1/6 The Dark Knight - 1/6th scale Two Face Collectible Figure (Toy Fairs 2019) Exclusive

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Because he had tried to warn Gordon not to work with compromised cops that he had investigated while in IA like Wuertz and Ramirez. Gordon didn't listen, and Ramirez was literally the cop that picked up Rachel and delivered her to the Joker's crew that directly led to her death. He even says why he did it: G: "Where is my family?" / TF: "Where my family died"...Paraphrasing here: "Have you ever had to tell the person you love that it's going to be ok when you know it wouldn't? Tell your son it's going to be ok. Lie, like I lied".) It's a straight twisted revenge play / eye for eye justice in Two-Face's mind. I lost Rachel because you didn't listen to me, now you're going to lose someone for that.

It's pretty much the secondary thesis of the entire film set up early on and revisited throughout until it culminates with Two-Face kidnapping Gordon's family...I am surprised that any one who sat through the film could have possibly missed that point...
 
Hmm, I still got the old HT Dent, might just try and get the new head, if its not too much £.

This release is a perfect example of getting less bang for your buck from HT. The old Two Face came with two heads, this only comes with one! I remember I was able to bag the original fig for a crazy good price of £80 not long after it was released. I bet the new one is closer to £200.
 
Yeah, I thought his part was great.

I had the old figure and liked it for the most part. The suit wasn’t so great, the hands were too big, and when I got it around 2012 the sculpt was already showing its age, but I was happy with it. I paid so little for it and it had become so very sought after, the temptation to profit was too much and so I sold it. Been missing a TDK two-face ever since but assumed any minute a new one would be announced.

The film very much gave a sense of tragedy to what happens to him. The only thing that I wasn't fully sold on was, well, that he could be functioning in any capacity with those wounds, but also that he would turn on Gordon so fully and be corrupted so fully that he'd be willing to kill Gordon's child - and I guess that's a major point of failure if indeed it's fair to call it a failure - but I loved Eckhart's performance all the same.

I also used to have the original figure. I sold it pretty cheap as I recall, before its value went up.
 
Why did he attack Gordon and Gordon's family?
Early in the film, Dent accuses two of Gordon's detectives of being dirty (Wuertz and Ramirez) and cites this as a reason Gordon's unit can't be trusted. Gordon dismisses this concern. Later, Wuertz and Ramirez are the cops who deliver Dent and Rachel to the mob/Joker.

Dent--and he actually says this directly to Gordon in the finale--blames Gordon for ignoring the corruption in his own unit, which lead to Rachel's death. Dent believes that Gordon should suffer the consequences for this, the same way Dent did.


Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
 
I hope we eventually get a new version of the original suit Batman from "Batman Begins".

That is the only figure that I'm missing from the trilogy.
 
I went into TDK expecting to only care about the Joker, but ended up liking Harvey almost as much.

I had hoped the sequel would have revealed he lived, and was acting as the opposite to Batman, a lethal enforcer with no qualms about killing based on the flip of a coin. It would have upset the order of everything, putting the lie to the cover story concocted about his death and previous events.
 
I liked him as Dent and Two-Face. I honestly didn't know he was unpopular.

He's not unpopular. He's just popular. It's not like people hate or dislike him, they just dont care either way. He's basically a serviceable character that works well within the story, as is the case with Scarecro in BB. Neither is popular, but they look cool and fit the story.
 
Yup. I can't even think of the last time a Hot Toys related "scoop" actually came into fruition.



And that's what I don't like about this interpretation of the character. His motives are completely selfish and petty. He is driven by revenge and nothing else.

Two-Face is one of my favorite Batman villains and this interpretation feels about as under-baked as Tommy Lee Jones. It's so one note. It's like they just rushed to get Two-Face into the movie because they ran out of time in the third act. This interpretation doesn't even have a dissociative identity disorder. His fall from grace isn't even tragic. Dent is a great foil to Batman and is complex enough to hold his own film without the likes of the Joker or the Riddler needing to carry the story.

"I knew the risks when I took this job lieutenant"

Sure you did. As soon as your girlfriend dies you snap and decide to hold a child at gun point as some sort of retribution.

"It's not about what I want, it's about what's fair."

Yeah right, it's exactly what he wanted. There wasn't an element of CHANCE to any of his actions or claims. It was all premeditated and planned ever since the hospital when he threatens Gordon. Everything you listed is just him being angry and frustrated with Rachel dying. He doesn't even live and die by the coin. He cheats and bends the rules to fit his own desired outcomes. Case in point, Maroni's limo driver. It's pretty difficult to have pity for a character like this, and I think we can both agree that Two-Face is always best when he's a portrayed as a sympathetic villain.

Dent is a ****ing, raging idiot in TDK. Even after Batman (moronically) convinces him to turn the gun on the people responsible he is STILL is obsessed with killing Gordon's son and only Gordon's son. Rachel was just as complicit as Batman, Dent and Gordon in the war on the mob. Little Jimmy Gordon, a true innocent? Not even close.

Dent should have blown his brains out after Batman sums up Joker's motive. That would have been more tragic and cinematic (and Batman wouldn't be forced to kill him like he does). You can tell he knows Batman is right and that Joker played him like a fiddle, but instead of taking personal responsibility for his actions and being a man about it, he just can't resist trying to kill Gordon's child. It's shallow and not what Two-Face is about.

To sum it up. The reason I don't like Eckhart's Two-Face is because he's a huge puss with no integrity or conviction at all. Conviction is pretty important for a character like Two-Face.

I agree that he is not accurate to the version of Two-Face seen in the comics I disagree that this is "shallow". The two versions just have different expressions of similar personal flaws.

Two-Face never struck me as a character with conviction; he struck me as a character with ego. After his personal tragedy, he badly wanted to do terrible things, but he saw himself as an upstanding person and his ego wouldn't allow him to follow through on those desires without manufacturing a "second personality" who could take responsibility for all of it.

Nolan's version exchanges the excuse of "Two-Face" for the excuse of Joker's philosophy of anarchic fairness. I really liked this take, because it appeals to Dent's vision of himself as a just person.

This is also why Dent has the coin in both interpretations. Dent doesn't flip the coin because he's two different men who can't decide, even if that's what he tells people. He flips the coin to absolve himself of responsibility and enable his baser desires. To give himself an excuse. Dent, fundamentally, is a man who cannot live with the consequences of his choices, and that's why Two-Face exists.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
 
Yup. I can't even think of the last time a Hot Toys related "scoop" actually came into fruition.



And that's what I don't like about this interpretation of the character. His motives are completely selfish and petty. He is driven by revenge and nothing else.

Two-Face is one of my favorite Batman villains and this interpretation feels about as under-baked as Tommy Lee Jones. It's so one note. It's like they just rushed to get Two-Face into the movie because they ran out of time in the third act. This interpretation doesn't even have a dissociative identity disorder. His fall from grace isn't even tragic. Dent is a great foil to Batman and is complex enough to hold his own film without the likes of the Joker or the Riddler needing to carry the story.

"I knew the risks when I took this job lieutenant"

Sure you did. As soon as your girlfriend dies you snap and decide to hold a child at gun point as some sort of retribution.

"It's not about what I want, it's about what's fair."

Yeah right, it's exactly what he wanted. There wasn't an element of CHANCE to any of his actions or claims. It was all premeditated and planned ever since the hospital when he threatens Gordon. Everything you listed is just him being angry and frustrated with Rachel dying. He doesn't even live and die by the coin. He cheats and bends the rules to fit his own desired outcomes. Case in point, Maroni's limo driver. It's pretty difficult to have pity for a character like this, and I think we can both agree that Two-Face is always best when he's a portrayed as a sympathetic villain.

Dent is a ****ing, raging idiot in TDK. Even after Batman (moronically) convinces him to turn the gun on the people responsible he is STILL is obsessed with killing Gordon's son and only Gordon's son. Rachel was just as complicit as Batman, Dent and Gordon in the war on the mob. Little Jimmy Gordon, a true innocent? Not even close.

Dent should have blown his brains out after Batman sums up Joker's motive. That would have been more tragic and cinematic (and Batman wouldn't be forced to kill him like he does). You can tell he knows Batman is right and that Joker played him like a fiddle, but instead of taking personal responsibility for his actions and being a man about it, he just can't resist trying to kill Gordon's child. It's shallow and not what Two-Face is about.

To sum it up. The reason I don't like Eckhart's Two-Face is because he's a huge puss with no integrity or conviction at all. Conviction is pretty important for a character like Two-Face.

That's the thing about Harvey though -- he believes his revenge is fair. In BTAS, why is Big Bad Harv going after Rupert Thorne? Justice? :lol

I agree though that TDK TF played with his coin "rule" to get the outcome he wanted in the Maroni car flip scene. He gave himself an out before the first coin flip with "it can't hurt your chances" when what he probably really mean "no matter what, you're screwed dude, so your chances can't technically really get worse, because they're already terrible." :lol I wonder what excuse he would have come up with to kill Maroni if the second coin flip for the driver also landed on the good side, but I'm sure he would have found a way...he really wanted to kill Maroni.

On the other hand, the coin flip lands on the good side for Ramirez, and he obeys it without finding some loophole or excuse to try again for another chance to kill her. When the coin flip lands on the bad side for Batman, he shoots him without hesitation, and when it lands on the good side for himself, he doesn't kill himself. I have no doubt he would have in an instant if the bad side came up though.

As for no conviction, he had full awareness and commitment to his fate of death in the final confrontation (you think I want to escape from this? there is no escape from this!) -- and he was STILL determined to go through with it. Being so determined that you're willing to die for your twisted plan for revenge/fairness? That's conviction to me.
 
I'm not surprised that HT is going to the Bat-well even with a new Batman film a couple of years out, I am surprised though that they are going with TDK again. There is still Keaton Batman options, Kilmer we saw was at least planned, 1966 options but went back here, interesting.
 
This release is a perfect example of getting less bang for your buck from HT. The old Two Face came with two heads, this only comes with one! I remember I was able to bag the original fig for a crazy good price of £80 not long after it was released. I bet the new one is closer to £200.

Red Skull is another good example of that. Came with two heads and two outfits to essentially make two figures out of it (you would have had to supply your own extra body and extra boots of course), and it only retailed for about $180. Now HT want almost double that amount for figures with only one HS.
 
I don't mind this re-release as long as they come out with other dark knight figures such as Batman and Joker, i missed out on these. yes I know they came out with 1/4 scale but I don' collect that scale.
 
I may or may not get it. It depends on the price. There's literally nothing else in the 1/6in the horizon that I'm interested in buying besides John Wick. Still, I dont feel like it's a "must have" the way I felt about Neo and Wick. The burned looks cool tho.
 
Care to elaborate on where you're reading this? I'm very suspect of this, but stranger things have happened. If SS was in any way partnered with HT on this, they wouldn't miss a chance to brand it all over in light of their continual decline in 1/6 production quality.

Don't suppose you got an answer to this from Ras. Because it's all BS.

Always amazes me how people can post blatant lies.

Oh well it's the internet I suppose. There all sorts out there behind their little computer screens. Don't believe anything you read which seems even halfway unbelievable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I don't mind this re-release as long as they come out with other dark knight figures such as Batman and Joker, i missed out on these. yes I know they came out with 1/4 scale but I don' collect that scale.

TBH I thought new figs from the Nolan Bats films from HT were over. In 1/6 at least. Now make some more Platoon figs. :lol
 
Back
Top