Talk:Two-Face/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Film section Citations

1989

Can anyone source the material in this paragraph about the contract and buyout?

In the 1989 - 1997 Batman film franchise, Billy Dee Williams appeared as a pre-disfigurement Dent in Batman (1989). Williams signed for this role knowing that Dent was to become Two-Face in further installments of the franchise. To ensure that he would be given the role, Williams negotiated a "pay or play" contract guaranteeing that Warner Brothers would have to cast him as Two-Face or buy him out. However, when Two-Face was to become the main villain in the third movie, director Tim Burton had abdicated to Joel Schumacher, who decided to hire Tommy Lee Jones, and agreed to pay Williams for his cooperation allowing them to use the character.

This was tagged since June 2007. I have removed it to back here pending solid citation. IT doesn't sound implausible for Williams to have tried to protect his career, nor for Schumacher to buy him out to get his view of the characters in place. Sadly, I think the 'other' casting that Burton had discussed would've been better, with Malkovich the Riddler and Williams 2F. If anyone finds citation, jsut readd this para with the cite. It's well-written, (I removed the speculative 'Apparently' that had been in there, but otherwise, it flows nicely and is absolutely clear about the facts), and we could use that bit of development hell info in there. ThuranX (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

1995

This "Harvey Two-Face" is a campier character, with no trace of the inner emotional struggle between his good and evil personalities that the post-Miller comics had emphasized. The movie instead has him cod-philosophizing on the unfairness of fate,

This all came off as one writer's opinion; others might find that all comics are naturally campy, and thus this was a perfect version of the character. Let's look for some reviews, Schumacher or TL Jones quotes, or other sources for this, or leave it out. ThuranX (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

DCAU

BTAS

The Two-Face of the DC Animated Universe was praised by many fans. Some were upset that his scarring took place in a chemical plant instead of being scarred by a crime boss in court, but according to Timm, this was changed to fit the storyline. Timm has stated that he wanted Two-Face/Harvey Dent to have a Sicilian accent; Al Pacino was actually offered to voice the character at one point, but declined.

• It's been a year, this is all 'fans say' and uncited. I've pulled the entire paragraph. The two following sections are strong enough on their own. If someone wants to readd the Timm on origin and Sicilian/Pacino, let's add it to the B:TAS section, since that's where Timm did his creative work for this version, and let's get it cited. ThuranX (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• One para opens with "Prior to his disfigurement". Does this indicate that there were two episodes produced and broadcast BEFORE the Acid Splash episode, or that we saw Dent in flashbacks to the pre-acid years in two episodes produced after the first episode with Two-Face in it? ThuranX (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

TNBA

"A similar storyline appears in the comic books - however, in the books, Dent's third persona is called Janus, a reference to the Roman god of doors who had two faces, one facing forward, the other backward." Can we get some citation on a journalist drawign the comparison, or Timm discussing it? I see it as a sensible conclusion, but we should avoid SYNTH. ThuranX (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Another 'continuity' question occurs during the 'the final appearance' in the Justice League paragraph. IS this the final appearance ofthe cahracter in a show prudoced as part of the extended BTAS/TNBA 'universe', or is simply an old and withered Dent, rpesumed to be the 'last time we'll see that guy, cause this is just an epilogue' in-universe style comment? ThuranX (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Dent pic

[1] This is supposedly a picture of Harvey Dent post scarring from Dark Knight. I was wondering if anyone has any insight as to whether this is real or fake, and if real, if it should be mentioned in the article. 65.79.157.115 (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

At this point I believe Time/Warner is trying to keep a lid on the scarred face, there's at least on case of a leaked image being removed from a site at their request.

So, regardless of the authenticity of the flicker image, it would be best 1) not to use it in the article and 2) not to direct people to it. - J Greb (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So, other than the 'if WB says remove it, then it can only be removed if WB has copyright, thus it's real' conjecture by armchair lawyers, do we have any official confirmation that this is in fact concept or final version art? ThuranX (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Or can we wait until the movie is relaesed? - J Greb (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly prefer to wait. ThuranX (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • Here are pics of him actually taken from the movie http://s16.photobucket.com/albums/b45/joma1124/Dark%20Knight%20movie%20camera%20picutres/

66.175.177.248 (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed as violations of photobucket's TOS. ThuranX (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well i think we need a picture of what Two Face looks like in the movie THE DARK KNIGHT, to which i have a photo of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swg1000 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And that can wait until after there's an official release of said image by WB. And to be frank, it can also wait until after the general release of the film at "home". - J Greb (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No kidding. Why do so many drive by editors think they're Woodward & Bernstein? ThuranX (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

On a note about the other pictures, I tried to expand the film/TV sections enough that the pictures now seem less cluttered. That said, if one has to go (as User:ThuranX suggested, in the edit removing Billy Dee Williams), surely "The Judge" should be the least notable..? I think it very notable that the first live portrayal of Two-Face on film was as Dent alone, and that it was Billy Dee Williams. Plus, it might be better to have a smaller picture of 1940s/50s Harvey rather than the full page, and if someone wants to add the "I Believe in Harvey Dent" poster image for TDK, that might also be of benefit now that the TDK-Harvey summary is longer, since the film dealt with him in such great detail. (Also, a fuller summary of Two-Face in Forever might be beneficial). ntnon (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather see both gone, neither is particularly notable, and both lack a level of critical commentary sufficient to support their inclusion. The TDK material is continually being pared back to the characterization, which is what should be in this article. Expansions about plot and rumors aren't notable. The campaign image would be gratuitous as well. As for expanding 'Forever', only if we can get some decent ictations about the characterization. ThuranX (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Dent being black is VERY notable, even if the character is a minor one. I'm sure there's critical commentary focusing on that somewhere, it's just a matter of finding it. Meantime, I feel, the image should stay to illustrate that - unmentioned thus far in the text (aside from the presumed assumption that readers will know why BDW is) - point.

The White Knight/Dark Knight dichotomy is an utterly invaluable point about characterization, as is the incredibly notable fact that HARVEY (and not Two-Face) played such a vital, integral role in both the film and advertizing. I realize that - perhaps - the summary of Harvey&Two-Face-in-The-Dark-Knight should have been briefer, and I was intending to pare it down somewhat, but not to the point of making it difficult to follow or comprehend. As it stands, the summary here implies that he becomes Two-Face very quickly (more space devoted here to Two-Face than Dent); ignores his self-sacrificing Spartacus move; states that he only took "part" of the IA nickname, which was itself "Two-Face"; suggests that he might kill all of Gordon's family (and not just James Jr.), etc. There must be a middle-ground between the two extremes which better covers all facets of his on-screen character arc(s), and isn't disingenuous...! As it stands, the summary makes Dent out to be a minor character - he was not. In addition, the image is unrepresentative of the film, whereas the campaign poster better reflects how the character appears throughout the majority of the film.

Incidentally, do you - or anyone - have a reasonable objection to my re-moving the comics pictures, so the Bianchi picture compliments the section it derives from, while the current (and probably replaceable) early depiction corresponds to Kent's earliest appearances...? ntnon (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Why the change?

I changed the section about his animated series appearances so it'd be more informative...why was it changed back to before? It's all jumbled up and what not, not very much like an encylopedia at all. Son of Kong

I got the same kind of question as you so I'm just going to add to it. I uploaded a (much) better screenshot of Two-Face from TDK, only to see it revised back to the (unseeable) shot from the trailer. It's can't be a copyright thing because to have the shot from the trailer is the same deal. We're trying to help you!-CurlyHayami (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Son of Kong, I can't find the edit you made, so I have no idea, but Curly, the shot you used looks like it was from a pirated version of the film. That would make the source illegal, which is a violation of fair-use and several U.S. laws. Once the DVD comes out, we can add a screenshot from the DVD, which is a legal source, but until then, we have to stick to shots from a trailer or promotional pictures. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not my diagnosis!

Nah, j/k, alright I see the reason now.CurlyHayami (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Knight

There should be mention of Harvey's slow change. He did several things such as flip a coin to see if he would go into the caravan. Inaddition he tried to get information out of a criminal by means of a game of chance "Heads up, you get to keep yours" until Batman stops him.

Sounds like WP:OR to me to assume it's a slow change; the 'I make my own luck' implied confidence and self-assurance, he manipulated the conditiosn of the flips, knowing it would come out heads. There's no slow change, it's a bluff. ThuranX (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone noticed that Two-Face isn't merely subdued, he is killed, it's a bit obvious. Series premiere (remake) (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. There was a long discussion about this on the talk page of the movie. ThuranX (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It is very obvious. First of all he doesn't move when he dies. Second they have a memorial for him and say Harvey was, quite a few times. He is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.117.17 (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not obvious if people think he's alive. Movement does not constitute life nor his faux memorial service. Eckhart has expressed interest in playing him again. http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0265713/

We are discussing this on the TDK talkpage, and we decided to leave it neutral, since we have no concrete evidence that he is alive or dead. 12.37.71.133 (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

People can make a conspiracy out of anything. Thus, where would we be if everything was "neutral"? The fact that it's suggested that he dies should pretty much end this debate unless one of the cast/crew members of The Dark Knight says otherwise. Geeky Randy (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

or you could just go and read up on this at the main discussion at TDK, like we keep saying, including citation that EMma Thomas, produceer, described the scene as ambiguous. ThuranX (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the article states about his coin: "It was damaged in the explosion that disfigured Dent." Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it actually damaged in the explosion that killed Rachel Dawes?? He gave the coin to her when he entered the police van. Batman got the coin from the site of the explosion and left it on Harvey Dent's hospital table...???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.138.250 (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, true. more to the point, didn't he deface it later? ThuranX (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As if it needs reiterating... clearly Dent need not be dead; Batman fell from the same height (albeit in armor) and survived. The eulogy was for Dent's work, possibly for Dent himself (who has after all been all-but-destroyed by the emergence of Two-Face). Does anyone have the novelisation - and can they check to see whether there's any internal rationale for Bruce/Batman returning Harvey's coin to him...? It was clearly defaced in the explosion that killed Rachel, and that kind of reminder clearly didn't help his fragile mental state. It was the Joker who pushed him over the edge, however, and set him on his path of revenge against the police, Gordon and Batman. Notice that he's far enough gone to put his own life at stake during the stand-off. An important character beat. ntnon (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing citable, but Dent talked about making his own luck, wayne gave it back to him to remind him that he made his own luck and could 'luckily' recover and continue to fight for gotham. It's the counter-point to dent's statement about dying fast or living long enough to become the villain. You won't get a cite for that, though, it's part of the narrative experience. ThuranX (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is my first time diong this so don't shoot me if i get this wrong. Just bought the Dark Knight companion with the shooting film script it says he dies. Hope this ends debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travel8tor (talk • contribs) 12:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. The producer specifically stated that it was filmed in a deliberately ambiguous style, to allow filmmakers the option of his return in a later film. Since that came after the script, it's a reliable counterbalance. ThuranX (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Eckhart's picture doesnt show two-face aspect of the character, and special effect view of the face as well. we should put an appropriate picture. --Fotte (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Has DC or WB released such an image outside of the film itself? And no, the much delete one doesn't count. - J Greb (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the coin (in The Dark Knight) was defaced in the explosion that killed Dawes - not the "identical" explosion. Because when he got into the car he threw it at her and she caught it and she said "You make your own luck" and then when he found it in the hospital he immediately thought back to that part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.181.19 (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

references to Heath Ledger

I removed the an irrelevant mention of Lefger from the article, changing:

"he later confirmed that, in talks with Nolan before Heath Ledger's death, the director currently considers Two-Face to be dead."

to

"he later confirmed that, in talks with Nolan, the director currently considers Two-Face to be dead.

While I understand this was an important and notable aspect about the movie - it's has nothing to do with Two-Face the character, as written. The rationale for removing this is that if someone were to read this 40 years from now - knowing really nothing about the movie - would the first sentence make much sense? No, it's assuming the reader knows about Heath Ledger - but why would they when reading an article about Two-Face? B/c the addition presupposes irrelevant information in order to make sense it is itself irrelevant and unneeded. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 06:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting it, because it gives context to the comments, and that the situation changed drastically after those comments. ThuranX (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Continuity Error

Why did Warner Bros. create the error of having Williams (African-American) start as Dent in the Burton series but then Tommy Lee Jones (a caucasian)? How do they explain Dent suddenly changing races? Why couldn't the keep consistent? Emperor001 (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not an 'error', it's recasting. It's hollywood, it's a business, and they made a business decision. Not much has been written about it, but I'd suggest the old 'bigger name = more box office money' theory, rather than anythign sinister. ThuranX (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

64.53.225.41 (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)We could just say he got plastic surgery. That's how I've lived with it.

recent IP edits about outfit in film

Rcently, an IP has repeatedly added that Two-Face's costume is seen in Batman & robin. He seems to think this means that the movie suggests Two Face lived at the end of Batman Forever, and that such an idea contradicts the ending. However, I have reverted this out. Such a conclusion is his own SYNTH/ OR violation. Arkham might be the best place to keep 'crazy guy' outfits, for research into what makes them crazy, for all we know. There is no valid reason nor proof to support his edits. ThuranX (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is wrong. Two-Face died at the end of Batman Forever from a massive fall, and thus would not have been taken to Arkham. Why everyone has such a problem with this, I do not know. However, as the trivial bit that the costumes appeared in the Batman and Robin (campiest movie ever), there is not need to mention that it is flawed that Two-Face's suit appeared there. --172.130.203.125 (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Comics Theory of Death 101"

"Even if we see a body taken to the morgue and an autopsy done, dead is not 'dead'."

This, in general, also applies to serial television and film. And that's in cases where shown what would normally be an unequivocal death. Two-Face's exit in Batman Forever is not an unequivicable death.

- J Greb (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, who knows. It could be a number of reasons. There is the off chance Two-Face survived. Maybe they like keeping the costumes of famous criminals to study or to put on display. It may have been just a reference to the last movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.225.41 (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dark Knight image

Maybe the image of Eckhart's Two-Face should be changed as it only shows his "clean" side?

Najhoant (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been an on going issue. To date, DC and Warner Brothers haven't released an image of the scared side outside of the theatre. Or at least none that anyone has been able to provide a solid source for.

Right now the only source for an image would be a pirated capture from the film. Which will get removed from the article and deleted as a violation of copyright.

The DVD of the film is slated for release on December 9th. At that point, it would be reasonable to believe that a cap from the officially released DVD can be made and uploaded. I the image still looks like a pirate cap (grainy, distorted, or the like) it will likely still get tossed in favor of the current image. - J Greb (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Knight page has a capture of Eckhart with the skullcap and motion markers, and a second shot of the Two-Face to demonstrate the special effects. Can't that image, or a modified version of it, be used? The Clawed One (talk)

In lieu of a cap from the DVD? It looks like it, but with 2 or 3 caveats:

1. Just the bottom 1/2 of the before/after. The article here isn't dealing with the technical aspects of the film at all. (This may be a stretch since the full image was taken from Cinefex where it was illustrating the process.)
2. The FUR should source back to the issue of Cinefex, just like Image:Two-face before and after.jpg does.
3. And the FUR should also include a pointer to Two-face before and after.jpg as the full image.

It's also likely that after the 9th, someone is going to put up a "crisper" image. - J Greb (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Mayor?

I though somebody here had listed as Harvey Dent being a mayor in an alternate origin or something. (JoeLoeb (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

Spoiler Warning

The section for Two-Face's depictions in the upcoming "The Dark Knight" should contain a spoiler warning, shouldn't it?

Nope. If it gave specifics about Dent's actions and persona before and after, Esp. Plot details, then maybe, pre-release, it could be discussed. Dent's presence is a major part of the marketing, per the websites, an it's highly likely that as coverage in the MSM increases, numerous comments about Dent being two-face will surface. ThuranX 05:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we know Two-Face/Dent will be in the movie, that's not what I'm worried about. The article gives away plot-lines, which people generally try to avoid before seeing a movie.

Anybody who doesn't want to know what will happen in the movie shouldn't read the Dark Knight section. Doczilla 18:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

NO. If people do not want to read spoilers then they accidently read a spoiler then it's HA HA to them. And by the way Dent/ Two-face is attacked by Batman and knocked over a building and falls to his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.135.105 (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW for although he follows DA Finch, it's misleading readers to believe that he's his successor. Roger Garcetti took Finch's place according to the marketing, novels, ARG and such which the cast particapted in. Dent defeated Garcetti who ran for re-election. 69.107.94.199 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains spoilers. It is supposed to because it is an encyclopedia, not a movie preview site. There are not supposed to be spoiler warnings and spoilers are not supposed to be deleted. Consider the address wikipedia.org to be your spoiler warning. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)