DisneyKid wrote:I was under the impression that Two-Face wouldn't appear until the end of the film, opening the doors for a third film, and that Aaron Eckhart would simply be Harvey Dent for the majority of The Dark Knight. That article doesn't seem to contradict that notion to me.
So why have him in make-up at all? Ah yes, the other current fad in movie series - end on a "to be continued..." cliffhanger so that the audience feels somehow cheapened at not getting proper closure on the film they've paid to see. If Two Face isn't going to be the villain until the 3rd movie, then there's no reason what-so-ever to have his "origin" in this movie.
Disney-Fan - I've had this discussion before, and heated words have been said - principally with Loomis, when we were discussing the look of the new Joker together.
I'll put it another way then. If you were describing the Scarecrow, based on just what was seen in the movie and nothing else, what could you actually describe? How deep did it go? Did you feel as though you knew the Scarecrow and what made him tick?
The Scarecrow first appeared in the 1940s. And he's survived until now. And the reason he's survived is because like a lot of Batman's iconic villains he has a striking visual
with a semi-tragic backstory. Of which Batman Begins did nothing to explore, update or retell.
As somebody who was eagerly awaiting a movie Scarecrow, it just left me very disappointed, and I feel the potential of the character wasn't even scratched.
I know I'm in a minority, but its how I feel. No doubt a film just with Batman and The Scarecrow would have explored the character, his methods and his motivations a lot more.
