Heh, okay. Yeah, they could have written the ending with Two-Face differently—but all in all, the way that Nolan chose to do it allowed for Gordon and Batman’s conversation about Harvey at the end: their decision to remember him as a hero, and to have Gotham hunt Batman (who takes the fall).

I’m completely happy with the way the did it, but of course there are
other routes they could have gone. Countless writers/directors would do it countless ways, but at the end of the day, it comes down to which ending works the best for their movie.

I’m not the writer on TDK, so I couldn’t even begin to think of what I’d make Harvey do if the coin had landed good side up and Batman hadn’t tackled Harvey. I believe, though, that Harvey wouldn’t touch the boy, but who knows—maybe he would pull something like he did in the car with Maroni and flip his coin to decide Gordon’s life, or his wife’s, or his daughter’s.

Batman says, “You’re the one pointing the gun, Harvey. So point it at the people responsible.”

“Okay,” Harvey agrees. So he flips for Batman, flips for himself, and flips for Gordon’s son as a means of punishing Gordon.

Maybe after that that would be it. Harvey himself said he wouldn’t run. When Gordon says his men are just setting up a perimeter, Harvey tells him, “Do you think I want to escape? There’s no escaping from this.”

Harvey probably would deal with the coin’s final ruling, and maybe Batman and Gordon would take him in. I don’t think Harvey would have ran.

Yes, you are asking for me to tell you what might happen in the movie had things gone different, and I know the distinct differences of the movie from the comic, so that’s what I think. But some things are very close when it comes to this movie and the comics. Harvey’s general personality (not talking about the whole multiple personality thing in the comics, because they didn’t do that for TDK) is very close to the one in the comics: Harvey never ran from his fate. He allowed himself to be taken in several times, either because he knew if he showed up that would be what would happen, or because the coin didn’t give him a choice and he succumbed to being taken in.

But then again, I’m not Nolan. Who knows what his alternate ending would have been. Only he and his brain know that, lol.

I don’t think, however, then when Harvey turns into Two-Face and commits those crimes, and holds Gordon’s family at ransom, that he suddenly becomes wooden: that he wasn’t given the chance to repent or redeem himself, that he didn’t show remorse or conflict. He DID. Both Harvey and Two-Face are very complex in this film. And at the end, Batman and Gordon are trying to convince Harvey that he can redeem himself now instead of continuing on the path he is. Harvey’s in a very dark, confusing, and desperate place, and he tries to communicate this to Bats and Gordon at the end.

The thing is, Two-Face chooses to let the coin decide what he should do.

They didn’t do it like you described it in quotes—not at all. And it wasn’t done that simply.

Is TDK a masterpiece? You know how much worth is attached to that word? People expect everything to be perfect—they expect every movie to blow them out of the water, and even if it’s a good movie they find things to nitpick about. (It’s called suspension of disbelief—it’s required when reading/watching any piece of fiction.) Very few things are masterpieces; it’s incredibly hard to achieve that. TDK might or might not, depending on what you think of it (since people seem to have such different opinions and feelings about this film), be a masterpiece—but at any rate, I do believe it is a very, very good and well-executed film. It’s redeemed comic book movies because TDK doesn’t feel like a comic book movie at all. The performances are spectacular, the directing was amazing, and Nolan deserves props for not doing things the easy way.

And I think it’s worth noting that any movie that can spark this much debate, whether opinions of good or bad … well, that says a LOT in favor of that movie, doesn’t it?

Well, there were countless ways this could have been done. It’s a MOVIE- they can write it anyway they want. There are a hundred plausible ways they could have had a coin-toss and still saved the boy. The coin could have come up scarred but Harvey may have found his remaining conscience wouldn’t let him go through with the murder. Or Harvey’s [non-American] gun could have jammed- giving Batman the time to act. Or little Jack could have surreptitiously pulled out his pocket knife and jammed it in Harvey’s thigh. Or a police marksman/sniper who had been targeting Two-Face from an adjacent building could have delivered a well-timed headshot. Or Two-Face could make the mistake of pausing to deliver a villainous monologue.

Writers as good as Goyer and the Nolans could have come up with any of a hundred ways to interrupt him- ways much better and more plausible than my suggestions.

Okay, Stephanie, from what you’ve said, you are certain that if Two-Face had been allowed to complete his toss, and the coin had come up scarred, he would have immediately pulled the trigger and murdered a child. You believe that TDK was clear enough in it’s portrayal of Two-Face that you know what he would have done. Okay. So what do you believe are the most likely scanarios for TDK’s Two-Face if the toss was complete and the coin came up ‘clean?’ Would he have let little Jack go and turned himself in? Would he have tried to escape Batman and the police? Would he have just grabbed Gordon’s wife or daughter- gone through a toss for each member of the family? I’m not asking what he might have done in the comics. I’m asking what the particular Two-Face you got to understand in this film would have done.

And we’re not really disagreeing. I can’t really disagree with you. You’re more or less right. I just want to believe that the they were intending a character and story that they made some mistakes with in the end. But strictly speaking the movie supports only you. I just hate the face that writers as concerned with nuance and ambiguity and moral complexity as Goyer and the Nolans would be satisfied with Two-Face. That they would write:

“Okay, here’s a remarkable man. He’s just a man, with all the same pressures and temptations as any man, yet he chooses to act nobly and work tirelessly for the benefit of others. At no point will we show him with any weaknesses. And then we’ll utterly break him. We’ll have trauma and rage turn this man into an murderer. And this murderer is so unrepentant, we might as well not even give him the chance to redeem himself, let alone show any conflict or small remorse. We’ll just throw him off a building.”

For me, that treatment turns THE DARK KNIGHT from a deeply flawed masterpiece into a mere popcorn thriller with one particularly good performance. Believing in Harvey Dent is the only thing that made me excuse the terrible fight choreography, the ridiculous Bat-gizmos, the dozen loose-ends, the utterly implausible and grossly sentimental ferry-scenario, and the Mayor’s eyeliner. An unrepentant Two-Face makes this movie a mere action flick dressed up like more than it is.

Well, not exactly. He flipped the coin for Ramirez, and did what the coin told him: it flipped good side up, so he let her live. It came good side up for Maroni, but not for his driver. Harvey’s not going against the coin—but that’s saying he can’t be disappointed or satisfied with the results.

If Batman had let the coin flip go through and have Two-Face see the result, there was no way he could have stopped Two-Face from killing Gordon’s son. Look how fast Two-Face shot Batman. Batman had to do what he did when he did; the coin did land—good side up. There’s nothing previous in the movie that suggests that Harvey/Two-Face would go against the coin’s ruling.

I don’t think it’s desperation/instability out of a character flaw or anything. Harvey was a very good man—he was just pushed too far. But to say that Harvey taking the Joker’s thug to condemned building is acceptable … it’s NOT within the law. If you want to interrogate someone, you have to take them in and conduct a proper one (like they did with the Joker)—not take them to a run-down building alone and in secret. An an enforcer of the law like Harvey or Gordon could NEVER legally threaten someone they’re interrogating with violence. It just doesn’t work that way.

Yes, they did say, “If you don’t cooperate, you’ll be going to County, and they’ll tear you apart in there.” But that’s not THEM threatening someone—they’re just stating that, Hey, if you don’t want to help us, then we have no choice but to take you to County.” And the MCU has no control over what the other prisoners will do to you in there. And if someone they’re interrogating doesn’t want to talk and they don’t have enough to hold him, then they have to release him: and then what happens after that with the mob is out of their control.

But they can’t actually take a gun and be like, “Talk, or we’ll shoot.”

Harvey’s anger and actions, though, in the scene where he’s interrogating the Joker’s thug does foreshadow the strong anger and desperation we see in him later on. And there’s a reason that Batman decides to give himself up at this moment: he sees what Harvey’s doing and wants to give himself up so Gotham’s shining White Knight doesn’t lose his shine (metaphorically, I mean).

So we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

Or, at least, that would have been the more interesting take for TDK. As it is, the film is too equivocal.

I think the comics should be mostly irrelevant to the films. I don’t care about past takes on Harvey Dent/ Two-Face. The writers just need to do what all writers do when adapting previous work. Take what’s good, toss what’s bad, and change ANYTHING you need to in order to make a better story.

I loved THE DARK KNIGHT and I think it was written as the story of Harvey Dent, so I just find it endlessly frustrating that they didn’t flesh out Two-Face’s nature or conflict. At the very least, in a story about Harvey Dent, it is PARAMOUNT that we know what his reaction to his final coin-flip would have been. Look, he was willing to let a traitor cop like Ramirez live. But when he wanted Maroni dead, he didn’t accept the coin-toss. He just flipped it again and shot the driver. So the coin is not choosing for Harvey. THE DARK KNIGHT never shows us anything to make us think that Harvey is ever completely lost. That’s why we need to know if he would have pulled the trigger on Gordon’s son, or flipped the coin again to get the result he wanted, or found himself unable to execute an innocent. We need to know this to know what kind of man Harvey Two-Face was. Not knowing that is like a chunk of castle-stone falling on Hamlet’s head and killing him before he can get to his duel with Laertes. We need to know what he would have done.

And once the writers decided to end the film with Harvey’s death, there was no reason for them NOT to show us. They could have still killed him before he managed to harm Jack Gordon. But I don’t think they were writing Two-Face as a kind of man who would do that. I think they wanted to write both Harvey Dent and Harvey Two-Face as kinds of heroes. And they just screwed it up.

I don’t think there’s any point in the movie where we see Harvey Dent losing his grip or acting in desperation. Or at least not desperation borne out of a character flaw or some latent psychological instability. He consistently acts no differently than Batman or any of the police. When he’s trying to get information from the Joker’s guy, Harvey is merely doing what is acceptable when dealing with criminals- trying to coerce them with the threat of violence. Tell me what I want to know or I might shoot you. Tell me what I need to know or I’ll lock you up in County and they’ll tear you apart. Tell me what I need to know, or I’ll release you and the Mob will just scoop you off the streets and kill you.

And he yells at Batman not to give up. So what? He’s angry. But he’s certainly no more out of control than Batman himself, or any average citizen of Gotham at that point. There’s no foreshadowing in that scene.

Yeah, I agree about the latter version of Two-Face you described being more interesting. That’s why the character succeeds so well, both in the comics and in TDK. They spent the whole movie showing us what kind of character Harvey was, so we don’t really see him as a villain at the end—and that makes what Batman and Gordon say about him all the more powerful.

Heh, but isn’t that the meaning of losing faith in something? He thought justice was pure, but that confidence in it has been crushed.

I’m not JUST talking about the part of the scene with the Joker’s thug where Harvey’s trying to intimidate him—but even Batman points out what that act implies. Harvey almost lost his grip on the law by taking the thug to a condemned building, tying him up, and then trying to make him think he’d shoot him if he didn’t say anything. He asks Harvey what people would think if they saw him do that? Everything would be undone, Batman adds. Would Harvey have shot the thug then? No, of course not: because he wasn’t completely lost. But it shows Harvey’s desperation that he even did that in the first place.

However, I was also talking about the anger we saw in Harvey, not just the desperation, at the end of that scene, when he yells at Batman that he can’t give up. That was only a glimpse of the desperation and anger we see in Harvey/Two-Face in the hospital and afterwards.

It’s just like Harvey Dent/Two-Face in the comics. Rachel Dawes in the movie acts essentially the same way the acid in the comics did. In the movie, Rachel’s death is the final straw; in the comics, getting splashed with acid turned Harvey both physically and emotionally/mentally into Two-Face. But there was a LOT building up to it. Something like that doesn’t throw people that far off the edge—there’s always something more to it than that.

Harvey’s descent into Two-Face isn’t blatantly obvious—it’s subtle, it’s a gradual descent: that’s why you didn’t see him switch to a non-trick coin or anything like you said they would have.

And a villainous/insane Two-Face is much less interesting than a broken one who’s still trying to do right, but is now willing to kill, and who’s better nature is at war with the rage of vengeance.

Two-Face hasn’t lost his faith in justice. It’s just now he understands that justice is hollow and can be manipulated if you’re not willing to kill for it.

And I disagree Harvey was headed towards the edge before he was blown half to hell. He was merely trying to frighten Joker’s henchman into talking. When Batman grabs the coin from midair and upbraids Harvey, Dent tells him “It’s not what it looks like.” [There is no chance of the coin coming up tails, no chance of him shooting.] At this point he is still MUCH more in control, MUCH less corruptible, and MUCH less violent than even Batman. [Imagine the beating Bats would have doled out, if he thought the guy actually knew anything about the threat to Rachel.]

If the filmmakers really wanted to portray a Harvey slipping down a slippery slope, they would have had him change to a non-trick coin, or shown him shoot the Joker’s guy in the knee.

Two-Face isn’t a hero. Harvey Dent was. He was, while he was still sane, almost as incorruptible as Batman—almost, that’s the key. Obviously Harvey snapped and became Two-Face … but as DA, Harvey Dent was a hero to Gotham.

Two-Face is a villain, but Harvey Dent is still deep inside; Harvey was a hero. He offered himself up as bait for the Joker so Batman could do what he had to to stop him, and it worked—that’s a hero. Harvey refused to take bribes, to enable the criminals of Gotham—that’s a hero. When he prosecuted all those criminals, he made himself a target not only to the mob, but to anyone in Gotham who was taking money from them. That’s a hero. He did what he needed to do while still staying inside the law, unlike Batman, who is technically a vigilante.

Two-Face would kill Jim Gordon’s son—Harvey Dent would never have. You have to understand the desperate man Harvey has become: Two-Face. Rachel’s death might have finally made Harvey snap, but he was headed towards the edge long before that.

Why does Harvey use the coin? It’s not that he doesn’t know right from wrong, it’s just that he doesn’t know which he should be doing. He’s lost his faith in justice, something he thought was so pure before. And then the Joker, taking advantage of Harvey’s vulnerability in the hospital, introduces a whole new kind of justice to him: chance. That’s what the coin represents. And the coin takes the pressure off of the desperate man who is Harvey Dent, allowing him to make a decision without actually having to MAKE the decision: the responsibility is lifted. To Harvey, the coin is deciding—it’s “fair.” Chance is the only thing that makes sense to Harvey anymore.

Dave: I really hope Two-Face/Harvey is alive, but there’s a good chance he’s not. Still, it’s just ambiguous … and he’s a great character. That’s why I’m hoping. I think it depends a LOT though on what Nolan comes up with for the next film.

About the Riddler … David Goyer, at least, wants a villain that hasn’t been done before and is totally fresh. Batman’s Rogues’ Gallery is huge. So no, there will be no Riddler, no Penguin … As for casting, there hasn’t even been talk yet. After the success of TDK, every actor is going to want to be a part of the TDK sequel. People have just been SAYING that Depp would be a cool Riddler—it’s not even a rumor of a possibility, it’s just fans musing over what they’d like to see. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s ultimately up to Nolan: and no casting talk or even discussion of the next film has even begun yet.

And I don’t know if it’s a rumor or fanboy talk, but I have hear a number of times about the though of Johnny Depp playing the Riddler. Don’t know of the validity.

Harvey Dent believed that Batman was making Gotham better. But Batman was unwilling to kill, and Gotham went to hell. So is Harvey Two-Face a kind of hero? Is he still just ‘prosecuting’ mobsters and corrupt cops, except now he’s willing to kill them, to do what Batman will not?

Or is Two-Face a villain, driven only by revenge? Is his rage over Rachel enough to kill an innocent boy, just to punish Jim Gordon? Up to that point everyone Two-Face had shot bore some culpability in Rachel’s death (even Batman.) But little Jack was MORE innocent than Rachel. Would Gotham’s white knight, no matter how broken, have killed a child?

And then, what is the coin? Is it merely how a madman makes his decisions? Or is the coin a chance at mercy used by a righteous executioner? Or does Two-Face use the coin to protect his victims from his own vengeance. Does the ‘good-half’ of Harvey know he’s gone over the edge and the coin is the only thing that keeps him from being a murderer?

THE DARK KNIGHT is the story of Harvey Dent. Heck, all Batman/Bruce Wayne does in this movie is gaze dreamily at Harvey and tell anyone who’ll listen how Harvey is Gotham’s true hero. [I think someone has a crush...]

So it’s of ultimate importance that we know whether Two-Face will or will not pull the trigger on a child. But he wasn’t given the chance to prove himself one way or the other. They just threw him off a building.

But about your second paragraph … what? Of course Harvey would have—he did for everyone else. It was pretty clear after he talked to Batman and Gordon that he was going to do whatever the coin told him to do; he was pretty mad at Gordon. Plus, he did shoot Batman.

And the coin didn’t land scarred-side up, so what does it matter? That’s not bad writing at all. :/