You ask why not, and I say…why not? Whatever suits the characters thematically through Nolan’s brilliant vision. As long as it makes complete sense in the story because according to Nolan’s story, this is who Dent is and this is how Two Face goes on a suicidal mission. Your question presupposes that the characters aren’t well established when they are killed, but Dent’s transformation into Two Face is explicit. The onus isn’t on me because that’s my answer. Dent fits into the story thematically the way Nolan wanted.That’s been my entire point all along, and I’ve made it pretty clear. Dent may be the beginning of Two Face, but Two Face is the end of Dent. They are one complete entity, one complete story. Nolan is treating them as one complete story, and so I say aloud…why not?
And you have yet to say why that can’t be. Sure you’re saying it. You’re saying, “because this is the way it is.” But that’s not an argument. An argument makes the other side see your point. I assume that you come from the traditional mentality of this is the way he is and that’s how he should be. I don’t come from that position, so even if I don’t like it, you have to make me appreciate it. You have to make me respect your reasoning. You’re not even cultivating your entire position and making yourself clear. What’s the point of arguing if you’re not going to use the full extent of logic?
Honest question: does the movie ever state that he killed all of his thugs?
Sep 5th, 2008
Doug Douglas
Sorry, dude, but you’re being really dense, and I’m not sure how much more (electronic) ink I can spill on this. As for making you respect me and my arguments, I don’t have to do shit, particularly considering you’ve been condescending and disrespectful throughout. I could give a shit what you do or do not respect. You are arguing in circles. There’s only so many times I can logically lay out my ideas, only to have you say, But you haven’t answered me, or, But you haven’t argued anything. How much clearer can I be??!!
“And you have yet to say why that can’t be. Sure you’re saying it. You’re saying, “because this is the way it is.””
Wrong. Here’s what I said:
Don’t. Use. Dent. For that part if the intention is merely to flesh out the characters of Batman and Joker and the main premise of Joker’s ideology.
And:
Because Dent is the beginning of Two-Face, just as Bruce Wayne is the beginning of Batman. Bruce Wayne would have failed as a character if he died the first time he swung from the rooftops as Batman, or the first time he tried to fight a gang of thugs.
As far as Nolan’s intentions, he should not give Dent a new name — Two-Face — regardless of whether or not it’s fulfilling his purpose. It’s not about Dent, or Two-Face, it’s about Nolan seemingly creating this brand new character at the end, and then killing him off before he actually becomes that character. Maybe it fulfills Nolan’s story, but it does so at the cost of the character he’s spent the movie developing, regardless of who or what that character is. As Aristotle stressed, narrative is about story AND character. The aim is not to stress one over the other; the goal is to make them BOTH work for the narrative. Nolan did not do that with Dent. Is that something you can comprehend?
“What’s the point of arguing if you’re not going to use the full extent of logic?”
What’s the point of writing if you’re not going to use the full extent of literacy? I.e.–what the hell does that question mean?? Getting a bit above your head there… I have addressed each and every one of your criticisms and arguments by specifically quoting and then answering them, though you’ve not done the same with me. Do not talk to me about the orthodoxy of arguing when you yourself play loose and fast.
“Honest question: does the movie ever state that he killed all of his thugs?”
Honest answer: of course not. What a ridiculous question. He does, however, kill all of those thugs working for him in the beginning of the film, and kill another crime boss he’s working with at the end, and then kill several in the middle. This is sufficient evidence for my claim that he is not a stable or trustworthy employer to work for — even for a criminal’s standards.
Sep 5th, 2008
Joey
I guess I missed the part were they confirmed that he was dead. My thinking was is that he was injured and thrown into Arkham Asylum. I figured that they came up with the idea that he was dead because it would have been worse for Gotham to believe that he had turned into Two Face.
Sep 5th, 2008
George
I thought the confirmation was the part where he lies lifelessly on the ground as gordon and batman discuss what to do without giving him any medical attention or acting with any urgency towards his situation because he was quite clearly dead.
Sep 7th, 2008
Jacob
This is why I say you’re not getting it because you arguments are completely specious and vague. You say that he doesn’t work as a character and barely spend any time developing that argument. My intent in saying that you have to get the other person to respect your argument is to say that you have to force them to see your argument from your perspective, which you have failed to do completely. “Dent failed as a character” is a claim. It’s not proof. It’s not an argument. You haven’t taken your argument beyond that except to shout the same claims over and over. I would hardly say you’ve addressed all of my points either when I had a huge paragraph that explained a key part of the story. Either you didn’t understand that and thus didn’t understand the whole story or you didn’t bother to address the point.
The argument becomes a bit more potent when you say “…if the intention is merely to flesh out the characters of Batman and Joker and the main premise of Joker’s ideology,” but that doesn’t work at all since that was hardly my point. You’re confusing the notion of fitting into a story with the notion of being subverted by the other characters. All of the characters have their places, and the story would be lesser for it if any of them were removed. In Nolan’s world, the Joker and his bizarre worldview are not complete without Dent, and Dent and his transformation are not complete without the Joker. Batman isn’t complete without either of these characters. When I made that point, I was trying to say that each character effects the other in a special way and changes throughout the course of the movie because of the actions of another character. Dent himself probably gets the most development in TDK (Batman was developed in Begins, and the Joker is more about his ideology). In fact, Nolan called Dent’s story the backbone of the film, so he hardly underplays it.
My entire point in saying that Dent was fulfilled thematically was to say that he was fulfilled as a character, and I thought that came with an assumption. He went on a suicidal rampage. That was it. He was not coming back from that. Rachel’s death had destroyed him, and he wanted revenge. That in itself is development and the final arc of Dent as a character. Nolan doesn’t use Two Face as half of one character where one half has to be given this much development and this half has to be given this much development. He uses Two Face as an outward scar upon Dent’s fall. And like a lot of films, the fall deserves much more time than the final act - and Two Face is a final act. It’s sort of like Taxi Driver in that regard. The final act of destruction occupies only a small percentage of the movie. The real meat is seeing the character get there. In other words, the setup is the fall, and the final destruction is saved for when all of the pieces are moved into place. That was the point I was trying to get at, and you haven’t really addressed why that is not good enough. In repeating the same tired rhetoric about characters dying off upon their transformation, you have yet to establish why that in itself is bad. You have yet to establish why the character’s arc isn’t fulfilled. You keep making claims, but you don’t offer any reasons.
The Joker argument is a hard one to make because of two reasons 1) he’s a theoretical criminal and 2) they don’t show his “organization”, and thus we don’t have a head count (the amount he kills might not be significant) and we don’t know how exactly he rewards some criminals. Outside of the first scene he barely kills anyone without a very good reason and not any more than the typical criminal trying to inspire fear that’s standard in these types of movies, but the bank scene is sort of problematic. He obviously killed them for a reason - he never intended to share the money - and it’s a one time situation where he needed to do it, but it demonstrates a resolution to kill who he doesn’t need. And that leads to number one. Men who kill for pleasure usually do so in small doses. They want to savor it. Men who kill on a large scale usually do so for a cause or because they want something. They just want people out of the way. The Joker is a mixture of the two. Because he doesn’t value anything, there is nothing to destroy him with. That’s why the mob needed him in the first place. The mob valued something. Batman used that to squeeze them. So they used the Joker. Only the Joker walked all over them. If Joker is the only game in town, then where else do they turn? Perhaps he would have been done in eventually, but he was on a near suicidal mission anyway. In fact, the man played by his ideologies. If he was willing to let Dent shoot him in the head, then he’s admitting that chaos doesn’t favor any man. He lives by those rules, so he’s willing to die by those rules. However, he protected himself from that rather well since he knew exactly how to inspire loyalty in the moment. He tempted men with billions of dollars. One of the mob guys in the beginning is slowly being squeezed by Batman. He barely escapes capture, then later he follows the Joker. He’s walking right to his death just because he thinks he’s getting his share, which by using that same character was probably intentional of Nolan. In fact, that’s the entire point of the line, “And then we’ll see how loyal a hungry dog really is,” because he says it in the context of the goons’ loyalties. Nolan is trying to make the point that in their desperation these small and middling criminals will run to where the money is, even if they get their heads chopped off in the process. As the Joker slowly takes out their leaders, they will turn to him so that things will get done. And as long as he has the power to get things done, he has the power to control them.
Sep 9th, 2008
Shaz Primus
I know folk are saying he is dead but I think since they never used the words dead in the film, it could be that Dent is dead but Two-face isn’t …
Oct 19th, 2008
Reply to “Two-Face Is Dead - Official”