Batman Forever The Official Batman Forever Thread - Part 2

[Doctor Octopus]

He flips the coin for every opportunity he gets to kill Bruce Wayne. It may be cheating, but so was Aaron Eckhart when he shot the driver. He still accepts the judgement of the coin.

That's not the same. In the TDK situation he was flipping the coin for two different people. The mob guy Maroni, and his driver. In Batman Forever he kept tossing the coin over and over for Bruce Wayne to see if he could kill him, which makes the coin redundant.

Two Face's character did not work in Batman Forever. He's not a villain that's suited for camp style. Tommy Lee Jones was terrible in the role. The campy 60's Batman show never touched Two Face because they thought he was too dark for their show.

I would rate Two Face from this movie and Bane from Batman and Robin equally bad.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ Batman Forever's aesthetic is not 'camp'; it's 'goofy/over-the-top noir' with macabre undertones.

Both TLJ's Two-Face and Carrey's Riddler fit perfectly in the same universe that gave us Nicholson's Joker, DeVito's Penguin, and Pfeifer's Catwoman.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

It's very camp and light hearted. Aesthetically and tonally. Not as camp as Batman and Robin, that movie went all out on it.

The villains of Burton's movies are very different in the style and tone from Schumacher's, especially the two from Batman Returns. All of this was a conscious choice to make the campy tone and the villains so cheesy because Batman Returns got a backlash for being overly dark and violent for children. So WB had the franchise made much more kid friendly and campy. I mean nearly every minute Riddler and Two Face are making cheesy one liners or laughing their heads off in a very over the top cartoonish way. Even Frank Gorshin in the 60's Batman TV show was never that campy. Carey was like the Gorshin Riddler on steroids.

It's unbelievable to think Burton's movies were set in the same universe as Schumacher's. They're like black and white. Or Black and neon lol.

 

[DigificWriter]

It's very camp and light hearted. Aesthetically and tonally.

No, it's not. It's over-the-top/goofy noir with macabre undertones.

The villains of Burton's movies are very different in style and tone from Schumacher's

Not really. Yes, Riddler and Two-Face are goofy and over-the-top, but they're still very much rooted in the noir/macabre style that defines Nicholson's Joker, DeVito's Penguin, and Pfeifer's Catwoman.

It's unbelievable to think Burton's movies were set in the same universe as Schumacher's.

This is true of Batman and Robin, but not of Batman Forever.

 

[CountOrlok]

That's not the same. In the TDK situation he was flipping the coin for two different people. The mob guy Maroni, and his driver. In Batman Forever he kept tossing the coin over and over for Bruce Wayne to see if he could kill him, which makes the coin redundant.

No, he tossed the coin for every opportunity he had to kill Bruce Wayne, while he was fighting his goons, IE: only when he had a clear shot.

It's not like he had him hostage, and kept flipping the coin, he had to wait until he had an opportunity, and when he did, he flipped the coin, that's why he expressed disappointment, because he lost that window of opportunity to kill Bruce Wayne when he had the chance. He had to wait until the next opportunity to get a clear shot, and when it finally came up TAILS, he was able to take the shot.

It wasn't Two-Face repeatedly flipping his coin to get the result he wanted, as many people say. Totally different.

Two Face's character did not work in Batman Forever. He's not a villain that's suited for camp style. Tommy Lee Jones was terrible in the role. The campy 60's Batman show never touched Two Face because they thought he was too dark for their show.

I would rate Two Face from this movie and Bane from Batman and Robin equally bad.

He worked fine for the movie. And Two-Face is a comic book character, not realistic. It's less goofy than Aaron Eckhart, who looks cheesy and ridiculous with his bulging eyeball and exposed teeth, which is supposed to be in a 'realistic' universe.

^ Batman Forever's aesthetic is not 'camp'; it's 'goofy/over-the-top noir' with macabre undertones.

Both TLJ's Two-Face and Carrey's Riddler fit perfectly in the same universe that gave us Nicholson's Joker, DeVito's Penguin, and Pfeifer's Catwoman.

It's just like the comic book. Comic book style is often over the top.

 

[The Joker]

Two Face does not toss his coin for opportunities to kill someone. He tosses his coin to make a decision on whether he does actually kill them or not. In this case whether he can kill Bruce. He really wanted to, which is why he kept acting frustrated every time the coin came up no. Secondly the opportunity to kill Bruce was the same. He was right there in front of him fighting his men. Two Face was just sat there in a chair casually watching this and tossing the coin over and over. It's not like different opportunities were popping up.

The scene demonstrates Schumacher had no idea about the psychology of the Two Face character. Two Face is not a blustering character who is constantly jumping around like a hyper clown, laughing at the top of his lungs. He doesn't keep tossing the coin over and over so he can kill someone. He was as campy as Carey's hyper active Riddler. Apparently this was Jones' idea because he didn't want to be upstaged by Carey. There's a reason why he constantly makes worst villain lists. Because he's actually an awful villain. The worst role Jones ever did.

In addition to the comic books, Two Face/Harvey Dent has appeared in Two live-action BATMAN movies: 1989‘s BATMAN and 1997’s BATMAN FOREVER. In the former, actor Billy Dee Williams played Gotham D.A. Harvey Dent, while in the latter, Tommy Lee Jones played the villian Two Face himself.

Fans complained about how "Harvey Two Face" was depicted in BATMAN FOREVER. As portrayed by Jones (see left), he was a cackling, campy, over the top clown, often playing second fiddle to Jim Carey's Riddler.

Also going against the Batman mythos, this Two Face would flip his coin until he got the desired outcome -- rather than allowing chance settle the issue.

http://www.batman-on-film.com/historyofthebatman_dent-twoface_villains.html

As for Batman Forever, it's as camp as a row of tents overall. It's got some serious somber scenes, but they're out numbered by the cheese and camp. Yes that was a decision on WB's behalf after Batman Returns and all the backlash controversy, McDonalds Happy Meal promotion being killed off etc. The two universes feel like polar opposites. That was intentional. It was not meant to look and feel like Burton's because WB felt he'd gone too far with Returns:

*An end to the batlash: Hiring Schumacher to direct the summer-of-'95 release is seen by insiders as an attempt by Warner Bros. to get the Batman movies back on track. The studio, which declined to comment, has always given Burton full credit for reviving and modernizing Batman, and Burton's office confirms he will executive-produce the next film. Still, Warner doesn't want a repeat of the macabre 1992 sequel, Batman Returns, which frightened small children and angered many parents. And even though it earned $163 million in the U.S. and Canada, Returns made substantially less than 1989's Batman, which grossed $251 million. ''Warner Bros. didn't want Tim to direct,'' says a source close to the project. ''He's too dark and odd for them.''

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,308195,00.html

They wanted to get away from Burton's style and tone altogether. You cannot imagine the likes of the nose biting, raw fish eating, baby killing Penguin in Schumacher's happy camp world. The likes of this is not goofy noir, it's pure camp:

The common street thugs were camped up to look brightly colored:

Even the guns had neon in them lol:

The writing's on the wall. That's the level of camp we're talking here. To this day people still ask if Schumacher's movies are supposed to be linked to Burton's because they're apples and oranges.

Schumacher has never come across to me as someone who ever spent a day of his life looking at a Batman comic book, or if he did, then it was the silly comic strips of comedy characters. His knowledge of Batman didn't seem to go beyond the old 60s TV show. And I say that as someone who grew up on and loves that old show. I think someone gave Schumacher some comic books to look at and he just flipped through them and saw lots of color and ran with it. There is just no real understanding of the Batman universe involved in these two films. This always bugged me, even as far back as 1995 when Schumacher was saying these same things in interviews. He made some fun fantasy adventure romps, but they could have been so much more had they actually adhered to the characters more closely. They managed to do alright with this one, though Batman & Robin is where is really fell apart, but overall you can tell that none of them really cared to explore the source material very closely and make something more from it. They were content to take the most vague and basic attributes of the source material such as Batman's parents being murdered, Dick Grayson's circus origin, and Two-Face's duality and just run with it without adding any real depth to it. They especially didn't seem to understand Two-Face at all. He was just a loud, obnoxious, campy goofball who doesn't even obey the basics laws of the coin.

 

[CountOrlok]

Two Face does not toss his coin for opportunities to kill someone. He tosses his coin to make a decision on whether he does actually kill them or not. In this case whether he can kill Bruce. He really wanted to, which is why he kept acting frustrated every time the coin came up no.

He had already decided he wanted to kill Batman/Bruce Wayne, but it was up to the coin to tell him WHEN. This was not a case of whether or not he was going to kill Batman, just WHEN he was going to.

Secondly the opportunity to kill Bruce was the same. He was right there in front of him fighting his men. Two Face was just sat there in a chair casually watching this and tossing the coin over and over. It's not like different opportunities were popping up.

Ah, no. He was fighting the goons in that main room on the first toss, second and third toss was on the flight of stairs. Two-Face was seated on a couch, as his men were fighting Bruce. Because his men were in the way, he didn't have a clear shot, besides all the commotion going on (plus his promise to the Riddler "no killing").

Schumacher has never come across to me as someone who ever spent a day of his life looking at a Batman comic book, or if he did, then it was the silly comic strips of comedy characters. His knowledge of Batman didn't seem to go beyond the old 60s TV show. And I say that as someone who grew up on and loves that old show. I think someone gave Schumacher some comic books to look at and he just flipped through them and saw lots of color and ran with it. There is just no real understanding of the Batman universe involved in these two films. This always bugged me, even as far back as 1995 when Schumacher was saying these same things in interviews. He made some fun fantasy adventure romps, but they could have been so much more had they actually adhered to the characters more closely. They managed to do alright with this one, though Batman & Robin is where is really fell apart, but overall you can tell that none of them really cared to explore the source material very closely and make something more from it. They were content to take the most vague and basic attributes of the source material such as Batman's parents being murdered, Dick Grayson's circus origin, and Two-Face's duality and just run with it without adding any real depth to it. They especially didn't seem to understand Two-Face at all. He was just a loud, obnoxious, campy goofball who doesn't even obey the basics laws of the coin.

IMO Schumacher understands Batman's comic book origins better than either Tim Burton or Christopher Nolan. The visual style looks straight out of a comic book, not to mention the accurate origin of Two-Face (acid thrown by Maroni), Poison Ivy (killed by Woodrue), Bane (a test subject for Venom), the BTAS origins for Riddler and Mr Freeze.. Schumacher at least paid attention to these details.

 

[The Joker]

And it goes without saying the DC writers community has a low opinion of Schmacher's movies, even all these years later. Just a few examples;

Bruce Timm

I didn’t enjoy Schumacher’s Batman at all.

http://thinkmcflythink.squarespace.com/movie-news/2010/4/25/exclusive-interview-with-bruce-timm.html


Lee Bermejo

In my opinion, all the previous movies failed to be true Batman films because most of the important elements of the Batman mythos where missing

The last two were just unbearable and I couldn't get through more than 20 minutes of the fourth. I walked out of the theater it was so bad.

http://www.batman-on-film.com/leebermejointerview.html


Matt Wagner

The Schumacher films are such a tragic waste because they actually had some pretty good talent involved. I thought both Kilmer and Clooney would’ve made really good versions of Bruce/Batman if they weren’t so hampered by the all the camp, costumed nipples, bad jokes and ludicrous plots.

http://www.batman-on-film.com/interview_mattwagner_jett_2006.html


Grant Morrison

Joel Schumacher just takes the Batman franchise back to Adam West again, which was almost a brave and funny and bold move. But it was a cartoon. It felt like Schumacher hadn't bothered to look at anything since the Batman TV show for inspiration. And it really showed. The whole thing's incredibly fetishistic, and that's what makes it funny, but terrible for the Batman brand."

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/...t-everything-20120720/batman-forever-19691231



Alan Grant

“I saw the first three or four Batman movies, the Tim Burton one, the one with Mr Freeze in it, the one with Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones, and I thought that they were all terrible,” confirmed Grant.

http://www.comicbookgrrrl.com/2012/07/11/glasgow-comic-con-dredd-kirby-bane-and-spider-kilt/

He had already decided he wanted to kill Batman/Bruce Wayne, but it was up to the coin to tell him WHEN. This was not a case of whether or not he was going to kill Batman, just WHEN he was going to.

Nonsense. Once the coin has given the go ahead to kill someone, he doesn't need it to decide when to do it. Never has. He doesn't rely on the coin for decisions like that about a decision it's already made. That's just ridiculous. Next you'll be telling me he uses the coin to decide what weapon he chooses to kill with, too. Maybe the time of day he does it, what clothes he'll wear when he does it etc lol.

Ah, no. He was fighting the goons in that main room on the first toss, second and third toss was on the flight of stairs. Two-Face was seated on a couch, as his men were fighting Bruce. Because his men were in the way, he didn't have a clear shot, besides all the commotion going on (plus his promise to the Riddler "no killing").

He was casually sitting in the same chair watching Bruce and Chase on the stairs fighting his men. That's the scene where he's tossing the coin over and over. That's how he had such a clear shot of Bruce. He was right there in front of him.

IMO Schumacher understands Batman's comic book origins better than either Tim Burton or Christopher Nolan. The visual style looks straight out of a comic book, not to mention the accurate origin of Two-Face (acid thrown by Maroni), Poison Ivy (killed by Woodrue), Bane (a test subject for Venom), the BTAS origins for Riddler and Mr Freeze.. Schumacher at least paid attention to these details.

That's just semantics. The set up may be accurate but the characterizations themselves are god awful.

 

[DigificWriter]

@The Joker: I think you really need to look up the definition of 'camp' because, in the words of Inigo, "it doesn't mean what you think it means".

 

[The Joker]

@The Joker: I think you really need to look up the definition of 'camp' because, in the words of Inigo, "it doesn't mean what you think it means".

Yeah you're right. Myself and the rest of the world has been wrong all these years calling this movie camp. You're the only one who gets it

 

[The Endless]

Forever is camp. But it also had some serious and quite disturbing parts. The tone was all over the place.

 

[The Joker]

Forever is camp. But it also had some serious and quite disturbing parts. The tone was all over the place.

Thank you

 

[The Endless]

The frustrating thing is, there is a good movie somewhere in there. I thought Bruce was handled pretty well. As was his relationship with Dick. Alfred was great as always. At the start of the film we got a hint of what Jones could do with Dent if it was taken seriously. I also quite liked Nygma, his motivation and plot. Nicole Kidman has never looked hotter.

Such a shame. I blame WB more than Schumacher though. After Returns and the controversy they lost their nerve.

 

[CountOrlok]

No one is ever going to deny that the Schumacher Batman movies have received a lot of criticism (yes, even from 'respectable' sources), so I don't know why you brought that up.

Nonsense. Once the coin has given the go ahead to kill someone, he doesn't need it to decide when to do it. Never has. He doesn't rely on the coin for decisions like that about a decision it's already made. That's just ridiculous. Next you'll be telling me he uses the coin to decide what weapon he chooses to kill with, too. Maybe the time of day he does it, what clothes he'll wear when he does it etc lol.

Don't be ridiculous. He uses the coin to make a decision whether to do good or evil. Whenever he gets the opportunity, he lets the coin decide. Like when he had Batman at the pit, and Batman had to remind him about his coin ("you always have two minds about everything"). He is a split personality, half good/half evil. When evil presents itself, he can only decide to either let evil or good win by a flip of the coin.

Like I said, he promised Riddler "no killing" but that was his good side, his evil side wants to kill Batman, so that's why he has to flip his coin.

He was casually sitting in the same chair watching Bruce and Chase on the stairs fighting his men. That's the scene where he's tossing the coin over and over. That's how he had such a clear shot of Bruce. He was right there in front of him.

Like when he killed his helicopter pilot before when he tried to shoot Batman? Nope.

That's just semantics. The set up may be accurate but the characterizations themselves are god awful.

Well the characterisations are up to greater interpretation as the comics have a long history, especially for characters that go back decades into the 1940s at least.

 

[The Joker]

The frustrating thing is, there is a good movie somewhere in there. I thought Bruce was handled pretty well. As was his relationship with Dick. Alfred was great as always. At the start of the film we got a hint of what Jones could do with Dent if it was taken seriously. I also quite liked Nygma, his motivation and plot. Nicole Kidman has never looked hotter.

Such a shame. I blame WB more than Schumacher though. After Returns and the controversy they lost their nerve.

Exactly. There's glimpses of the potential this movie had with Bruce's nightmares stuff, and the scenes where he connects with Dick about their similar emotional pain. Put it's ultimately drowned out by the camp and ludicrous plot.

No one is ever going to deny that the Schumacher Batman movies have received a lot of criticism (yes, even from 'respectable' sources), so I don't know why you brought that up.

To hammer the point home of how badly done the characterizations were done. DC can't stomach them, nor can fans or the general audience. They're terrible.

Don't be ridiculous. He uses the coin to make a decision whether to do good or evil. Whenever he gets the opportunity, he lets the coin decide. Like when he had Batman at the pit, and Batman had to remind him about his coin ("you always have two minds about everything"). He is a split personality, half good/half evil. When evil presents itself, he can only decide to either let evil or good win by a flip of the coin.

Like I said, he promised Riddler "no killing" but that was his good side, his evil side wants to kill Batman, so that's why he has to flip his coin.

What has any of that got to do with what I said? He was not tossing the coin over and over to decide the opportunity to kill him. He was tossing it to decide if he could kill him. That's why it rubs everyone up the wrong way. He was not letting chance decide if he could shoot him. He just kept tossing it until it gave him the answer it wanted.

Nothing to do with opportunity. The opportunity was the constant. Bruce was there in front of him. One coin toss was all he should have done. His promise of no killing is irrelevant. Two Face's decisions are supposed to be ruled by the coin.

Like when he killed his helicopter pilot before when he tried to shoot Batman? Nope.

I've no idea what that has to do with the point I made. His henchman got caught in the crossfire of his attempt to kill Batman.

Well the characterisations are up to greater interpretation as the comics have a long history, especially for characters that go back decades into the 1940s at least.

And Schumacher's were still terrible. Hence why his villains are favorites for worst villain lists, and are generally extremely unpopular. They were not good interpretations of the characters.

 

[CountOrlok]

What has any of that got to do with what I said? He was not tossing the coin over and over to decide the opportunity to kill him. He was tossing it to decide if he could kill him. That's why it rubs everyone up the wrong way. He was not letting chance decide if he could shoot him. He just kept tossing it until it gave him the answer it wanted.

He can't kill him unless he has an opportunity to do so. Every opportunity to kill Bruce Wayne he has, he can flip his coin to decide to either take that opportunity or wait for the next one. Doesn't negate the fact that he ultimately accepts the judgement of the coin.

Nothing to do with opportunity. The opportunity was the constant. Bruce was there in front of him. One coin toss was all he should have done. His promise of no killing is irrelevant. Two Face's decisions are supposed to be ruled by the coin.

It wasn't constant, otherwise he wouldn't need his goons to fight Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne could have escaped, or beaten up his goons.

I've no idea what that has to do with the point I made. His henchman got caught in the crossfire of his attempt to kill Batman.

My point was, his goons were in the way, he would have shot his goons instead of Bruce Wayne, like in the helicopter. It's not like he had a crystal clear shot.

 

[The Joker]

He can't kill him unless he has an opportunity to do so. Every opportunity to kill Bruce Wayne he has, he can flip his coin to decide to either take that opportunity or wait for the next one. Doesn't negate the fact that he ultimately accepts the judgement of the coin.

The opportunity was the same. It never changed in this scene. That's why he never budged from that chair and took a clean clear shot. If the opportunity to shoot Bruce was changing constantly during this scene he'd have had to move around to get a clear shot, instead of staying put in that chair.

Second, Two Face never tosses the coin for opportunities. He tosses it for decisions to decide whether he'll do it or not. After that the details like where and when are made without the need of the coin. The coin has given him the go ahead, all the details regarding the action itself are done without the need of the coin.

He does not accept the judgement of the coin in this scene. That's why he kept tossing it. If he accepted the coin's judgement there would not have been more than one coin toss.

Two Face doesn't work that way. That's why you never see him always flipping the coin until he gets the side he wants. If you did you'd have posted some other examples by now to prove your point. If his coin tosses were based on possibilities of escape or opportunities to kill, he'd be forever tossing his coin every time Batman appeared on the scene lol.

It wasn't constant, otherwise he wouldn't need his goons to fight Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne could have escaped, or beaten up his goons.

Is anyone else besides myself seeing how stupid this argument is? Is Batman Forever your only exposure to the Two Face character? Two Face doesn't operate on the premise that this or that could or might happen when he's tossing his coin to decide something. His decisions are based on 50/50 yes or no. He either does it or he doesn't. Nothing to do with what may or may not happen in the situation he's judging.

He wanted to kill Bruce. He tossed the coin, didn't like the answer he got, so he kept tossing it until he got the answer he desired. There's no doubt about that. Whether Bruce could escape or not was inconsequential to the coin toss.

My point was, his goons were in the way, he would have shot his goons instead of Bruce Wayne, like in the helicopter. It's not like he had a crystal clear shot.

I'm starting to think you're pulling my leg now. He had a clear shot of Bruce the whole time he was on those stairs trying to fight off his thugs who were below him trying to fight their way up to the top. You're talking like he was ducking and diving behind objects to hide. He was in clear open view with Chase.

Unlike in the helicopter situation where Batman was OUTSIDE the chopper, sitting on top of it, he was fully obscured with just the bottom of his cape draped over the windshield, with the pilot goon sitting right in front of it.

 

[CountOrlok]

The opportunity was the same. It never changed in this scene. That's why he never budged from that chair and took a clean clear shot. If the opportunity to shoot Bruce was changing constantly during this scene he'd have had to move around to get a clear shot, instead of staying put in that chair.

Watch the scene again. Two-Face waits while his thugs go into the room with Chase and Bruce. Bruce runs into the room with Two-Face - that's his first opportunity, and he flips his coin. Second coin toss is when he is on the stairs, above the goons so he has another clear shot. Third coin toss is when he is right up above on the top of the stairs, with the goons having been knocked down previously, so they aren't in the way.

Second, Two Face never tosses the coin for opportunities. He tosses it for decisions to decide whether he'll do it or not. After that the details like where and when are made without the need of the coin. The coin has given him the go ahead, all the details regarding the action itself are done without the need of the coin.

Well it was about whether "he'll do it or not". The only reason he has to flip his coin is because he promised the Riddler "no killing". All other times, he didn't need to flip the coin to decide to kill Batman/Bruce Wayne, except for the very end, when Batman brought out his good side.

He does not accept the judgement of the coin in this scene. That's why he kept tossing it. If he accepted the coin's judgement there would not have been more than one coin toss.

Well he did accept the judgement, otherwise he wouldn't have needed to flip it again. He would have just gone ahead and done it anyway.

Two Face doesn't work that way. That's why you never see him always flipping the coin until he gets the side he wants. If you did you'd have posted some other examples by now to prove your point. If his coin tosses were based on possibilities of escape or opportunities to kill, he'd be forever tossing his coin every time Batman appeared on the scene lol.

Well that goes back to my previous point about the promise he made to Riddler.. he didn't need to flip his coin all the other times he tried to kill Batman.

Is anyone else besides myself seeing how stupid this argument is? Is Batman Forever your only exposure to the Two Face character? Two Face doesn't operate on the premise that this or that could or might happen when he's tossing his coin to decide something. His decisions are based on 50/50 yes or no. He either does it or he doesn't. Nothing to do with what may or may not happen in the situation he's judging.

He wanted to kill Bruce. He tossed the coin, didn't like the answer he got, so he kept tossing it until he got the answer he desired. There's no doubt about that. Whether Bruce could escape or not was inconsequential to the coin toss.

Well there's no point in tossing the coin to decide to kill Batman if he has no opportunity to kill Batman, is there?

I'm starting to think you're pulling my leg now. He had a clear shot of Bruce the whole time he was on those stairs trying to fight off his thugs who were below him trying to fight their way up to the top. You're talking like he was ducking and diving behind objects to hide. He was in clear open view with Chase.

Unlike in the helicopter situation where Batman was OUTSIDE the chopper, sitting on top of it, he was fully obscured with just the bottom of his cape draped over the windshield, with the pilot goon sitting right in front of it.

How can he have a clear shot when Bruce is fighting his goons? There were, like, 5 or 6 goons surrounding him. I already laid out the entire scene for you, above, anyway.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

No, it's not. It's over-the-top/goofy noir with macabre undertones.

It's camp and everybody calls it camp because it is. The macabre stuff is minimal.

Not really. Yes, Riddler and Two-Face are goofy and over-the-top, but they're still very much rooted in the noir/macabre style that defines Nicholson's Joker, DeVito's Penguin, and Pfeifer's Catwoman.

Burton's villains feel like they come from a dark place. Schumacher's feel like they're from kids cartoons.

This is true of Batman and Robin, but not of Batman Forever.

It's true of both. Just Batman and Robin more.

No, he tossed the coin for every opportunity he had to kill Bruce Wayne, while he was fighting his goons, IE: only when he had a clear shot.

There was no opportunity changes. He and his men had Bruce trapped in Wayne Manor. Two Face flipped the coin so he could kill him. The coin said no and he kept flipping it until it came up yes.

It's not like he had him hostage, and kept flipping the coin, he had to wait until he had an opportunity, and when he did, he flipped the coin, that's why he expressed disappointment, because he lost that window of opportunity to kill Bruce Wayne when he had the chance. He had to wait until the next opportunity to get a clear shot, and when it finally came up TAILS, he was able to take the shot.

I think you have grossly misinterpreted the simplicity of the scene. You've made a mountain out of a molehill. The psychology of Two Face and the coin is simple. He uses it to decide on whether he'll do something or not. If it says yes then he makes his own opportunity to carry it out. He doesn't keep asking the coin for every chance that presents itself. He would need the coin to decide if he was allowed blink his eyes if he was that dependant on it.

You don't understand how Two Face uses his coin.

It wasn't Two-Face repeatedly flipping his coin to get the result he wanted, as many people say. Totally different.

It was. You've just misunderstood the scene and the character of Two Face.

He worked fine for the movie. And Two-Face is a comic book character, not realistic.

He was bad even for a campy movie. Riddler worked better. How realistic the character is doesn't have any bearing on it. Dracula is not real but that doesn't mean he should be campy.

 

[The Joker]

Watch the scene again. Two-Face waits while his thugs go into the room with Chase and Bruce. Bruce runs into the room with Two-Face - that's his first opportunity, and he flips his coin. Second coin toss is when he is on the stairs, above the goons so he has another clear shot. Third coin toss is when he is right up above on the top of the stairs, with the goons having been knocked down previously, so they aren't in the way.

Again you are not getting the point. Two Face does not toss the coin for opportunities. He tosses the coin for decisions on whether he will or will not do something. It doesn't matter what room it's happening in.

That's what he was doing. Tossing the coin to see if he could kill Bruce. Not if he could kill him in the living room, hall or stairs. That is the most absurd desperate phony argument lol.

Name one other example where Two Face has done something like that.

Well it was about whether "he'll do it or not". The only reason he has to flip his coin is because he promised the Riddler "no killing". All other times, he didn't need to flip the coin to decide to kill Batman/Bruce Wayne, except for the very end, when Batman brought out his good side.

I've no idea what you are talking about here. Really that doesn't make a lick of sense. The toss of the coin is ALWAYS about whether he will or will not do something. That's why he does it. To decide on a course of action about something.

You're not even getting the most basic principles of the character. I'm half thinking you're pulling my leg because no self professed Batman fan could be this ignorant of the basic facts of Two Face and how he uses his coin.

Well he did accept the judgement, otherwise he wouldn't have needed to flip it again. He would have just gone ahead and done it anyway.

He didn't accept it's judgement because it didn't give him the answer he wanted. If he accepted the coin he wouldn't have tossed it after the first time would he.

Again most basic principle of the character. One coin toss is all he does.

Well that goes back to my previous point about the promise he made to Riddler.. he didn't need to flip his coin all the other times he tried to kill Batman.

Because he'd already decided to kill him. That was his mission in the movie. Now he was wanting to break the promise he made to Riddler in Wayne Manor and was using the coin to decide if he could, except it said no so he kept tossing it until it said yes. Two Face would never do that, hence why the scene is stupid and so criticized.

Well there's no point in tossing the coin to decide to kill Batman if he has no opportunity to kill Batman, is there?

That's not the point. He can toss a coin in his lair to decide and rob a bank the next morning. He doesn't have to have the opportunity in front of him to decide to do something.

Obviously he can't do anything unless he has the opportunity to do it. You again keep missing the point. He doesn't toss the coin to decide on opportunity. He does it to decide if he'll do it or not, not if he'll do it because there's an opportunity to it in three different rooms so he needs to toss the coin three times to decide if he'll kill him in three separate rooms or not lol. Either he'll kill him or he won't. Where it happens is inconsequential.

How can he have a clear shot when Bruce is fighting his goons? There were, like, 5 or 6 goons surrounding him. I already laid out the entire scene for you, above, anyway.

The goons were not an obstacle to shooting him. At all. Unlike in the chopper scenario analogy you made where Batman was not a clear shot in any way, and the goon was sat right in front of where Batman's cape was in a small confined space.

No offense but your whole argument is nonsense.

 

[CountOrlok]

Again you are not getting the point. Two Face does not toss the coin for opportunities. He tosses the coin for decisions on whether he will or will not do something. It doesn't matter what room it's happening in.

That's what he was doing. Tossing the coin to see if he could kill Bruce. Not if he could kill him in the living room, hall or stairs. That is the most absurd desperate phony argument lol.

Name one other example where Two Face has done something like that.

He was tossing the coin to see if he could kill Bruce. No difference. Just each time the opportunity presents itself, he tosses the coin. Very simple to understand.

I've no idea what you are talking about here. Really that doesn't make a lick of sense. The toss of the coin is ALWAYS about whether he will or will not do something. That's why he does it. To decide on a course of action about something.

Yes, exactly. To decide whether or not to kill Bruce Wayne. Despite promising Riddler he wouldn't, he's of two minds, so has to flip the coin to decide.

He didn't accept it's judgement because it didn't give him the answer he wanted. If he accepted the coin he wouldn't have tossed it after the first time would he.

Again most basic principle of the character. One coin toss is all he does.

Well he did accept the coin toss, because if he didn't, he would have taken the shot in that instant, but he didn't.

Because he'd already decided to kill him. That was his mission in the movie. Now he was wanting to break the promise he made to Riddler in Wayne Manor and was using the coin to decide if he could, except it said no so he kept tossing it until it said yes. Two Face would never do that, hence why the scene is stupid and so criticized.

Only when he had the opportunity, otherwise why bother with the coin, if he was just going to shoot him anyway? Tossing the coin would have made no difference, if his mind was already made up. He wasn't going to actively try to kill him, which is why he stayed where he was. But his evil side couldn't turn down the chance he had to kill Batman.

That's not the point. He can toss a coin in his lair to decide and rob a bank the next morning. He doesn't have to have the opportunity in front of him to decide to do something.

Obviously he can't do anything unless he has the opportunity to do it. You again keep missing the point. He doesn't toss the coin to decide on opportunity. He does it to decide if he'll do it or not, not if he'll do it because there's an opportunity to it in three different rooms so he needs to toss the coin three times to decide if he'll kill him in three separate rooms or not lol. Either he'll kill him or he won't. Where it happens is inconsequential.

Opportunity is like a window, it's only open for a set amount of time, and in that time Two-Face has to make a decision, to do good or evil.

The goons were not an obstacle to shooting him. At all. Unlike in the chopper scenario analogy you made where Batman was not a clear shot in any way, and the goon was sat right in front of where Batman's cape was in a small confined space.

No offense but your whole argument is nonsense.

Well I disagree about the goons not being an obstacle. Watch the scene again and you will see what I mean.

 

[The Joker]

I can't continue this comical discussion any more. I am convinced you're pulling my leg at this point arguing about coin tosses for what room he'd shoot Bruce in just because each one is a different opportunity. It's comically absurd and you know it's wrong. Two Face does not, repeat not toss his coin for different opportunities of the same thing. He only tosses it to decide if he either does it or not. If the coin says yes then he finds his opportunity to do it. He doesn't keep asking the coin for every opportunity that presents itself to do it. That's why you were not able to give any examples because that's not how Two Face and his coin work.

But me I'm going to leave you with one of many, many, many examples from the comics that showcases something every Batman fan knows; once Two Face tosses his coin to decide something then that's that. Decision made. He doesn't toss it again, like here, where he tosses the coin to decide if Batman should die. It's decided Batman dies, he tries to shoot him, Batman escapes, and they run off to a construction site, which means they're at a different location, and a new window of opportunity presents itself for Dent to kill Batman. Guess what, he doesn't toss the coin to decide if he should kill him here, too, just because they've changed locations and there's a new window of opportunity:

That's just one example of why Schumacher's Two Face was a total bastardization in that constant coin tossing scene. Once the coin is tossed and the decision is made that is it. No more coin tosses. Fact. Enjoy.

 

[AnneFan]

I condense this page into one post made by The Joker.

One coin toss was all he should have done. His promise of no killing is irrelevant. Two Face's decisions are supposed to be ruled by the coin.

 

[CountOrlok]

(from Batman #398)

 

[Doctor Octopus]

That doesn't count, CountOrlok. Harvey Dent was having a mental breakdown in that issue:

That's why that happened. It's the only time it's ever happen, under extenuating circumstances.