34 Responses

1. Stephanie

   July 24th, 2008 at 10:25 am

   1

   I 100% agree with you, man! That’s EXACTLY what I thought, but it’s weird, even some Batman comic fans think he’s dead. Me? No freaking way! Here’s why.

   1. Like you said: Gordon’s speech at the end: very good chance they’re trying to remember Harvey with respect (his story IS one of tragedy) and present him as dying a hero rather than living long enough to see himself become to villain. That Dent quote (from when they were all having dinner) was such an obvious set-up for his tragedy and transformation into Two-Face at the end.

   Plus, both Gordon and Batman, especially, realized how important it is for the people of Gotham to have hope. Batman tells Gordon to say that he killed those people—thus, they’re protecting the people of Gotham, they’re trying to preserve their hope. The truth about Harvey would crush the city—so they’re only putting up a front that he’s dead.

   2. GUH! Harvey Dent/Two-Face is such an important character in the Batman mythos, how the hell could they kill him off?! Okay, so they killed the Joker off in Batman ‘89—but this is today, and this is a different type of Batman film, obviously. Christopher Nolan has too much respect for the comics and is too competent to just kill off a huge main character like that—who has such a long-lasting and important role in the Batman mythos—especially when there might be a third film.

   It’s the same reason why there was no way in hell Gordon had died in the movie.

   In pretty much all of Harvey’s origin stories (big Dent/Two-Face fan here), after he finally “cracks” and turns into Two-Face, it’s not long after that that he ends up in Arkham—for at least some period of time (we all know Arkham’s, uhm, “security” record).

   And in the comics, keeping the tragedy of Harvey hush-hush from the public at first actually happened. They kind of sneaked him away. So it makes sense that that’s what is going on in this movie.

   4. Right. His death is inconclusive. Firstly, Gordon and Bats aren’t standing around mourning him—no, Gordon’s giving a speech instead. Moreover, it wasn’t a funeral so much as it was a memorial (giant headshot of Harvey). If I’m remembering correctly, there wasn’t a casket—and even if there was, it could have just been empty. (But I don’t think there was a casket.) Like you said, it leaves things at a nice place if this is the final film, but if Nolan makes another one, then it’s a great place to kick things off by bringing him back.

   All in all, there’s just no way I think Harvey is dead. And I very much want to see Two-Face/Harvey/Eckhart (who gave a spectacular performance) in the third film!

2. Michael

   July 24th, 2008 at 11:21 am

   2

   First, Steph, what happened to 3? I was sure we were still using that one in our counting… Just pulling your leg, all good points, except for point 3, which was horrible.

   You know, it’s funny, but I didn’t even think of the service at the end as a funeral. To me Dent was in no way dead… Wait, let me rephrase that, Dent is dead, Two Face is not. I’ve always thought of Two Face in that way, that there is no Dent, he’s gone, there is only Two Face. In this respect a funeral for Dent makes sense as everyone in Gotham should be aware that Dent died trying to make Gotham a better place, the great white knight of hope died persecuting the mob.

   I guess the point was lost on me since I never even considered him being
   “dead” after his fall and the conversation between Bats and Gordon didn’t make me feel like Two Face was dead, just that they needed to make the public believe Dent was not responsible for the things that had happened.

3. Stephanie

   July 24th, 2008 at 11:43 am

   3

   ROFL. Hahah, where the hell IS point three? Damn. I swear to God I had a third point. xD

   Ohhh, that’s a sneaky but good way to put it! Dent is dead, Two-Face is alive. Nice! So true!

   To me, Dent is dead in the sense that Gotham’s White Knight is indeed gone. But Dent’s good nature, his humanity, is still deep within him. Two-Face is, after all, composed of two different personalities—it’s just that the bad side comes out more now, and that his good side has been scarred by tragedy forever. So yeah, he’s not the same—that Dent that Gotham knew is dead.

4. Mike

   July 24th, 2008 at 10:15 pm

   4

   Rumor has it that Phillip Seamore Thomas will play “The Penguin” in the third Batman. Has anybody noticed that Joker doesn’t die? Could Joker come back? Interesting question.

5. Stephanie

   July 24th, 2008 at 10:22 pm

   5

   Not sure where you heard that rumor, but it’s way too early to know something like that. The third film’s not confirmed, one of the writers (I think it’s Goyer) is keeping a tight lid on who he thinks the villain should be, and Nolan has already said he’d never do the Penguin—he’s too “far-fetched” (indeed).

   As for the Joker, even if they were thinking about putting him as a crucial role in the third movie, I doubt they’ll do it. I mean, what actor is going to want to be in that position? Not only would it be extremely hard to top Heath Ledger if he were still alive—but I don’t think anyone’s going to want to touch that role with a twenty foot pole now that he’s dead.

   Do you guys think they’ll recast?

6. JC

   July 24th, 2008 at 10:34 pm

   6

   I don’t think they’ll recast. I think they will just reference Joker, nothing more.

   As far as the Penguin “rumor”, Mike, it’s Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and that isn’t a rumor as much as it was fanboys playing dream cast member on forums since TDK was announced.

   I honestly don’t think they’ll even do Riddler.

   No, what I see Nolan doing is actually bringing in Bane. Why? Well, it was a pivotal story for Batman, which is what Nolan likes to draw from; and it would be par for the course to keep introducing elements that try to destroy Batman. Why not actually destroy him in the Third film? See if and how our new Batman bounces back.

7. Stephanie

   July 24th, 2008 at 10:53 pm

   7

   That’s what I think, JC.

   I don’t think they’ll do a Riddler, either—and frankly, I hope they don’t. I want a new, fresh villain, not one that’s been done over and over again. Batman’s Rogues’ Gallery is huge—why pick the same villains every time? Sure, they’re great—but others are great and deserve a chance, too. And the third film is a perfect opportunity to prove that. Frankly, if they don’t, I’ll be disappointed in the writers. But I trust them, and I trust Nolan, so I’m counting on them realizing this, too.

   Hell yeah! I LOVE Bane. He’s the guy who broke the friggin’ bat! And he deserves redemption for horrible incarnations in the past. So I would love to see Nolan and the others give him respect and do him right. Bane is just sooo freaky—Knightfall is one of my favorite stories.

   The only problem that’s been presented with Bane is whether or not he fits in Nolan’s “world.” We’re going for realism—but hello? Bane’s human—he’s just, heh, pumped up on steroids. x) But if anyone can make him believable, it’s Nolan. God, look what he did with Scarecrow! Awesome! That man has a brilliant visionary mind.

   Personally, I’d also like to see Hush. Heh. But since there was so many characters involved in Batman: Hush, I doubt it would be good movie material. What can I say, though? I’m a big Hush fan, too, hee hee.

   How about Deadshot? He was uber cool in Gotham Knight! I’d really like to see them explore that in the third movie.

8. redhollywood

   July 25th, 2008 at 1:24 am

   8

   Gary Oldman dropped the hint about the riddler if they do a third movie but I’m not sure if that was just to throw off the scent.

9. clayton520

   July 25th, 2008 at 5:39 am

   9

   Did Jim Carry all but ruin the riddler for anyone else? Maybe if he was brought in under the context of helping the police in the search for the batman, which he does/did help the police for a stint in the comics if my memory serves me correct.

10. Stephanie

    July 25th, 2008 at 9:59 am

    10

    Red: I read that, too, actually—but I think it was to just to throw off the scent, yeah. Or maybe that’s who Oldman would like to see, hehe.

    Clayton: Hahaha, yes, but I’m sure Nolan could revive the character. It’s just that I’d rather this great filmmaker end his Bat-films on a refreshing note: hence someone completely new (well, new to the Batman franchise, anyway).

    Yeah, that’s currently the status of the Riddler in the comics—although he really does it out of personal gain, not because he actually wants to help people. I think Detective #845 (so not this latest one but the one before) featured the Riddler, and that’s what he was doing. Detective work.

11. michael

    July 25th, 2008 at 10:13 am

    11

    You all make great points. Batman’s rogues gallary is huge, so much to draw from and going for realism does eliminate a lot of villains(Killer Croc anyone?) Which is probably why I like the Riddler for this, yes, Jim Carrey slaughtered that part for me for a long time, but I think done right, the Riddler’s particular brand of psychosis, of having to have every detail planned and “riddled” out is very complimentary to Bat’s “detective” persona, something we really haven’t seen so much of in the movies so far. Batman is supposed to be a brilliant intellect, we need a villain that showcases that.

    I wouldn’t mind seeing Bane, provided it was a better interpretation than the previous travesty. However, I think just showcasing the “Venom” storyline would be even better. I’m not sure how many people remember Batman all strung out on the same drug Bane pumps into his veins. I remember it being an excellent storyline.

    As for Hoffman as the penguin(and that was Mike not Michael who made that point)…uh…. I don’t think I would like it.

    What about Catwoman? There is some realism there, and let’s not forget Bat’s love interest was all blowed up in TDK.

    As for recasting the Joker… Let me put it this way, if they do it will be the most collosally stupid mistake anyone has ever made regarding a comic movie in the history of the world. Ledger nailed the Joker, anyone else will RUIN that character.

12. Stephanie

    July 25th, 2008 at 10:41 am

    12

    Very good point, Mike. And yeah, I really like the Riddler—and he deserves justice. But I still want someone new.

    Hmmm, I don’t think I’ve read that storyline, although it sounds familiar for some reason. I’ll have to look into it. I love Bane, heheh. And yes, it would be interesting to see Bats like that.

    Haha, I figured that out because you didn’t link to you website. Hehe. Mike duplicate, ahh! ;D

    Yeahhh … I love Catwoman, but I just have no interest in seeing her or Selina Kyle in the next Bat-film. Lol. I’m sure Nolan can write her MUCH better than Halle Berry/Catwoman movie, but eh.

    And totally agreed about the Joker.

13. redhollywood

    July 25th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

    13

    I want to see murmur.

14. Stephanie

    July 25th, 2008 at 5:14 pm

    14

    Creepy!

15. Stevie

    July 25th, 2008 at 8:15 pm

    15

    Bane’s too much of a gimp — whoever it is needs to be big on dialogue.

16. Stephanie

    July 25th, 2008 at 8:25 pm

    16

    Hey, I like Bane! In Knightfall, particularly. The way he was able to see that Bruce Wayne was Batman, and that Azrael wasn’t (when he was wearing the Batsuit, filling in for Bruce—pre-broken spine) … he studied him. Knew how Batman thought, how he moved. It’s just creepy.

    But I admit, Bane does have his flaws. But the fangirl in me just wants to see them do something with Bane. It probably won’t happen, but I can dream.

    I can see Deadshot. I mean, that would make sense. I think a cool next move would to bring in a villain of assassin nature: and Deadshot’s not the only one in the Rogues’ Gallery. Anyway, the mob still wants the Batman problem dealt with: the Joker failed in his schemes when they were depending on him to get rid of Bats—so I’d like to see the whole “kill Batman” thing taken to the next level. Whether with Bane, or Deadshot—whoever.

17.   New Comics for 07/30/08 + Tuesday Wrap-Up by ComicNerd: Comic Book Reviews

    July 30th, 2008 at 7:00 am

    17

    [...] ComicNerd Rambling: Harvey Dent is Not Dead [...]

18. ZJS

    August 2nd, 2008 at 7:07 pm

    18

    I agree. There are clues to Harvey being alive. 1. they never actually say he is dead 2. batman fell from the same height and lives 3. sal maroni get thrown off a ledge by batman that is similiar to harvey’s fall 4. harvey’s coin lands heads up when he falls 5. in the movie they say 50 people are unaccounted for in the hospital blowing up. HARVEY being one of them 6. the mayor is talking to gordan about harvey being missing and asks how long he can cover up harvey missing 7. why would they build up a great batman villain just to kill em. I saw the movie twice and thats what I think.

19. redhollywood

    August 3rd, 2008 at 10:19 am

    19

    If there is a third movie I think we will see Harvey!!

20. Stephanie

    August 3rd, 2008 at 11:36 am

    20

    I think he’s alive, too, ZJS, but there are some flaws in your argument.

    2. Batman’s suit protects him, whereas Harvey had no “armor” on.

    4. Harvey’s coin landing heads up is symbolic. That’s how they want him to be remembered—as Gotham’s White Knight. Despite his tragedy, Harvey was still a good person deep down, even after his fall. He’s not evil—not like the Joker, anyway.

    5 & 6. Because Harvey—he’s Gotham’s DA, after all, so people are going to start to notice and they GPD and the Mayor can’t hide it forever—escaped from the hospital and was missing. That’s all they were referring to there. That’s before Harvey falls at the end.

    Red: I REALLY hope so.

21. Wanted dead, alive, or “half” « What Is Techno Again?

    August 13th, 2008 at 1:52 am

    21

    [...] a clear and concise article on this and how it can go either way. (We’ve talked about this on ComicNerd.com, too.) Read it, and then I’d love to hear what you guys think. Dead? Alive? Or only [...]

22. Havenfall

    August 15th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    22

    I will be disappionted if Harvey Dent is dead. His character plot was so well thought out, and ended perfectly. If they bring him back, it will just destroy the believability in Nolan’s storytelling.

23. Havenfall

    August 15th, 2008 at 12:58 pm

    23

    Isn’t dead* I meant

24. M.

    August 17th, 2008 at 1:34 am

    24

    Of course Hollywood will do anything if they think they’ll make a buck, but

    Harvey Dent is dead.
    He died after smashing into the ground.
    Batman and Gordon’s reaction ‘prove’ it:
    If you knock someone you care about off a building and they survive, then you give them medical attention. You do not just stand there for five minutes talking about them.

    Regardless, when the writers decided to have Harvey die, it became absolutely essential, if his tragedy was to have any value at all, to let the audience see if Harvey would have been willing to murder little Jack Gordon. If that coin had come up with the scarred-side, would Harvey have pulled the trigger? That is the only important thing for us to know about Harvey Two-Face, and they cheated us out of it. That’s just terrible writing

25. Stephanie

    August 17th, 2008 at 1:35 pm

    25

    Okay, you have a really good point about Harvey. That’s crossed my mind, but at the same time I’m like, “Well, then why is the ending still so darn ambiguous?”

    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. :/

26. M.

    August 19th, 2008 at 4:36 pm

    26

    Jack Gordon matters because the audience was never really shown what kind of person Harvey Two-Face was.

    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.

27. Dave

    August 19th, 2008 at 4:43 pm

    27

    I don’t have much to say that hasn’t been said already. I am just glad that I am not the only one out there that isn’t CONVINCED Dent/Two-Face is alive. I have been in soo many arguments the past month haha.

    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.

28. Stephanie

    August 19th, 2008 at 7:04 pm

    28

    M.: We spent the whole movie getting to know Harvey Dent, M. And in the scene where Harvey’s interrogating the Joker’s thug, we get a scary preview of Two-Face. Throughout the whole movie we can see Harvey slowly being forced into desperation—and when he becomes Two-Face it’s just full-throttle, but not unexpected.

    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.

29. M.

    August 19th, 2008 at 8:24 pm

    29

    Stephanie,
    Your take on TDK’S Two-Face may be correct. That may be exactly what the movie intended. But they needed to be more explicit. They could have let the coin come down and Two-Face say “Sorry, Gordon” and then have Batman (who he assumed was immobilized) tackle him.

    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.

30. Stephanie

    August 19th, 2008 at 8:44 pm

    30

    Hmm, but is it all that important to we see that happen?

    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.

31. M.

    August 20th, 2008 at 12:43 am

    31

    Okay, so Harvey has lost his faith in justice. But that faith has turned to understanding. Two-Face understands why criminals are more afraid of Joker than of Batman. And Two-Face is willing to be what Batman can’t in order to defeat someone like the Joker. He’s willing to burn the forest to the ground.

    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.

32. Stephanie

    August 20th, 2008 at 11:16 am

    32

    Nolan did do that with TDK though. He respected the source, but he made it work in the movie. The Joker isn’t “perma-white,” Two-Face doesn’t refer to himself as “we,” etc. You’re right: some things work in the comics but don’t necessarily translate well into the medium of film—but Nolan knows that and he does a great job.

    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.

33. M.

    August 20th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    33

    “There was no way he could have stopped Two-Face from killing Gordon’s son.”

    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.

34. Stephanie

    August 20th, 2008 at 3:58 pm

    34

    Sigh.

    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?