Originally Posted by The Boy Scout
This is a hard question. I liked both of them. Holmes was perfect as Bruce's childhood friend who had to give him a kick in the rump every now and then in BB. She was meant to be a little childish, I think, because she was supposed to represent the innocence that Bruce had lost, the innocence that he wants to have again, in the form of a normal life.
Maggie, on the older hand, was perfect as the mature, experienced DA. It's almost like she and Holmes played two completely different characters.
Truth be told, I don't think either of them would've been as successful playing the other's role. So, that said, I wouldn't change anything. I'd keep it as it happened. Or I'd just find a different actress entirely.
I agree very much with this year old post. With the exception of Katie's delivery of the 'I'm a Gotham DA let me through' line, I thought she was fine as the childhood friend that Bruce pines for. She comes across as pretty and sweet - innocent qualities that Bruce cannot resist. Those qualities, however, simply would not work with the next chapter and Maggie successfully takes the character to another level in TDK.
In TDK, Rachel comes across as a very competent, devoted, and, more importantly, believable
DA. I would have a very difficult time believing Katie in the scene with that Lao (?) guy.
Also, regarding the lack of chemistry between Bale and Gyllenhaal, I thought that was kinda the point. Bruce was holding on to something that just wasn't there, holding on to one of the last remnants of his happy life. I thought Rachel felt bad for her old friend (I mean who wouldn't) and didn't want to hurt him hence why she 'strung' him along for so long. Rachel also doesn't get Bruce. I think that's why she thought he was being sarcastic when he was endorsing Dent at the party when he was being sincere. They were all wrong for each other and the fact that Bruce couldn't see it was sad. But made for great drama!
Ok. Back to lurking.