Anybody who feels this way missed the entire point of the story. Harvey Dent was not introduced into this film to be a kewl villain set up for the threquel. The whole movie is about how good he is, and how he is corrupted by Joker. Over and over again, Batman and Gordon are driven to protect Harvey's goodness and they lose. It is not the traditional way Two-Face is used. That may not jive with your idea of what should have happened according to you preferences, but that doesn't mean the character was actually badly used.
It's easy to feel this way when one of the producers (who's name I can't remember) said that Two-Face would be the bad guy in the third movie. So that was pretty much all bullshit.
You know, I get what you're saying here but that still in no way justifies killing him off. I HATE when they do that. It's so fucking cliche. I mean they substituted Carmine Falcone and Boss Moroni with The Joker. Which I'm fine with. But there was so much more they could have done here. In the essential Two-Face story, "The Long Halloween", which this movie was very loosely based on, Harvey had gone bad long before he became Two-Face. I would have liked to have seen more of that. His dark side was always there, threatening to consume him. Much like Bruce, he's a man who can not tolerate evil in any form and is driven to rid Gotham of it. Even if he becomes the very thing he's fighting. Not only is there a sacrifice theme here, but his presence is a constant reminder to Bruce what he could and will become if he ever crosses that line. A smart guy like Harvey getting made into a complete tool by The Joker, a guy who in just about every medium has always been shown as his intellectual inferior, just don't sit right with me. Because The Joker isn't the King of The Freaks of Gotham. Harvey Dent is. When the all get together, he's usually the one that takes charge.
I'm pretty sure that throwing a guy off a two-story high ledge and him not ever getting back up or breathing is the definition of killing Harvey.
He had no intention of killing Harvey.
I don't think so either but that in my view makes him a rather clumsy Superhero. I wouldn't want him saving my baby. He'd probably drop it.
Given the way his wounds are shown, it's pretty freaking unlikely Harvey would have survived long one way or the other - he had freaking exposed bones in his face and could barely take a drink. He was running around in an unsterile environment with open wounds and would have quickly succumbed to infection. Harvey died from the fall and Batman didn't not just because of Batman's armor, but because Harvey was horribly injured and essentially dying anyway.
Eh. Realism is all fine and dandy but at the end of the day this a story about a guy who uses James Bond gadgets, runs around the city attacking criminals, is a trained Ninja Assassin, and dates Supermodels and drives sports cars in his spare time. Don't get me wrong, I like the less-is-more approach to these films, but a guy with a scared up face walking around like it's no big deal really isn't that much of stretch to me.
As for "I don't have to save you" - these movies are about the moral ambiguity of a guy who would use his weath and power to become a vigilante. If you want a simplistic, 100% good guy, go read the Batman comics from 1965. If you want shades of grey, watch these movies.
But I thought you hated Frank Miller.
I couldn't disagree with you more. His descent into madness and death was tragic and the reactions that Batman and Jim Gordon have to it were heart-breaking. It's one of the best Two-Face stories ever.
Nah. It was a good Joker story. The superior version of the Two-Face sub-plot was "Long Halloween".
