Onyxmeth said:
What do you mean? Are you talking about if they didn't kill Dent off? I can get on board with that, but that is why we have sequels. Frankly, Dent should have gotten his own film to shine and not shoehorned into the same flick as the Joker. I don't think that means give us a 4 1/2 hour movie to tell two completely different stories. I think that means they pick their plots and points of seperation better. The movie did feel a bit like the Oscars. It started off good, got really longwinded in the middle and had a forced, and packed ending seemingly because of time constraints. If you didn't mean that, and just meant they should have picked up where the movie left off with Batman on the run, that's what the third one will be about, so I don't see the point of just making that as one movie. It wouldn't serve a purpose.
|
*Slight spoilers*
Except the movie wasn't crammed. The reason the Joker made such an interesting villain was because he always had a devious new plan or scheme, even if he seemingly pulled them out of nowhere. All Two-Face did in the movie was kill off a couple of people he was mad it. He didn't have any grand schemes. He didn't have a "plan." He was insane, and even if all of his plans had worked, he was stuck in a garage and surrounded by dozens of police. The film could have been extended a tad bit more, but I'd say it was about the right length. Batman movies traditionally have multiple villains so it wouldn't make sense to have just the Joker (although, to be fair, Nolan's films weren't very traditional). If Two-Face were to have his own movie, he would have to shift towards the mob boss archtype seen in the cartoons and comics, and I'd say Nolan isn't interested in making his movies very campy.
