ROTTEN TOMATOES: No Two-Face Against "The Dark Knight"?

No Two-Face Against "The Dark Knight"?

by Scott Weinberg | April 10, 2007

A while back we heard that the Harvey Dent character would be appearing in "The Dark Knight" (he'll be played by Aaron Eckhart) but that his villainous alter ego (Two-Face) would be saved for the NEXT sequel. Looks like we might have some confirmation on that...

Well, nothing concrete, but "Batman Begins" screenwriter David Goyer recently dropped a few hints like "Two-Face? Hmm, don't think so...," which of course leads to all sorts of fan-frantic speculation. Regarding the possibility of there being two villains in the sequel, Mr. Goyer makes a good point: "Some people raised their eyebrows when they heard there were going to be two villains in the first film ... but I think that one worked out just fine." (I'd call that an understatement ... and there were definitely more than two villains in "Batman Begins.")

Furthermore, it looks like Goyer (who's got his own movie, "The Invisible," coming real soon) will be receiving only a "story by" credit when "The Dark Knight" takes to the screen again. Official screenwriting duties now belong to the director Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan -- who recently collaborated on "The Prestige," and rather well if you ask me.

Source: Sci-Fi.com

Related Items

Movie:	Batman Begins
	The Prestige
	The Invisible
Celeb:	Aaron Eckhart
	David S. Goyer
	Christopher Nolan
	Jonathan Nolan

(1-20 of 29 posts) | Reply

mojodaddy writes:
on Apr 10 2007 05:40 AM

This doesn't worry me at all. The Joker and Two-Face are both very BIG villains, and there's plenty to do with both of them. Mashing them into one movie might have been overkill. It's better that they'll have their own movie. Man I can't wait.

(Reply to this)

selke99 writes:
on Apr 10 2007 06:07 AM

Hopefully they'll end the Dark Knight with a hint of what the third one will be about (maybe Harvey Dent's accident to become Two-Face). I have to say the way Batman Begins ended, hinting at the Joker, was an awesome ending. But it only works if you know you have a good movie that will earn a sequel.

(Reply to this)

mreed3562 writes:
on Apr 10 2007 06:10 AM

In reply to this comment (#860819)
Couldn't agree more. I bet, like in Long Halloween, Batman, Dent, and Gordon will establish a strong 'working' relationship in this film as they try to clean up the Narrows and haul in the Joker. Build characters and relationships, sounds great to me.

(Reply to this)

mreed3562 writes:
on Apr 10 2007 06:10 AM

In reply to this comment (#860820)
Harvey Dent

(Reply to this)

blank blank writes:
on Apr 10 2007 06:55 AM

definately more than two villains in batman begins? did i miss something? i counted scarecrow and ras al ghul. i dont really count falconi as a "villain", and sure, they mentioned the joker, but he wasnt really in it.

(Reply to this)

arpeggio191 writes:
on Apr 10 2007 07:40 AM

yeah... Begins worked well with more than one villain, but only because the two villains were relatively small characters in the Batman world. I completely agree than having both Joker and Two Face in the same movie would be too much. You can really only fight one arch-nemesis at a time i think.

And yes, ending it with a hint of Two-face would rule. You all know just as well as I that you got goose bumps at the end of Begins when he flips over the Joker card - that was so friggin awesome. Chris Nolan is a genius.

(Reply to this)

Fuzzylogik writes:
on Apr 10 2007 08:15 AM

In reply to this comment (#860824)
[b]Ra's al Ghul a Small Character?!?!?![/b]
You must be kidding! Ra's is up there with the Joker. Ra's is the one of the few quasi-villains that has ever intellectually challenged Bats. For the love of God, he whipped the JLA using Batman's own notes. And oh, yeah. Batman loves his daughter. Oops.

Just because Joel Schumaker didn't get a chance to (*bleep*) Ra's al Ghul's character doesn't mean he isn't a badass. For those who aren't up with Ra's history with the Detective, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra's_al_Ghul

Yeah, yeah, yeah. A product of a misspent youth. . .

(Reply to this)

selke99 writes:
on Apr 10 2007 10:03 AM

In reply to this comment (#860823)
I think they counted falconi and then ra's al goul as 2 people (liam neeson and ken watanabe) since Bruce did end up fighting both of them. And yes, I also got goosebumps when he turns that joker card over. Just great dialogue and story the whole way through!

(Reply to this)

rgallitan writes:
on Apr 10 2007 10:13 AM

In reply to this comment (#860824)
Well, to be technical about it, the Joker card scene comes almost directly from the end of the Batman: Year One comic. Which means that it was probably Goyer's addition to the movie. ...Not to disparage Nolan. But credit where credit's due.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Apr 10 2007 10:41 AM

In reply to this comment (#860826)
I don't think Ra's al Ghul should be counted as two characters. I get where you're coming from on Watanabe, but the thing with him being a decoy I would think was Nolan's 'realistic' way of addressing the question of Ghul's immortality. It was kinda cool in an isolated sense of the word, but ultimately it ranks as one of the things I didn't like about Begins because I think it diminishes Ghul's character the same way Lucian Fox diminishes Bruce Wayne. But at least Nolan doesn't discriminate. He managed to diminish the Joker too with the Chill character. I"m nitpicking, I know. I believe in Nolan's vision, but it's not without its flaws. I'll stomach the clumsy liberties Nolan takes with the franchise as long as he keeps nipples off the costumes and Joel Schumacher far far away from the production team.

(Reply to this)

arpeggio191 writes:
on Apr 10 2007 11:22 AM

In reply to this comment (#860825)
perhaps... but if you read the context of my post as well as considered that the majority of the movie going public has never even heard of Ra's, you could then consider him to be a minor villain. And you'd have to then admit that he could never be held in the same villainous category as Joker, Two-Face, Penguin, Catwoman, etc... Especially since he is, as you say, a quasi-villain. I agree that Ra's is an intellectual challenge for Batman, but again, most people have zero clue who he is. And Ra's is never classically up there with the Joker. The Joker is his ultimate rival where as Ra's is some guy over there in the corner who's pretty sweet and a pretty good enemy. But in the end, everyone will come back to the Joker

I agree with you that it's great that Schumaker didn't touch him, cause Schumaker sucks balls and should be dragged into the street and shot for even thinking of making a batman movie. Either way though, Joel did do Two-Face, which we're all trying to forget. And you know full well that Nolan's Two-Face will be exponentially better than Joel's.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Apr 10 2007 12:29 PM

In reply to this comment (#860829)
Nolan could do a better Two-Face doing a handstand over a fiery pit with ants in his pants and snot in his nose. And you make a good point about The Joker. However, all due respect to the movie going public, the comic is the source material and that's the high the movies have to shoot for. I'd like to see them expand some on the Ra's story arch by bringing in Talia. In fact, anyone familiar with the name "matanuki" knows I've been ranting about that one for a while. No matter how cool what Nolan is doing with The Dark Knight winds up being, he'd be foolish to pass up the opportunity to bring her into the story. She's the perfect femme fatale for this series, and a better potential love interest than Dawes.

(Reply to this)

arpeggio191 writes:
on Apr 10 2007 01:22 PM

In reply to this comment (#860830)
well said. Like i understand that keeping things consistant is better, and she was pretty much useless in begins, but i'm praying that was a function of holmes sucking ass. Let's hope Gylenhaal does better, and to quote you (because it was actually pretty funny) she could do a better job "doing a handstand over a fiery pit with ants in his pants and snot in [her] nose."

(Reply to this)

blank blank writes:
on Apr 10 2007 02:41 PM

matanuki, how exactly did nolan diminish the joker with the chill character? I didnt quite understand that one...

as for talia, she's cool and all, but it would be pretty cheesy to have the "daughter of my enemy" strand introduced in The Dark Knight. It's a great dynamic in the comics, but i think it smacks too much of "son of indiana jones" type stuff. (had they had talia in Begins that would have been a different matter, i just feel that Ra's ship has sailed and nolan wants to move to new characters)

batman already has the femme fatale character in the form of catwoman. i wouldnt mind seeing nolan's take on catwoman, since his vision would be to stray as far away from michelle pfiffer's version as he can... i think it would be kinda cool, but if he wanted to do catwoman he probably would have included her in a small way in TDK and then gone big with it in the third one...

speaking of the third one, it seems that THAT will be the picture where we get both joker and Two Face, since there have been rumors everywhere that joker will not die in TDK. does anybody know if heath is signed on for one movie or two?

(Reply to this)

mojodaddy writes:
on Apr 10 2007 03:13 PM

In reply to this comment (#860832)
I think he was saying he diminished the Joker because in some versions the Joker killed Bruce's parents before he became the Joker. Personally I like it better when it was Batman who created the Joker by dumping him in the chemicals, but to each his own. And plus I might be wrong. Correct me if that's not what you meant Matanuki.

(Reply to this)

prismgap writes:
on Apr 10 2007 03:40 PM

In reply to this comment (#860828)
I don't really understand where you are coming from at all. First off, if you are saying the Chill character diminished the Joker because he killed Bruce Waynes parents, I'm guessing you are not aware of the real origin story. The Joker did not kill Batmans parents and it was one of the most irritating things about the 89 Batman. It was purely placed in the film for more dramatic effect. Nolan is so much closer to the source material that all other previous versions simply don't compare. Don't get me wrong, I loved Burtons Batman but it was just that, "Burtons Batman." Some things he nailed and some he did not. I kind of understand your point about Ras al Ghul but how does Fox diminish Bruce Waynes character? If anything, I loved the dynamic between the 2 characters. It made Waynes character way more likeable because of his trusting in Lucious. Christian Bales portrayal of Bruce Wayne is simply top notch. As far as the Joker. He's my favorite villian and Jack Nicholson has always been my favorite actor. However, my love for the Joker character lets me see beyond what Nicholson did. I wanted a scarier, thinner(sorry Jack) more terrifying Joker. It looks like that's what we are finally going to get. I haven't been this excited for a sequel since..........Dare I say it? "Return of the Jedi."

(Reply to this)

renodc writes:
on Apr 10 2007 04:20 PM

[b]Good News[/b]
If Two Face really is going to be held till the third film, then this is good news. Both Two Face and Joker have way too much depth to be fleshed out in their characters. In order to do them justice, they just couldn't possibly share screen time.

Maybe if they are looking for a secondary villian for Dark Knight perhaps they should just use the reall life Joel Schumacher. That hack did more damage to Batman than the Joker or Two Face combined could ever hope to.

(Reply to this)

Simsgil writes:
on Apr 10 2007 05:37 PM

I found the Prestige to be rather lame.

(Reply to this)

Darth_Ninch writes:
on Apr 10 2007 08:09 PM

We've...well, I've known for a while that Two-Face will be the villain of the 3rd movie, as him and Joker are both great villains and too much to waste in one film, but I don't know where the talk of Two-Face fighting Batman in TDK came from.

(Reply to this)

Paul_Is_Drunk writes:
on Apr 10 2007 11:02 PM

I like when people complain something isn't being true to source material, then complain about another change that was actually a change from the original source material. I.E. The whole 'Chill diminishing the Joker' comment.

It was just as entertaining when people were comparing the X-men the the cartoon that used to be on Fox. 'Course I'm not one of those people who believes that the comic book material is sacred as long as the as the basic (literary) ideas are held onto.

Oh, and building up Harvey Dent then using him as Two-Face in the third film would be brilliant. Yay! I'm so excited about these movies!

(Reply to this)