DarklyDreaming
Active Member
No, from Harvey Dent's origin...in the comics, where he came from. and as for the Rises info.....just wait and see, btw, do you read the Batman comics?
Dark Knight Rises
- Thread starter Scareb
- Start date
DarklyDreaming
Active Member
And there is no hope for Batman, he knows his war is a neverending one. It is a battle he knows he can never win, but one he is compelled to face. And who said I am not excited about TDKR?
We were talking about TDK two-face. The ONE origin story that you chose was not at issue and has no bearing on what was being said. You brought that up out of nowhere.
None of what you have said sounds anything like excitement so forgive us for misreading your lists of criticisms as you being uninterested.
btw, you can edit your posts to include more information. You don't have to keep double posting.
DarklyDreaming
Active Member
But herein lise the problem, is TDK Two face, in essence the same Two Face from the comics, or are we to judge this character on his own apart from the mythology of the comics? If this is the case, why call him Two Face/ Harvey Dent? Why not create a new character to serve the same purpose?
I have a feeling that the Lazarus pit will play a large part in this film. It's something that appears a lot in the trailer but no one has really brought it up. Given Nolan's approach to the Batman mythos, it won't be a literal regenerative pit filled with molten liquid. It will be the pit we see several times in the trailer. Bane will break Batman's back/ injure him to the point where Bruce has to retire the cowl until he can get his strength back. He returns to where he met Ra's Al Ghul and begins physical training, and the regenerative element will be psychological, helping Wayne to rebuild his confidence to be able to return to Gotham to stop Bane, even if it means giving his life to do so. The line that really makes me think that he'll have that determination is when Selina Kyle says that he's given this city everything, and he replies, no not everything. Just my theories on what I've seen in the trailers. I have faith that Nolan will deliver.
If your point is that he is a different character because he has a different origin story than the comics then you are further proving you have only read SOME of the comics. Two-Face, like most of any comic characters, has had several origin stories. That is why film reboots work. They're just like different arcs.
So, NO, the Harvey Dent in TDK is obviously not the specific comic version you are talking about.
BTW: Fun fact. The disorder you are referring to is dissociative personality disorder. The story you are talking about suggests that he developed multiple personalities as an escape from abuse. This typically only happens in VERY extreme cases of abuse.
Last edited:
DarklyDreaming
Active Member
Yes He has had several origins in the comics.....but they all share the same Themes, and all share the duality of nature. In TDK he even mentions that his lucky coin belonged to his father, and if nothing else he is proving al la the killing Joke is that all it takes is one bad day to send someone over the edge, in Harvey's case is simply caused the crack in the personalitiealready within harvey to become a canyon, dividing him into his two personalities, one good, one evil...but made fair by the toss of the coin. If anything you are trying to complicate something that can really be boiled down to simple terms.....good vs evil.
Actually, in TDK, Two-Faces duality does not come from dissociative personality disorder. Rather, it is from his conflicting ideals of justice.
Really, you are boiling something down so far that you miss entire themes that really make the characters more dimensional.
I give up man. You have worn me out. You are clearly only picking out tiny bits of what I am saying and responding to those, instead of actually discussing the many points I have taken the time to bring up.
I have work at 7am tomorrow until 5 so I am done for the night. Have fun!
DarklyDreaming
Active Member
The novelization to The Dark Knight gave the names of his parents as Harry and Lucy Dent. The novelization explains that Harry, a respected police officer, was an alcoholic who abused his wife and son, and used his connections with the Gotham City Police Department to avoid prosecution for domestic violence. Harry gave his son a misprinted silver dollar coin, with two face, or head, sides, which Harvey considers his good luck charm; after he is disfigured (and one side of the coin is burned), he uses it to decide whether his victims will live or die.
DarklyDreaming
Active Member
Warner Brothers authorized the novelization from the script and as they Own Batman and the franchise, i'd say they have the final say....
Glorified fan fiction.
CB2001
Master Member
By that logic, you're saying the script and the film is glorified fan fiction.
Not at all. The logic being: Novelization of a film not written by either of the film's writers is glorified fan fiction.
The film itself is an adaptation. An interpretation. You could call the novelization an interpretation but that further sets it apart. As an interpretation it cannot be implied that anything in the book holds relevance in the film.
Nice try though.
CB2001
Master Member
But both the novelization and the film are based off the same source: the screenplay written by the Nolans. And since you called the novelization "glorified fan fiction", that same logic you applied there states the film is a glorified fan fiction, even if both are adaptations.
Last edited:
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
To me, novels and comics are all just scripts and story boards leading up to the real deal, the MOVIES!
No, the film IS the script written by the Nolans. The novel is some schlock written by some other guy. Difference? Nolans completely involved in the film/script. Nolans in no way/shape/form involved in the novel. See how that is different? If I came up and wrote my own version of The Dark Knight and got it licensed by WB would you consider THAT the same as the film as well? No, because the Nolan's had no control over what I added.
At the very least you have to acknowledge that the novel is not Nolan's work.
rodneyfaile: The novel was written after the film and in no way influenced the film. That is my main point. It had no bearing on what was seen on screen. Anyone can come in afterwards and add whatever they want. It doesn't make it a part of the film.
