What should happen to the Rachael character?

[COMPO]

I'm sick and tired of people arguing about this charcter. So i suggest we all submit a vote.

NO CRITISISING or *****ING about the character.

JUST SAY IF SHE SHOULD DIE!! LEAVE GOTHAM!! OR NOT RETURN AT ALL!!

I think that Joker should drive her insane that way she could return.

That is my opinion. No *****ing about it. No complaining. Just submit what you think should happen!!

[Mee]

I say don't have her in it at all. Just mention where she went like they did with Vicki in Batman Returns.

[COMPO]

Thank you. It's nice to see peopel who don't go and rattle on about things.

[Ronny Shade]

why is there no poll

[Mee]

why is there no poll
It's an invisible poll. Very top secret, hush hush.

[Kritish]

Killed by the Joker.

[Mee]

Killed by the Joker.
If she's in it, then yes. But I'd rather her not be in it.

[Kritish]

Maybe he should rape her and she becomes pregnant with his baby?

[DV8]

Killed and raped by Joker, and in that order

[Ronny Shade]

you forgot peed on

[Kritish]

Killed and raped by Joker, and in that order

Too many people would be pissed off my the Necrophila thing.

[DV8]

you forgot peed on

oh yeah! Kill her, rape her, pee on her, then impregnate her with an undead Joker-offspring . . . then the sequel: Seed of Jokey

[Mee]

you forgot peed on
Then mail her corpse to an orphanage.

[Batman]

It's doubtful she'll be in it, really. Holmes allegedly swore off acting to raise her daughter, and I honestly don't see why they'd recast the role since Nolan himself explained in an interview (Don't ask me for the interview. I don't have it. But I'm sure someone remembers it.) that the whole point of that ending scene between the two in Begins was to show a closure for Bruce Wayne, and a beginning for Batman.

I loved the character, and wouldn't mind seeing her return, but honestly, I see the logic behind not having her in it. If she is in it, the only good reason for it would be, as said, having her killed by The Joker to make the rivalry more personal between Batman and himself. (Which, I admit, is a better way to do it than making Joker the actual killer of Batman's parents.)

[Mee]

Holmes allegedly swore off acting to raise her daughter More like, Tom Cruise won't allow her to leave the house as she must train the youngling.

[Batman]

More like, Tom Cruise won't allow her to leave the house as she must train the youngling.

Bingo. :(

[Macphisto]

Holmes allegedly swore off acting to raise her daughter,
Her and Cruise are currently developing a project together (by that I mean film, not another gremlin), so those rumours look pretty much like BS. Plus they came from The Sun tabloid.

[Kritish]

It's doubtful she'll be in it, really. Holmes allegedly swore off acting to raise her daughter, and I honestly don't see why they'd recast the role since Nolan himself explained in an interview (Don't ask me for the interview. I don't have it. But I'm sure someone remembers it.) that the whole point of that ending scene between the two in Begins was to show a closure for Bruce Wayne, and a beginning for Batman.

I loved the character, and wouldn't mind seeing her return, but honestly, I see the logic behind not having her in it. If she is in it, the only good reason for it would be, as said, having her killed by The Joker to make the rivalry more personal between Batman and himself. (Which, I admit, is a better way to do it than making Joker the actual killer of Batman's parents.)

Yeah, you have to make shure you brainwash your daughter correctly into Scientology. :up:

[Avernus]

Maybe he should rape her and she becomes pregnant with his baby?

didn't the joker in RL do this?..

[Batman]

Her and Cruise are currently developing a project together (by that I mean film, not another gremlin), so those rumours look pretty much like BS. Plus they came from The Sun tabloid.

I wasn't aware. Intresting.

That said, if she can come back, and they can do it in a way where it doesn't seem absolutely pointless story-wise, I wouldn't mind it. I enjoyed her character and performance.

[Super Flight]

they should Cast me, so that she can have a new lover

[NinjaTurtleFan]

Kill her, write her off, hell don't even mention her.

Bruce has so many flames and one nightstands that he's practically James Bond. I say she left Gotham feeling hurt that she and him couldn't have been and Bruce in the sequel is now seeing Selina Kyle, while Harvey could be dating Pamela Isley, who both as you know would turn into Catwoman and Poison Ivy respectively.

[mcflytrap]

Monseigneur Bettany should kill her.

http://www.paulbettany.net/gallery/albums/mags/empire/empire1.jpg

[Two-Face]

I Anyway, I thought she was already confirmed to return in the sequel.

Not yet, we see.

[StorminNorman]

I think Rachel needs to be in the BB2 sequel if only to keep from having new love interests with every Bat-film. Kill her, have her leave at the start of the film, whatever - just have Katie Holmes make an appearance.

[titan101]

oh yeah! Kill her, rape her, pee on her, then impregnate her with an undead Joker-offspring . . . then the sequel: Seed of Jokey"seed of jokey"?LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[COMPO]

Why don't we just keep her but just have little cameos.

[Spare-Flair]

She should marry a crazy scientologist who believes in reincarnation who convinces her that they have been together in many past lives where they have been poor, where they have fought in wars, where they have been muscians, scientists, and that Brooke Shields was once the lover of Sigmund Freud in a past life, therefore that's why she defends psychiatry even though Freud was the father of psychoanalysis and not psychiatry.

True story.

[darwinwins]

die in a fire die in a fire die in a fire she should die in a fire!

[COMPO]

I think that Rachael should be the DA at the begining and she threatens to put the Joker behind bars. So the Joker goes after her. And drives her insane.

[Ronny Shade]

Rachel can't be the DA in this movie. Harvey Dent is the DA in this movie.

[Two-Face]

Dent would be her new boss since Finch was killed.

[Ronny Shade]

That works beautifully

[Doc Holliday]

I say she doesn't actually make an appearance, but through dialogue we find out that the Joker killed her between movies.

[Ronny Shade]

I say she doesn't actually make an appearance, but through dialogue we find out that the Joker killed her between movies.
Oh yeah that's great. Cut out a tragic and defining motivation for the main character completely. I wish you were in charge of this move [/dripping sarcasm]

[Doc Holliday]

Well I'm saying this because she's not making movies for a while to raise her child and all.

And Bruce would still be extremely crushed by it and everything, it just doesn't have to be shown.

[Batman]

Well I'm saying this because she's not making movies for a while to raise her child and all.


I thought that too, but apparentally, she and Cruise are developing a film project together.

[Doc Holliday]

Oh, really? Hadn't heard that.

In that case, BRING ON THE RACHEL DEATH SCENE!

[Capt Throbberson]

Run over by the Tumbler

[neemer5]

They break up (in the movie), and Bruce moves on.

[bes628]

What the hell is wrong with some of u people? how is talking bout Raping somebody even cool.

[darwinwins]

wait ... this is an easy solution. bring her back for part 2 for at least the first few minutes. batman chases the joker and rachel is taken hostage and dies as a result and yadda yadda yadda ... everyone rejoices!

[COMPO]

Oh yeah that's great. Cut out a tragic and defining motivation for the main character completely. I wish you were in charge of this move [/dripping sarcasm]

I think that that guys idea would be good at the beginning. Gordon mentions it. And Batman sits alone later on the edge of a building and we go to a flash back of rachael dying.

[Cake]

Well I'm saying this because she's not making movies for a while to raise her child and all.

This has only been reported by rags like The Sun or The Star. Holmes is expected to come back soon to movies sets. Cruise has said they're looking for a project to work together in the future. And according to Moviehole.net she is already being eyed for another project to work after Batman 2.

[Thot]

For continuity's sake and to keep Bruce a bit more grounded and relatable, Rachel should return. If Holmes is too busy being brainwashed and monitored by Cruise and the Scientology Minders, Nolan should offer the role to Jennifer Connelly. She'd be perfect.

[darwinwins]

For continuity's sake and to keep Bruce a bit more grounded and relatable, Rachel should return. If Holmes is too busy being brainwashed and monitored by Cruise and the Scientology Minders, Nolan should offer the role to Jennifer Connelly. She'd be perfect.

no because she'd be killed off and no one should ever kill any of her characters off. ever.

[grabmygladys]

The Joker should kill Rachel in an incredibly cruel and emotional scene.

[The Kid]

it would be very emotionally powerful.

[Cinemaman]

I think she should come back to be in BB2. But at the end of sequel she will be kiled by Joker (she will fall from the roof of one of the biggest buildings in Gotham, which is the center of his smile gas). It will be tragedy for Bruce, so he will stop this gas and run to get Joker to kill him for what he did wilth Dent and Rachel.

But finally, Batman will arrested him in Arkham.

I think sequel should be darker also for Batman.

In 3rd film he will become a crime murder, who kills other killers. But then he will stop this and return as Batman, who is known for us.

[the_joker]

Orignally Posted by darwinwins
wait ... this is an easy solution. bring her back for part 2 for at least the first few minutes. batman chases the joker and rachel is taken hostage and dies as a result and yadda yadda yadda ... everyone rejoices!

Apart from the everyone rejoicies bit, that is a brilliant idea. Because then Batman will be forever tormented with guilt of being too late and losing his 'true love'. He should then go after the Joker for vengeance as like they say, a man who has nothing to lose is a dangerous enemy...

[El Payaso]

Run over by the Tumbler

HAHAHAH. Brilliant.

[captain_jimbo]

Maybe she sees an old episode of Dawson's Creek and dies of boredom!

[Cake]

The Joker should kill Rachel in an incredibly cruel and emotional scene.

That'd be a total bummer. Such a predictable/not original act. The villain kills the love interest in order to create conflict with the hero.... repeating the same story we have seen so many times already. I hope Jonathan and Chris decide to go with a more creative route.

I say don't kill Rachel. Let her romance with Bruce grows... let's have a continuity. Why not a real heroine and a real romance? That would make this sequel a lot different from the other batman movies.

[COMPO]

That'd be a total bummer. Such a predictable/not original act. The villain kills the love interest in order to create conflict with the hero.... repeating the same story we have seen so many times already. I hope Jonathan and Chris decide to go with a more creative route.

I say don't kill Rachel. Let her romance with Bruce grows... let's have a continuity. Why not a real heroine and a real romance? That would make this sequel a lot different from the other batman movies.

Have her get tortured by the Joker into insanity, my friend. That's creative. And it would show a sinister side of Joker.

[Doc Holliday]

I say don't kill Rachel. Let her romance with Bruce grows... let's have a continuity. Why not a real heroine and a real romance? That would make this sequel a lot different from the other batman movies.

In what other Batman movie was the love interest killed by the villain? Sure, they've been taken hostage or whatever, but never actually murdered.

[COMPO]

In what other Batman movie was the love interest killed by the villain? Sure, they've been taken hostage or whatever, but never actually murdered.

I think it means giving him a serious relationship. That's never been done in films before.

[Abaddon]

I liked Rachel.

[Abaddon]

That'd be a total bummer. Such a predictable/not original act. The villain kills the love interest in order to create conflict with the hero.... repeating the same story we have seen so many times already. I hope Jonathan and Chris decide to go with a more creative route.

I say don't kill Rachel. Let her romance with Bruce grows... let's have a continuity. Why not a real heroine and a real romance? That would make this sequel a lot different from the other batman movies.


Continuity would be not having them be together.She already said in her last scene that he's no longer the man she loved.

[I am Batman]

I think they should say that she took a Head DA position in Metropolis. This way they mention the existence of Metropolis and it allows Harvey Dent to take up the empty position.

[Cake]

Have her get tortured by the Joker into insanity, my friend. That's creative. And it would show a sinister side of Joker.

So creative and different that it was the first idea everyone came up with. :down

[Katsuro]

The one thing that's turned me against Joker killing Rachel is the fact that we've all talked about it so much. We're all expecting it, so now I dont really want it. Just write her out, it's so simple. It's not like B'89 or Batman Forever where him and the love interest seemed like like they were gonna be together, then in the next movie they're forgotten. This one has an excuse to leave. She's obviously not gonna have a relationship with Bruce, so write her our as transferring to Metropolis, Bludhaven, or Coast City.

Then bring in Selina Kyle as the love interesting in the next film, and have her carry over to the third film where she becomes Catwoman (maybe have hints of her existence in the second film, but Batman never meets her).

[COMPO]

So creative and different that it was the first idea everyone came up with. :down

Yeah, by me. I've been staying this idea for months now

[Katsuro]

Yeah, by me. I've been staying this idea for months now

Trust me. you arne't the first person to suggest the death/torture/rape/urination on of Rachel by the Joker.

[COMPO]

Whoa, there i just meant you know electrocute her and cut her a bit. I didn't mean piss on her and rape her.

[Katsuro]

Whoa, there i just meant you know electrocute her and cut her a bit. I didn't mean piss on her and rape her.

I know you didn't, but I was just pointing out all the multitude of things crazy people have suggested.

[COMPO]

Are you call me crazy? It's not my fault. It's the elves they tell me top start fires. LOL

[Cake]

Just write her out, it's so simple. It's not like B'89 or Batman Forever where him and the love interest seemed like like they were gonna be together, then in the next movie they're forgotten. This one has an excuse to leave. She's obviously not gonna have a relationship with Bruce, so write her our as transferring to Metropolis, Bludhaven, or Coast City.

I strongly disagree with you. I got the feeling of hope, not end, by Rachel's lastest words. She does use the words "maybe... someday", not "I dont wanna see you ever again". She's not saying goodbye IMO, she's waiting for Bruce to go after her (like she did for him). She's waiting to see that even though we have Batman now, we still have a man underneath. It's a similar situation to what happened with Peter and Mary Jane in Spider-man 1.

And I believe people do root for continuity. It's tiresome to see Batman gettting a different and unmeaning love interest for every movie. He's not Bond. Why can't he have for once a real connection with life and love? That would make him even more appealing and human IMO.


Then bring in Selina Kyle as the love interesting in the next film, and have her carry over to the third film where she becomes Catwoman (maybe have hints of her existence in the second film, but Batman never meets her).

I wouldn't risk so much. Most people still repulse the simple idea of having Catwoman on screen again. And I doubt that would change much until Batman 3.

[Katsuro]

I strongly disagree with you. I got the feeling of hope, not end, by Rachel's lastest words. She does use the words "maybe... someday", not "I dont wanna see you ever again". She's not saying goodbye IMO, she's waiting for Bruce to go after her (like she did for him). She's waiting to see that even though we have Batman now, we still have a man underneath. It's a similar situation to what happened with Peter and Mary Jane in Spider-man 1.

But I just dont see what she would do in the meantime. Her character ins't interesting to be anything but the love interest. Even if she and Bruce will eventually get back together, it wont be for a long, long time. Her character is rather useless, not to mention many people dind't like her.


I wouldn't risk so much. Most people still repulse the simple idea of having Catwoman on screen again. And I doubt that would change much until Batman 3.

See, us comic fans always think that, because we remember that nightmare that was Halle's Catwoman. What we forget, is that we're the only people who care about or remember that movie. No one saw that movie, and no one remembers it. I'm sure when people think of Catwoman even today, they think of Michelle Pfeiffer sooner than they think of Halle Berry. Hell, I'll bet they think of Julie Newmar, Eartha Kitt, and Lee Meriwether before they think of Halle Berry.

[Doc Holliday]

I strongly disagree with you. I got the feeling of hope, not end, by Rachel's lastest words. She does use the words "maybe... someday", not "I dont wanna see you ever again". She's not saying goodbye IMO, she's waiting for Bruce to go after her (like she did for him). She's waiting to see that even though we have Batman now, we still have a man underneath. It's a similar situation to what happened with Peter and Mary Jane in Spider-man 1.

And I believe people do root for continuity. It's tiresome to see Batman gettting a different and unmeaning love interest for every movie. He's not Bond. Why can't he have for once a real connection with life and love? That would make him even more appealing and human IMO.

I wouldn't mind it so much in this instance, but Rachel was a made up character. I'd like to see a love interest from the comics (Selina Kyle or even Talia al Ghul).

[Two-Face]

I strongly disagree with you. I got the feeling of hope, not end, by Rachel's lastest words. She does use the words "maybe... someday", not "I dont wanna see you ever again". She's not saying goodbye IMO, she's waiting for Bruce to go after her (like she did for him). She's waiting to see that even though we have Batman now, we still have a man underneath. It's a similar situation to what happened with Peter and Mary Jane in Spider-man 1.

And I believe people do root for continuity. It's tiresome to see Batman gettting a different and unmeaning love interest for every movie. He's not Bond. Why can't he have for once a real connection with life and love? That would make him even more appealing and human IMO.



I wouldn't risk so much. Most people still repulse the simple idea of having Catwoman on screen again. And I doubt that would change much until Batman 3.


She said she may find Bruce again the man she knew and loved when Gotham no longer needs Batman, Gotham always will need Batman.

[Thot]

Hold on a minute ya'll! In the final scene with Rachel and Bruce she laments that he's not the guy she once knew and that she hopes to see "him" the way he was again. This doesn't mean she doesn't want a romantic relationship with him. Indeed, the scene immediately after that one shows them walking hand in hand! Something they wouldn't be doing if she had just told him "no deal" til he becomes "old Bruce" again. The impression I got was that the romantic relationship has officially begun, but that it will be a strained one.

[Cake]

Her character is rather useless, not to mention many people dind't like her.

Rachel does serve for a different purpose than the usual love interest from previous movies. She's his moral voice, his dear friend, his link with real world. Rachel (along with Alfred) reminds Bruce his humanity and through her we see the soul and heart of Batman. We can't have a Batman without Bruce. We need to understand his motivations and his world, in order to care for him and his story. The audience needs to know there's a human behind the mask. That's one of the reasons Rachel is there.

I wouldn't say "many people didn't like her". Most people I've talked liked her character a lot (specially how she's not stereotyped). From what I've read around most people are waiting for her return. According to BOF, there's even a "RD Campaign" launched:

From the BatmanOnFilm.com mailbag Q and A: -Im launching a 'Rachel Dawes campaign' to bring back actress Katie Holmes. It will break my heart and many hearts if Rachel is just written out of the sequel or murdered too quickly - Richard G.


See, us comic fans always think that, because we remember that nightmare that was Halle's Catwoman. What we forget, is that we're the only people who care about or remember that movie. No one saw that movie, and no one remembers it.

Rather contradictory, no? If "no one saw that movie" what would comic fans worry about then?


She said she may find Bruce again the man she knew and loved when Gotham no longer needs Batman, Gotham always will need Batman.

Actually those are Rachel's exactly words: "But maybe he's still out there, somewhere. Maybe one day, when Gotham no longer needs Batman, I'll see him again."

Will Gotham needs batman all the time? Bruce will no longer exist? No real life for Bruce?

[Batman]

...Well, considering he doesn't really have a real, true non-Batman life in the comics...

[Katsuro]

Rather contradictory, no? If "no one saw that movie" what would comic fans worry about then?


I guess that's the point, they shouldn't be worrying. Comic fans all saw Catwoman and remembered it because it ruined a character they're familiar with and like in the comics. The general public doesn't really give a damn that she was treated so poorly, and probably can't even tell the difference. It didn't stick with them as a mocking of a good comic character like it does us, to them it's just some crap they didn't see because the trailers looked dumb. So comic fans just need to remember that they're the only ones who remember that movie, and stop worrying about people being turned off by the idea of Catwoman in a Batman movie.

[Dark Knight]

That'd be a total bummer. Such a predictable/not original act. The villain kills the love interest in order to create conflict with the hero.... repeating the same story we have seen so many times already. I hope Jonathan and Chris decide to go with a more creative route.

I say don't kill Rachel. Let her romance with Bruce grows... let's have a continuity. Why not a real heroine and a real romance? That would make this sequel a lot different from the other batman movies.



Horrible idea to let Rachel and Brcue develop there relationship?? What a waste of screentime for such an insignificant character. Rachel should die...or leave Gotham.

[COMPO]

Horrible idea to let Rachel and Brcue develop there relationship?? What a waste of screentime for such an insignificant character. Rachel should die...or leave Gotham.

I said no *****ing.

[Ronny Shade]

As Javier Grillo-Marxuach once told me, you kill off a character when that character is finished. When they don't really have any further to develop or when they are finished being a foil for a more important character, they're basically a waste of space, so that's when you kill them or otherwise write them out. If Chris and Jon can find a way to make Rachel relevant, they should keep her around in BB2, if not, they should kill her or write her out.

It's really that simple.

[Kritish]

She should marry a crazy scientologist who believes in reincarnation who convinces her that they have been together in many past lives where they have been poor, where they have fought in wars, where they have been muscians, scientists, and that Brooke Shields was once the lover of Sigmund Freud in a past life, therefore that's why she defends psychiatry even though Freud was the father of psychoanalysis and not psychiatry.

True story.

I think I'm gonna like you.

[Lightning54SC]

i think they shoudl do the killing joke story but instead of Barb Gorden let it be rachel... also a twist she dies

[I SEE SPIDEY]

That'd be a total bummer. Such a predictable/not original act. The villain kills the love interest in order to create conflict with the hero.... repeating the same story we have seen so many times already. I hope Jonathan and Chris decide to go with a more creative route.

I say don't kill Rachel. Let her romance with Bruce grows... let's have a continuity. Why not a real heroine and a real romance? That would make this sequel a lot different from the other batman movies.The reason that I don't want Rachel in the next movie is simple I didn't like the actress that protrayed the character. If they recast I won't have any problems with the character staying on board...and incase any of you think I'm just picking on Holmes, I loved Hellboy even more than Batman Begins and in the movie, I hated Selma Blair even more than Holmes.

[Kritish]

Katie should give the Joker herpes.

[Ronny Shade]

thats the only way to stop him

[Ben Urich]

I'd like to see her live to see the end of the second film, but I hope she isn't constantly the damsel that Batman has to end up saving. That'd get kinda old.

[hotrain33]

From what I have heard before that Holmes doesn't want to be in the next film. So maybe if that does happen that would make Nolan's job easier. Just mention that she received a promotion elsewhere in a different town. Bring in someone else who is more comic book related like talia.

[Cats]

Yeah, you have to make shure you brainwash your daughter correctly into Scientology. :up:
Let's see... brainwashing, maniacal laughter, couch jumping, fooling a young naive girl into being his love slave.... hmmm, is it just me or does Tom Cruise sound like a real life 'Joker'?

[Dark Knight]

As Javier Grillo-Marxuach once told me, you kill off a character when that character is finished. When they don't really have any further to develop or when they are finished being a foil for a more important character, they're basically a waste of space, so that's when you kill them or otherwise write them out. If Chris and Jon can find a way to make Rachel relevant, they should keep her around in BB2, if not, they should kill her or write her out.

It's really that simple.


it is that simple.....and when one thinks it over....(which isn't a very long contemplation) then her character would be waste of space and screentime for more characters to develop or introduce within the narrative. I would rather see more screentime for Batman Joker, Dent, Talia, Cobblepot, Gordon....than waste space on Katie Holmes' Rachel Dawes?? It's not even close...

[Dark Knight]

i think they shoudl do the killing joke story but instead of Barb Gorden let it be rachel... also a twist she dies

exactly...i agree....it's that simple. Then more for Bruce/Batman to deal with and overcome.....which equals great drama.

[Dark Knight]

. Bring in someone else who is more comic book related like talia.


I agree...:up:

[Spideywithsai]

make her a new supervillain that tries to convert gotham to scientology, i can see the reviews now!!

[Two-Face]

make her a new supervillain that tries to convert gotham to scientology, i can see the reviews now!!


Go back to Spidey forum....:o

[The Batman]

I find it very pathetic that people want to kill her off just so batman can be pissed at joker.

The fact that joker is running around killing the very people bruce is trying to protect should be reason enough for bats to be pissed at joker

[Batman]

Yeah, but that doesn't nessacarily distance the Joker from someone like Jonathan Crane or Ra's Al Ghul. Hell, it'd make him look like an amatuer, considering Ra's plan had the means to turn hundreds of people into fear toxin pumped lunatics bent on destroying eachother out of fear.

The Joker is, even though Batman himself doesn't admit it, his worst enemy. How has he become that? Look at all he's done to Batman on a personal level. The Death Of Jason Todd. Crippling Barbara Gordon. Shooting Dick Grayson. Killing Sarah Essen, His best friend's wife, in cold blood.

Even though I agree with you about it not being the reason Batman goes after The Joker at all, I think what they want is a way to distance The Joker, dramatically, from other villians, because he's widely known for being Batman's worst. If he just killed people... He'd just be another psychopath in Gotham City, which they had in the Scarecrow character in Batman Begins.

That said, I don't want it to even happen until Batman 3, if the character even comes back for 2.

[The Batman]

But Joker was considered Batman's worst looong before joker ever killed bruce's allies.

[metr0man]

i like the idea of The Joker killing her. It would jolt the audience hard and give it that "nobody is safe" feeling, because Katie Holmes is a Hollywood name. Do it mid-film or even fairly early. Plus its very faithful to the Joker who seems to love shooting and killing women (like, for instance, all of the women Gordon loves, wives and daughter, lol)

[DeGenerate10]

Have the Joker kill her in front of Batman so we can hear Batman yell RACHEAL! again

[chosen1]

How about good bye rachel have her gone completely.

Katie holmes should'nt have been in the movie at all