I've the Joker and Bane, am considering this to make a rogues display for Batman. I'd really like a Ra's.
1/6 The Dark Knight - 1/6th scale Two Face Collectible Figure (Toy Fairs 2019) Exclusive
- Thread starter DioramaMaker
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
I've the Joker and Bane, am considering this to make a rogues display for Batman. I'd really like a Ra's.
haytil
Super Freak
No, quite the contrary - I think Dent is the only one who was evil at heart. The rest of the citizens of Gotham are decent (mirroring the general populace in our world), as demonstrated by the Ferries.
The Joker just knows how to pick his targets.
Torture is torture, man. It doesn't just become wrong if someone dies. It's wrong from the start.
It doesn't matter if you want information - you don't have a right to abduct someone and torture them. You don't have the right to threaten them with a loaded gun.
(Doubly so if you're a cop, because you're trusted with extra powers specifically to enforce the rules, not break them).
We live in society of laws.
Wuertz didn't kill Rachel. Maroni didn't kill Rachel. Maroni's driver didn't kill Rachel. Batman didn't kill Rachel. Gordon's son didn't kill Rachel.
The two people most involved in killing Rachel - Ramirez and the Joker - were the two people that Dent didn't shoot.
The Joker was both objectively evil and most responsible for killing Rachel - but Dent didn't kill him, because of the result of a coin flip. If he's willing to let the Joker off based on a coin flip, I don't know how you think he wouldn't be willing to kill the boy based on the coin flip. There's literally no indication that Dent is bluffing or willing to ignore the result of the "bad" side of the coin.
ShadowX81
Super Freak
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2010
- Messages
- 4,467
- Reaction score
- 245
Not really. In the real world, if a lawyer commits a crime, that doesn't suddenly overturn every case they ever tried.
So....yes
That doesn't mean justice was done. Due process laws exist to protect the innocent more than they exist to protect the truly guilty. If a criminal gets let off due to a legal technicality or improper police proceedure, that is usually seen as a massive failure.
And what do we call it when Batman (our hero) does almost literally the same thing several times throughout the series? Hanging Flass upside down over the edge of a building, pushing a suspect off a three story building to deliberately break his legs during an interrogation.
OK? Debatable. Narrativly justifiable? Yes.
Harvey Dent is no more of a psychopath than batman (and your mileage might vary there). They are deliberately set up to be mirrors of each other but one works in the light (Harvey) and the other in the shadows (the Batman).
They are willing to bend the societies "rules" in order to protect / clean up their city but neither are willing to break their own rule; they don't by their actions kill the criminals, instead they aim to put them away.
Harvey makes his own luck, he pretends to be unhinged in the 'torture' scene to intimidate and scare his victim but he is very much in control. The coin flip is a prop for Dent, a tool that he uses. The result is predetermined because it is double sided so the outcome will always be what he wants it to be. Much like batman threatening to drop a criminal off a ledge to get them to talk. Neither is going to kill the criminal in question but for it to be effective they need to make the criminal believe that they might just do it this time.
Harvey is so convincing that even Batman thinks he has lost it and so to do we as the audience. It's only later that we learn that he was in control the whole time when he flips the double headed coin to Rachel.
In many ways Harvey appears to be a better man than The Batman. He turned himself in to protect Rachel knowing full well that he would become a target and that he would be helpless and would have to trust others to do "the right thing". Bruce dithers and very reluctantly decides to do the same thing but who knows if he would have actually gone through with it?
In walks Joker, agent of chaos. He recognises that Harvey is like the batman but he appears better, more virtuous perhaps... The white Knight.
Initially he only wanted to kill the batman but like chaos the joker's ambitions zig and zag, always changeable... Evolving. As the movie progresses so to does the jokers understanding of his opponent. He realises that defeating the batman and the people of Gotham on a psychological level is the only true way to achieve a lasting and final victory over them. To do that he eventually chooses to corrupt Dent and the people to demonstrate to the Dark Knight and his city the futility of their struggle. The batman is a symbol, not a man, to be broken.
Ultimately the joker frees Dent of his self control and releases him as an agent of chaos. Two-face is now servient to his coin and not the other way around. But the joker was wrong. Although the Dent and Batman appeared to be mirrors of each other they are not. They both suffer the same loss of Rachel but Batman survives it intact. He retains control and never resorts to killing the joker when it's what he and the joker would have wanted him to do. He steps up at the end and finally takes the fall to protect the victory that he, Dent and Gordon achieved.
... So does the joker win, perhaps? Dent became two-face and this secret taints the victory. Gordon, the once incorruptible cop has finally allowed himself to be corrupted and he now has to carry this lie with him each day. The legacy of Batman now has a stain on it, the symbol is not pure anymore. The Batman may have won the day but victory brings a lack of purpose for Bruce. Unlike the joker he cannot evolve so instead he waits in the dark, decaying until he might oneday be needed again.
They are willing to bend the societies "rules" in order to protect / clean up their city but neither are willing to break their own rule; they don't by their actions kill the criminals, instead they aim to put them away.
Harvey makes his own luck, he pretends to be unhinged in the 'torture' scene to intimidate and scare his victim but he is very much in control. The coin flip is a prop for Dent, a tool that he uses. The result is predetermined because it is double sided so the outcome will always be what he wants it to be. Much like batman threatening to drop a criminal off a ledge to get them to talk. Neither is going to kill the criminal in question but for it to be effective they need to make the criminal believe that they might just do it this time.
Harvey is so convincing that even Batman thinks he has lost it and so to do we as the audience. It's only later that we learn that he was in control the whole time when he flips the double headed coin to Rachel.
In many ways Harvey appears to be a better man than The Batman. He turned himself in to protect Rachel knowing full well that he would become a target and that he would be helpless and would have to trust others to do "the right thing". Bruce dithers and very reluctantly decides to do the same thing but who knows if he would have actually gone through with it?
In walks Joker, agent of chaos. He recognises that Harvey is like the batman but he appears better, more virtuous perhaps... The white Knight.
Initially he only wanted to kill the batman but like chaos the joker's ambitions zig and zag, always changeable... Evolving. As the movie progresses so to does the jokers understanding of his opponent. He realises that defeating the batman and the people of Gotham on a psychological level is the only true way to achieve a lasting and final victory over them. To do that he eventually chooses to corrupt Dent and the people to demonstrate to the Dark Knight and his city the futility of their struggle. The batman is a symbol, not a man, to be broken.
Ultimately the joker frees Dent of his self control and releases him as an agent of chaos. Two-face is now servient to his coin and not the other way around. But the joker was wrong. Although the Dent and Batman appeared to be mirrors of each other they are not. They both suffer the same loss of Rachel but Batman survives it intact. He retains control and never resorts to killing the joker when it's what he and the joker would have wanted him to do. He steps up at the end and finally takes the fall to protect the victory that he, Dent and Gordon achieved.
... So does the joker win, perhaps? Dent became two-face and this secret taints the victory. Gordon, the once incorruptible cop has finally allowed himself to be corrupted and he now has to carry this lie with him each day. The legacy of Batman now has a stain on it, the symbol is not pure anymore. The Batman may have won the day but victory brings a lack of purpose for Bruce. Unlike the joker he cannot evolve so instead he waits in the dark, decaying until he might oneday be needed again.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 9,139
- Reaction score
- 4,313
Is this going to be available anywhere else online other than Sideshow?
I very much want to get this one.
I very much want to get this one.
He was not torturing the guy. He had him in a chair, threatening to kill him. I did not see Dent harming him physically nor mentally.
He told him to either talk or he would kill him, simple. We do not get to see if he would indeed go as far as torturing as Batman intervenes, but I doubt it since Dent is bluffing as he has control of any decision he makes.
And yes, Ramirez and Joker were the ones directly responsible for Rachel's death, but Gordon failed to recognize the crooked cops under his command, the mob unleashed the Joker, Batman stirred everything up by pushing the mob into desperation...so for the recently broken and angry Harvey wants revenge and everyone in his world is responsible.
And this is what I like about this version of Harvey, most versions of Harvey broke by just being disfigured, this Harvey had the woman he loved killed almost in front of him on top of being disfigured. Also, outside of work, Rachel was his world. There is never mention of Harvey having any other family he cared for and when he was not working, he was with Rachel.
So if being disfigured is not enough, they take the only person that might have been keeping him from snapping under all the stress from dealing with all the criminals, death threats, Batman, Joker, etc... that will surely make a person snap
He told him to either talk or he would kill him, simple. We do not get to see if he would indeed go as far as torturing as Batman intervenes, but I doubt it since Dent is bluffing as he has control of any decision he makes.
And yes, Ramirez and Joker were the ones directly responsible for Rachel's death, but Gordon failed to recognize the crooked cops under his command, the mob unleashed the Joker, Batman stirred everything up by pushing the mob into desperation...so for the recently broken and angry Harvey wants revenge and everyone in his world is responsible.
And this is what I like about this version of Harvey, most versions of Harvey broke by just being disfigured, this Harvey had the woman he loved killed almost in front of him on top of being disfigured. Also, outside of work, Rachel was his world. There is never mention of Harvey having any other family he cared for and when he was not working, he was with Rachel.
So if being disfigured is not enough, they take the only person that might have been keeping him from snapping under all the stress from dealing with all the criminals, death threats, Batman, Joker, etc... that will surely make a person snap
Last edited:
This turned into a pretty good debate. Very good points on both sides of the coin.
Yes, but most people dont devote their lives to trying to make the city better by risking everything going against criminals and all.
And you are talking real life. This is not real world. One criminal killed Bruce Wayne's parents and he wages war against all of them. For Harvey, corrupt cops and a psychopath killed the woman he loves, so it makes sense he wages war against whoever he blames.
Chainedstream
Super Freak
Wor-Gar, you better know stories live their own life. The author/writer has their opinion on why everything played out the way it did. Audience, another. None is truly the “right” one since everything is up for interpretation. I mean, Joker’s statement could apply to Dent and still be “true” to the story, same goes for the opposite. Still, I think, these kind of discussions are some of the best aspects of movies. I think that’s why directors(like Matrix) doesn’t give any explanation to the audience, since people will take words as law and kill the discussion? Now this post went a little too far/deep, not even sure if I directed it right since it applies to everyone... And probably even in wrong topic ^^
One more thing though, are you getting Two Face 2.0?
I agree, I love a lively debate... and this is a good one.
One point in regards to your first point, I would disagree there -- I believe the author of a work definitely has a point-of-view and an intent for his work which would be considered "the truth" (from his POV of course), then there is the audience interpretation of that "truth", which can be anything, but not necessarily the intended truth. I'm certain Nolan had an intent that would be his truth in his art, but there's people out there that can skew that truth to suit there own agenda or needs or beliefs. Going from "even Dent is corruptible" to "Dent is inherently evil" is a big jump.
The fact that you can create a 'good argument' doesn't make it true. For instance, just take much of what is said from the white house lately... clearly untrue, but obviously arguable.
Also think writers might take credit for audience interpretations that make them out to be more clever than they are. There's certainly a coyness that some writers/directors will display about their intent and how they don't want it to influence how others view and interpret their work, allows them to take credit for the good and deny any intent with the bad.
haytil
Super Freak
If a prosecutor or cop commits a crime, then it can very well overturn cases they were involved in, yes.
Recent news from real-life Gotham City again: https://abcnews.go.com/US/18-men-fr...police-sergeant-convictions/story?id=58040260
(After a cop is found to be corrupt, 18 convictions that he was involved in are overturned due to claims that his corruption extended to planting evidence).
And this is not a new concept - it's the very basis of the real-life story of Robert Leuci, "Prince of the City," which was turned into a Sydney Lumet film and said to be one of the influences on "The Dark Knight Rises."
And in this case, due process laws would be exploited by the guilty to vacate convictions. Nobody's arguing that the criminals Dent put away wouldn't "deserve" to stay - the point is that, even though they deserve to stay, they would have the opportunity to be released if Dent's crimes are revealed.
Yes - a massive failure of the police and the justice system. Specifically, in the case of "The Dark Knight," a failure on the part of the District Attorney's office (the District Attorney himself, Harvey Dent).
I'm confused - what is your point here? Do you not understand the difference between Harvey Dent and Batman? One is an officer of the court, charged with enforcing society's laws. The other is an outlaw vigilante that is in no way a part of the justice system.
As a society, we have higher standards for cops than we do for criminals (yes, that includes Batman).
That is torture. It's in the very definition (UN Torture Convention of 1984):
"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
Shoving a gun up to someone's forehead and demanding information, with the threat of death, fits that definition to a tee. But of course you don't need to read the legalese to know that - you already know it's torture because, if it weren't, then it'd be an everyday occurrence in police interrogation rooms. And you know that it's not.
And even if you didn't - the movie spells it out for you. Batman's response to the torture he witnesses: "If anyone saw this, everything would be undone. The criminals you arrested would be released and Jim Gordon will have died for nothing."
I see what you did there...
So when someone sends you a death threat or you are in a fight and get hit, you are being tortured as well right?
And an execution should be torture as well by that definition, because then you are right since that is what Hatvey was threatening to do to him.
Come on man, spare me the "correctness".
Hopefully this will bever happen to you but if you ever get caught by a criminal group and they offer you torture and live or be executed immediately in exchange for money, it would be the same sitution as that guy Harvey had. What would you choose? Is it still torture now?
So I guess Harvey tortured the crooked cop, Ramirez, Gordon and his family and Marrone's driver as well?
You have not seen real torture but in the movies. If you had, you will not even remotely call what Harvey was doing torture. Everyone tortured would actually prefer Harvey's torture than anything else and maybe live.
And an execution should be torture as well by that definition, because then you are right since that is what Hatvey was threatening to do to him.
Come on man, spare me the "correctness".
Hopefully this will bever happen to you but if you ever get caught by a criminal group and they offer you torture and live or be executed immediately in exchange for money, it would be the same sitution as that guy Harvey had. What would you choose? Is it still torture now?
So I guess Harvey tortured the crooked cop, Ramirez, Gordon and his family and Marrone's driver as well?
You have not seen real torture but in the movies. If you had, you will not even remotely call what Harvey was doing torture. Everyone tortured would actually prefer Harvey's torture than anything else and maybe live.
Last edited:
Smurfy Paul
Freaked Out
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2017
- Messages
- 168
- Reaction score
- 0
Why is everyone getting caught up with the semantics of torture instead of talking about the actual figure? 
The Original fig still holds up pretty well, + you got a Harvey sculpt, something that this release doesn't have. I will try to pick up the 2.0 TF sculpt, as long as its not stupid money.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 32,452
- Reaction score
- 3,162
Why is everyone getting caught up with the semantics of torture instead of talking about the actual figure?
Because this release is boring.
Similar threads
