Rachel Dawes?? Recast??

[Two-Face]

Well?

[union_jak]

Nope. If Katie Holmes can't return (although she's contracted to), then I'd rather they move onto another female character. I hate recasts.

I still think that, in his early days as Batman, there would be a lot of press interest in the legend, and that Vicki Vale would be perfect as a side character. I know a lot of people don't want her in any sequel because she's already been in a film, but this is a seperate series, and I think we could easily see that if she is reintroduced again.

[Batman]

Nope. If Katie Holmes can't return (although she's contracted to), then I'd rather they move onto another female character. I hate recasts.

Pretty much what I feel.

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

to be honest..katie should return..only to be murderd by Harvey in a fit of rage.

[Dark Knight88]

If Rachel was to return i say give the role to Jennifer Connelly, but if her part isn't that big i'd rather see her not be in the movie an maybe have more screentime for other characters.

[Rynan]

Unless WB thinks we're stupid, no recast.

[Dcknight]

No, just don't put the characters in the movie and do like BR tells at another person that his ex-wife just go away cause Batman was too much for her

[The Chairman]

I personally wouldn't want her back. I hated Holmes.

Now if someone like Rachel McAdams or Jennifer Connolly got the role, then I'd be all for her returning.

[javi1024]

Nope. If Katie Holmes can't return (although she's contracted to), then I'd rather they move onto another female character. I hate recasts.

I still think that, in his early days as Batman, there would be a lot of press interest in the legend, and that Vicki Vale would be perfect as a side character. I know a lot of people don't want her in any sequel because she's already been in a film, but this is a seperate series, and I think we could easily see that if she is reintroduced again.
Thats pretty much Vicky Vale's role in the Batman was. Nolan wants to use fresh characters, and aside from Joker and Two-face, thats what he should stick with. i want Rachel Dawes/Katie Holmes back because 1) i hate recasts (even though i thought Jennifer Connelly would have been perfect from the beginning) and 2) i hate when characters are just dropped and i think shes too important to bruce to just drop (Ive made tons of arguments on the subject so you can read my other posts to see them).

now if they were to bring in a new girl, they can do a lot more with either Talia al Ghul- reveal some evil revenge plot in the 3rd film- or Vesper Fairchild- have her murder in the 3rd and have Two-Face prosecuting a captured Batman....something like that.

[Ronny Shade]

Yay! a poll. I vote no.

[El Payaso]

If the character is going to be back, recast that unwatchable Holmes girl.

[Trooper]

just kill her

[Amazing Afroman]

Hopefully if they do bring her back they'll have her killed off. However if she is in the sequel a recast would be moronic. We've had enough of that in the last francise. Let's not start again.

[Super_Ludacris]

No recast

[Ronny Shade]

Hopefully if they do bring her back they'll have her killed off. However if she is in the sequel a recast would be moronic. We've had enough of that in the last francise. Let's not start again.
Your sig is way more interesting than your post.

[DV8]

I guess it was dumb of me to make a whole new thread about Rachel Dawes, so I'll just post my thoughts here:

In the midst of all the questions surrounding whether Katie Holmes will reprise her role as Rachel Dawes, we have been bombarded with continuity issues, and opinion on how past female characters have inexplicably disappeared from the franchise.

Being a stickler for continuity, if Katie Holmes doesn't return, I would not vote for a recast, just cuz it bugs me. But I don't want her character to not even be referenced if she doesn't return, either!

Here is my solution:

Reference that Rachel Dawes has been away on a trip or something; she never returns!

That's it! Have Harvey Dent step in when it's apparent that Rachel is gone, and then after we've forgotten about her, a big piece to the finally is her body being discovered in the river or something . . . a victim of The Joker! We wouldn't ever need to see Holmes, and if we did, they could possibly use archive footage from the first film re-cut (if that's legal).

Anyone else feel me on this one?







Sorry for me 'noob-idity' :D

[Batman]

Actually, I was thinking perhaps she could be transferred out of Gotham by her still-corrupted peers. Maybe even a place like Metropolis, Or Hub City. Like she was forced out of Gotham, because I really can't see a woman who's dedicated as much of her life, if not more, to saving Gotham than Batman has to just leave on her own terms.

That way, We don't have to have Holmes or Rachel reappear, we can establish other DC Cities, and establish that Gotham is still corrupt, despite Falcone being out of action.

[Super_Ludacris]

To be honest I would not mind her in the sequel. Some might not like the Stigma of Tomkat or whatever but she did a decent run at the character so let's see. But if she doesnt come back, she doesnt come back.

[TheFalcon]

I say No to a recast. Even if Katie Holmes wants to come back I think they should forget the character and move on to Selina Kyle or someone else.
The end of Begins is like a goodbye scene anyway.

The only thing I could accept would be if she came back and then promptly gets killed by the Joker, but I doubt they'll go for that.

[union_jak]

I personally didn't see anything wrong with Rachel. People were clearly going to hate her because she was
1. a completely new character
2. a Dawson's Creek star
3. Tom Cruise's Girl

But I thought she did ok, standing up alongside an established cast, like Freeman, Oldman and Neeson.
The character was essential in giving Bruce a moral side, she also sets up the Harvey Dent plot by being a DA.

However, I don't see her character lasting that much longer. Her leaving; either from dying or moving away, would give Batman more of a purpose.

I would like her to return in the sequel, but I don't expect her to make it to the end.


(The fact that she is similar in character to Andrea Beaumont, and shares the same first name with the original Andrea- Rachel Caspian- just makes me wonder whether the writers had more planned for her in later films, but that's irrelevant)

[javi1024]

IThe end of Begins is like a goodbye scene anyway.

well it wasnt really goodbye. it was more like "this cant work until your job is finished and you're you again". they can move on to a new love interest ( i want Talia), and still have rachel there because her job isnt finished and she can still play as another "conscience" for bruce like alfred.

[Super_Ludacris]

I personally didn't see anything wrong with Rachel. People were clearly going to hate her because she was
1. a completely new character
2. a Dawson's Creek star
3. Tom Cruise's Girl

But I thought she did ok, standing up alongside an established cast, like Freeman, Oldman and Neeson.
The character was essential in giving Bruce a moral side, she also sets up the Harvey Dent plot by being a DA.

However, I don't see her character lasting that much longer. Her leaving; either from dying or moving away, would give Batman more of a purpose.

I would like her to return in the sequel, but I don't expect her to make it to the end.


(The fact that she is similar in character to Andrea Beaumont, and shares the same first name with the original Andrea- Rachel Caspian- just makes me wonder whether the writers had more planned for her in later films, but that's irrelevant)


Real Talk and as a matter of fact when word got out that Holmes was playing a girl by the name of Racheal there was speculation on this very board of whether or not it was Caspain

[union_jak]

Real Talk and as a matter of fact when word got out that Holmes was playing a girl by the name of Racheal there was speculation on this very board of whether or not it was Caspain

Really? So did people think she could end up as a Reaper/Phantasm type character then?

[Dark Knight]

No re-casting of Rachel...it would cause too much of a distraction. Either Holmes comes back to play Rachel and be killed by Joker.....or she shouldn't be in the film at all. Bruce and Alfred can always throw a mention of her leaving for Chicago to become the DA there or something.....

[bdsproductions]

she shoudl return with a bit part then die i don't think bats should have love intrests in every movie.

[Mr. Socko]

...No, nothing is worse then a recast...

[DA Harvey Dent]

Rachel recast???? NEVAH!

[Katsuro]

Recasting Rachel woud be a terrible idea. She's far too unimportant of a character, so most people wouldn't even remember the characters name. They'd just see this new girl he's with, wonder where Katie Holmes went, and be confused. Write the character out if Katie won't return, it shouldn't be too hard. It's not like the end of some of the previous Batman movies, where things all seemed to work out between him and the girl, then next movie she's just gone. This movie ended with him not getting the girl, she could just leave Gotham and it would be fine.

[El Payaso]

...No, nothing is worse then a recast...

Katie Holmes is.

[Mr. Vice]

No, this new batman franchise needs continuity, unlike the old franchise:o

[Super_Ludacris]

Katie Holmes was cute as hell in the movie. Only reason to think she shouldnt be was if Tom Cruise wrecked her ass proper, proper. She was ok acting wise in the film. That is to say she wasnt as bad as one would have thought.

[El Payaso]

No, this new batman franchise needs continuity, unlike the old franchise:o

This franchise needs good actors. Holmes is the exception to that so far.

[Super_Ludacris]

lol@ having Furher/Col. Kling of casting judges on here. On paper she was the weakest of course but yet in still she still did a good job.

[Mr. Vice]

This franchise needs good actors. Holmes is the exception to that so far.

Damn....you have a good point there.

[Flame on!]

Trust Katie Holmes to spack up the Batman franchise...

[El Payaso]

she still did a good job.

Maybe with Tom Cruise.

[Super_Ludacris]

That sentence made no sense.

[Flame on!]

she still did a good job.
So good that she's being a spastic about returning and has half of the Bat-fans all over her case. What would happen if she did an excellent job, get lynched in the street?

[El Payaso]

That sentence made no sense.

Bringing Katie back makes even less sense.

[Super_Ludacris]

So good that she's being a spastic about returning and has half of the Bat-fans all over her case. What would happen if she did an excellent job, get lynched in the street?

Well fanboys in general over-react and are fickle we know this despite being fans of the movie and the character ourselves at least we can seperate ourselves from the general comic book convention hysteria.

And Holmes' uncertainty is a reflection of the circus that is TomKat, however I would imagine getting pregnant etc would put plans such as filming on the backburner. With that said, the movie is still in it's eary stages. Like we arent even in pre-production (barely so if we are) and the script is even finished (or started?). So any speculation or uncertainy of who is returning other than the definites is moot.

I'm just saying she did a ok job and people are just judging off of the stigma of Tomkat. I dont want that ****ing circus either but who knows how things will change come 2008. Maybe she will return to normalcy, maybe she will quit acting all together, it's all in hindsight *shrugs*

Fair assesment?

[Flame on!]

Well fanboys in general over-react and are fickle we know this despite being fans of the movie and the character ourselves at least we can seperate ourselves from the general comic book convention hysteria.

And Holmes' uncertainty is a reflection of the circus that is TomKat, however I would imagine getting pregnant etc would put plans such as filming on the backburner. With that said, the movie is still in it's eary stages. Like we arent even in pre-production (barely so if we are) and the script is even finished (or started?). So any speculation or uncertainy of who is returning other than the definites is moot.

I'm just saying she did a ok job and people are just judging off of the stigma of Tomkat. I dont want that ****ing circus either but who knows how things will change come 2008. Maybe she will return to normalcy, maybe she will quit acting all together, it's all in hindsight *shrugs*

Fair assesment?
Fair.

[Super_Ludacris]

Bringing Katie back makes even less sense.

But why though? I dont care for the character but at the same time I dont think she needs to be eliminated because people may think she's a distraction. Her presence in the film wont hinder the quality whatsoever. I just want people to give valid reasons other than hopping on the Tomkat bandwagon which I unfourtantley suspect some have.

[El Payaso]

Tomkat does nothing to do. She acted terrible, specially with such great actors surrounding her.

[Super_Ludacris]

That's not what everyone was saying here when the movie came out dun dun.

[Two-Face]

I thought she did good nothing special.

[Super_Ludacris]

As you said she did, nothing special true but she didnt wreck shop like some people thought, so its all good

[Two-Face]

I hated where she slaped Bruce TWICE! once was enough.

I hate recasts but if Katie Holmes not returning to the role, I suggest Jennifer connelly or just write off Rachel character since she wasn't needed in the first place.

[explode7]

I'm not gonna even watch the poll results because I bet most of you nearly all have said yes since the truth is Katie sucks as Rachael.

[Super_Ludacris]

I hated where she slaped Bruce TWICE! once was enough.

I hate recasts but if Katie Holmes not returning to the role, I suggest Jennifer connelly or just write off Rachel character since she wasn't needed in the first place.

That was funny, especially because it was twice lol

[Two-Face]

I'm not gonna even watch the poll results because I bet most of you nearly all have said yes since the truth is Katie suckes as Rachael.

Well you should cos 36 people want her back so what's the problem?

[GoldGoblin]

No recast

[Super_Ludacris]

The problem is he spelt "sucks" wrong lol

[explode7]

Happy now Lud I changed it for your viewing pleasure:up:

[Dark Knight]

But why though? I dont care for the character but at the same time I dont think she needs to be eliminated because people may think she's a distraction. Her presence in the film wont hinder the quality whatsoever. I just want people to give valid reasons other than hopping on the Tomkat bandwagon which I unfourtantley suspect some have.


Well...your avatar is distracting enough! :eek: Knock it off! j/k

But seriously....no re-casting of Rachel....Nolans series of Bat films doesn't need that crap for such a minor character.

[ShadowBoxing]

No...just have Joker kill her.

[GoldGoblin]

No...just have Joker kill her.

^Yep,better to at least mention it instead of her just disappearing like she didn't exist.

[El Payaso]

Well you should cos 36 people want her back so what's the problem?

No. 36 people don't want a recast. That's not the same as saying 'I want Katie back', just 'IF Rachel's gonna be back, well, no re-cast'.

Still, people thinks she should be killed off.

[COMPO]

She should be recast or taken off. I think that she should stay because once dent goes coocoo (crazy motion) she should step in as DA.

[GoldGoblin]

-Katie Holmes should come back to play Rachel.
-If she won't,don't recast.
-Have a new female love interest.(Female villain)
-And mention what has happened to Rachel somewhere in the movie.

[Super_Ludacris]

done, thread resolve