The Dark Knight Rises Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle/Catwoman

[terry78]

 

[The Joker]

I thought she seemed a lot more snarky and egotistical, while Holmes was more no nonsense. See how Maggie approaches Lau for example, or even interacts with Harvey.

The scene with Lau was great. She was clearly enjoying making him squirm. I can't imagine Katie doing a scene like that. She might whip out her taser and say "Yeah, that's right you better talk"

Her interactions with Harvey were fine. I can understand her upset when he started taking fool hardy risks, like saying he was really Batman.

I also thought her acting felt very forced a lot of times. 'You make your own luck' struck me that way.

That was Academy Award material compared to some of Holmes' stuff lol.

 

[RustyCage]

The scene with Lau was great. She was clearly enjoying making him squirm. I can't imagine Katie doing a scene like that. She might whip out her taser and say "Yeah, that's right you better talk"

Yeah, Maggie is more aggressive for sure, but I was referring to the topic of maturity. She waltzes in smiling and being arrogant with them, and that kinda behavior doesn't strike me as all that mature. She seems like a different character entirely from the way she acts/is written.

Her interactions with Harvey were fine. I can understand her upset when he started taking fool hardy risks, like saying he was really Batman.

Oh, they were fine. I just thought the character changed a lot between films, and I found her more sarcastic and playful rather than more mature, the latter of which you felt was the case.

She also reacts to Bruce and Harvey's choices pretty irrationally, when in Begins she pretty much trusted Batman wholly. That always struck me as a strange and unwarranted shift. She's more someone who gets outraged and panicky (when she's discussing Harvey turning himself in with Alfred, when Bruce shows up at the party and KO's Harvey), while Katie's Rachel was more someone who stayed calm and understanding with the occasional moment where her eyes would get understandably a shade wider at various situations. Within this comparison as well, Begins' Rachel strikes me as the more mature Rachel.

That was Academy Award material compared to some of Holmes' stuff lol.

I haven't even seen anything else with her in it, so when I talk about her, I'm talking about how she performed in Batman specifically, not as an overall actress.

 

[Fudgie]

Katie Holmes is the only casting mis-fire Nolan has done in any of his movies.

 

[The Joker]

Yeah, Maggie is more aggressive for sure, but I was referring to the topic of maturity. She waltzes in smiling and being arrogant with them, and that kinda behavior doesn't strike me as all that mature.

I think you're being a tad pedantic there, mate. She was enjoying making this mob scum squirm. It's no different to Gordon casually strolling into Maroni's restaurant, look at Harvey on the TV, and then say "Our boy looks good on the tube", before ushering in his platoon of Cops to arrest the mob.

I love that kind of stuff. The good guys were FINALLY making some head way with cleaning up Gotham. They earned their right to be cocky and smile in the faces of the scum.

She seems like a different character entirely from the way she acts/is written.

I know. This one was actually a believable character

She also reacts to Bruce and Harvey's choices pretty irrationally, when in Begins she pretty much trusted Batman wholly. That always struck me as a strange and unwarranted shift.

Where did she act irrationally to anything Batman did in TDK?

She's more someone who gets outraged and panicky (when she's discussing Harvey turning himself in with Alfred, when Bruce shows up at the party and KO's Harvey)

LOL, oh come on! Bruce just walked up out of the clear blue sky and knocked her boyfriend out while they were having an intimate chat. What did you expect her to do? Raise her glass and say cheers? t:

Of course she got panicky when Harvey turned himself in. He was outing himself as Batman when he wasn't, and putting himself in the direct firing line of the worst threat Gotham has ever seen.

I think she earned the right to panic.

while Katie's Rachel was more someone who stayed calm and understanding with the occasional moment where her eyes would get understandably a shade wider at various situations. Within this comparison as well, Begins' Rachel strikes me as the more mature Rachel.

Holmes' Rachel was ignorant of what was really going on around her for most of Begins. She didn't know Bruce was Batman. Her boyfriend and man she loved wasn't in direct threat constantly. She knew nothing about Crane being Scarecrow and the poison operation under Arkham, the looming threat of Ra's coming to Gotham, or anything like that. Even Batman himself was ignorant to the magnitude of the threat Gotham faced.

In TDK, everyone knew about The Joker, and what he was doing. All of Gotham was in terror of him.

I haven't even seen anything else with her in it, so when I talk about her, I'm talking about how she performed in Batman specifically, not as an overall actress.

So am I.

Btw, love your new avatar

 

[RustyCage]

I think you're being a tad pedantic there, mate.

Acting, ideally, is a subtle and detailed thing. It deserves deep analysis, and the characters in these films are obviously not portrayed shallowly.

She was enjoying making this mob scum squirm. It's no different to Gordon casually strolling into Maroni's restaurant, look at Harvey on the TV, and then say "Our boy looks good on the tube", before ushering in his platoon of Cops to arrest the mob.

They went about it differently, for sure. That's a matter of personality of course.

I love that kind of stuff. The good guys were FINALLY making some head way with cleaning up Gotham. They earned their right to be cocky and smile in the faces of the scum.

I appreciate that, and I enjoyed it for that reason too, but her character still feels different.

I know. This one was actually a believable character

I don't understand how either of them is less believable than the other. They both seemed believable to me, just different. What do you mean?

Where did she act irrationally to anything Batman did in TDK?

I listed a couple of examples. She freaked and kicked and whined when before she always seemed to just accept that Batman knew what he was doing and acted calmly and helpfully.

Now that I think about it though, I may be wrong, but every time her tantrums happened it was when Harvey specifically was somehow being put in some kind of danger. Maybe that's the key there.

LOL, oh come on! Bruce just walked up out of the clear blue sky and knocked her boyfriend out while they were having an intimate chat. What did you expect her to do? Raise her glass and say cheers? t:

If she had the same personality as in Begins, I would expect her to simply watch and ask Bruce for the low-down on the situation. Is it somehow not normal for him to do sudden, unexplained and risky things? She knows him by now.

Of course she got panicky when Harvey turned himself in. He was outing himself as Batman when he wasn't, and putting himself in the direct firing line of the worst threat Gotham has ever seen.

It wasn't just that she panicked there, it was the irrational conclusions she drew about Bruce based off of it, and her lack of understanding, or even beginning to consider that there might be some underlying advantage sneaking around. She had no reason to assume that Bruce's quality of character took a random **** like that. It was terribly uncalled for, hardly mature.

I think she earned the right to panic.

She performed much more maturely under the effects of Crane's fear toxin if you ask me.

Holmes' Rachel was ignorant of what was really going on around her for most of Begins.

Just as she was ignorant of why Bruce KO'd Harvey or the advantage of Harvey turning himself in, etcetera. It doesn't make a difference, she knows she can trust him regardless of whether or not she's partially in the dark. I dunno how that trust flew out the window without warrant like it did, when it was so well established before.

She didn't know Bruce was Batman. Her boyfriend and man she loved wasn't in direct threat constantly. She knew nothing about Crane being Scarecrow and the poison operation under Arkham, the looming threat of Ra's coming to Gotham, or anything like that. Even Batman himself was ignorant to the magnitude of the threat Gotham faced.

When she eventually learned all those things, she didn't panic or act irrationally or immediately assume Batman was a nutball with no idea what he was doing.

She was even stranded in the Narrows, she went back down there herself simply because Batman told her to, after Scarecrow attacked her before. She trusted him completely, because he earned it. She assumed he knew what he was doing. Why did that change so radically?

Btw, love your new avatar

Yours is great too. That cat is so distractingly creepy.

 

[regwec]

My helmet is much more purple than that.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

100% agree. Her death had a lot less weight to it than it could have done if Katie had taken up the role again.

That's very true! And now I have an actual Batman-related reason for disliking Tom Cruise. Katie would've added a whole other dimension to Rachel altogether.

I don't think it's a character flaw to love two people. I just thought it was inconsistent with the character we saw in BB. That Rachel would tell Bruce she did promise to wait for him but life threw her a curve ball and she fell in love with Dent. And that she would always love Bruce as family but they were very different.

I don't know, I think her connection with the D.A.'s office made her an obvious choice as "Harvey's squeeze" even before TDK came out, even from an analytical perspective. Rachel was never one for Bruce's disrespect for the law, and I think it was fitting that she found a personal preference for Dent, the man who doesn't need to hide behind a mask. And they actually handled that otherwise generic theme of 'I'm a superhero but I can't be wit ma gurl' well here, since it's Rachel who took the more adult stance at the end of Begins, talking about a world without Batman. They handled the theme well in the sense that by the time we had a sequel, Rachel tells him that time will never come, because Batman's a personal demon. It shows how Rachel's original respect for Batman's heroism tended to fade over the years, as it was wont to from the start, as she argues with Alfred. It's sad that the one person Bruce cared about so deeply never 'truly' understood that this wasn't a personal vendetta to him (or perhaps understood him too well) and I think that could be something they're going to use with Catwoman, in response to your earlier concerns.

Anyway, I didn't mind MG either, her role demanded that she maintained that more-matured-than-Bruce angle, and I didn't mind the way she poked fun at her men. I like to see Katie's portrayal was equivalent to Bale's Batman, but Maggie had a good Wayne. Yes, in my mind, Rachel Dawse is a crime fighter.

Maggie G did the best she could with such a role. But at least the part was actually acted decently this time. If Katie had been in the warehouse when it blew up, I probably would have cheered lol.

Of course you'd cheer for it, YOU were the one who blasted her ya crazy demented freak!

Well yeah there were definitely things Maggie was better at. But who knows, maybe Katie could've pulled a Heath Ledger (no not DIE, although she would've been doing that in-character).

The scene with Lau was great. She was clearly enjoying making him squirm. I can't imagine Katie doing a scene like that. She might whip out her taser and say "Yeah, that's right you better talk"

Her interactions with Harvey were fine. I can understand her upset when he started taking fool hardy risks, like saying he was really Batman.

That was Academy Award material compared to some of Holmes' stuff lol.

Yeah, I think it's implied that if Maggie's Rachel lived she could've slapped some sense into Dent, even with the scars. And I think I can imagine Maggie slapping just as good as Katie... okay... that. weird. sentence.

But in Katie's defense, the scenes with Bruce, Alfred and the Joker would've been a lot better. Plus, I'm certain she would've been a lot more stern with the Batman.

Katie Holmes is the only casting mis-fire Nolan has done in any of his movies.

Don't you think that's a bit too much? I mean, there's always the guy played Commissioner Loeb, there's Lau, Scarlet Johansson in The Prestige, Ellen Page in Inception, and I'm sure there are others we can think of (Anne Hathaway!!!)

So, point being - I think Rachel Dawse is probably one of the better female characters Nolan wrote in his films. She's a lot more fleshed out than we give her credit for. But maybe I'm saying that only because she's Bruce's old flame.

 

[The Joker]

Acting, ideally, is a subtle and detailed thing. It deserves deep analysis, and the characters in these films are obviously not portrayed shallowly.

I know that. But I think you're being pedantic regarding the situations these characters are in. You seem to begrudge Rachel enjoying making a criminal sweat in the hot seat. But it's ok for Batman, Gordon, and Dent to enjoy making criminals sweat?

They went about it differently, for sure. That's a matter of personality of course.

But both still gloating and enjoying their victory over the mob.

I appreciate that, and I enjoyed it for that reason too, but her character still feels different.

I'm not disputing she feels different. I agree she feels different. Different in a good way.

I don't understand how either of them is less believable than the other. They both seemed believable to me, just different. What do you mean?

Believable in performance. The actor's job is to sell the character. I never ever believed Holmes as a mature D.A.

Like I said, she deserved that Razzie nom. She'd have won it, too, if I had a say. Being among a cast of greats make her stand out even more.

I listed a couple of examples. She freaked and kicked and whined when before she always seemed to just accept that Batman knew what he was doing and acted calmly and helpfully.

Now that I think about it though, I may be wrong, but every time her tantrums happened it was when Harvey specifically was somehow being put in some kind of danger. Maybe that's the key there.

There's only two times she "panicked":

1. When Bruce knocked out Harvey. All she said was "What are you doing?". Is that such a terrible overreaction? I wouldn't even call it flat out panic. It's not like she started assaulting him with her purse

2. When Harvey announced himself as Batman on TV. Again entirely justified that she'd panic over something as major as that.

If she had the same personality as in Begins, I would expect her to simply watch and ask Bruce for the low-down on the situation. Is it somehow not normal for him to do sudden, unexplained and risky things? She knows him by now.

She didn't know Bruce was Batman in Begins until the end. So you cannot even compare the two. One was ignorant, the other one was not.

You're also taking the situation entirely out of context. Bruce walked up and assaulted Harvey in the middle of the party. All she said was "What are you doing?". That's it.

As Joker would say, lets now BLOW this out of proportion

It wasn't just that she panicked there, it was the irrational conclusions she drew about Bruce based off of it, and her lack of understanding, or even beginning to consider that there might be some underlying advantage sneaking around. She had no reason to assume that Bruce's quality of character took a random **** like that. It was terribly uncalled for, hardly mature.

What irrational conclusions did she jump to? She went and ASKED Alfred why Bruce was letting Harvey do that, especially after Bruce said he was going to go and turn himself in.

"You know him better than anyone".

She performed much more maturely under the effects of Crane's fear toxin if you ask me.

She was drugged out of her brain. Hardly a fair comparison

Just as she was ignorant of why Bruce KO'd Harvey or the advantage of Harvey turning himself in, etcetera. It doesn't make a difference, she knows she can trust him regardless of whether or not she's partially in the dark. I dunno how that trust flew out the window without warrant like it did, when it was so well established before.

You're being pedantic again. Asking Bruce what is he doing is not a sign that she doesn't trust him. Are you seriously trying to tell me that if your best friend walked up and knocked your father out in a choke hold out of the blue, your first reaction wouldn't be to ask him what the hell is he doing?

Come on, dude. Lets get real here.

When she eventually learned all those things, she didn't panic or act irrationally or immediately assume Batman was a nutball with no idea what he was doing.

She didn't learn those things until it was too late. Until she was in the thick of the chaos in the Narrows. She felt safe going over there with an army of Cops storming the island. She only went over to give Gordon the antidote and then was supposed to leave. When all hell broke loose, she broke out her trusty taser and took out Scarecrow, then got saved by Batman from Zsasz.

Rachel in TDK stood up to the Joker when he and his men stormed the party, and even kneed him the stomach when he had a knife to her face.

Her courage is well documented. Even in her final moments, she tries to calm Harvey down when she realizes she's not going to be rescued.

Yours is great too. That cat is so distractingly creepy.

Why thank you

 

[Marx]

*sigh*

After reading some of the rabidity around here, I can't help but wonder...what the hell do some of these posters look like off-line? I guess every fanboy here is a stud, aye? Seriously. There have been some really disrespectful comments made against this young lady and frankly it's so stupid to read through.

Considering that make-up and costuming will undoubtedly change her appearance anyway, how about we discuss something a bit more...ya know, meaningful and less aesthetic? Like...her acting abilities for starts?

And by the way: The poll is extremely subjective. Where is the "I don't know yet" option?

I'd say it's an ironic thing, some of the posts about Anne Hathaway's looks in here are embarrassing, as is the notion that some have that they define what beauty is.

Exactly guys.

Aha. Once again, someone rails against the mythical misogynistic plot against Anne Hathaway, and once again, they make the stunningly stupid connection between indifference to her and personal physical beauty.

You are implying that, because I am not attracted to Anne Hathaway, I am ugly. Just spend a few moments thinking about how childish, inane and creepy that perspective is.

You are so much better than this reg. Once again, you are trying to jump on the 'mod abuse' train and trying to spin this into something it's not. Did LS, Hunter, or I say anything about every single post in here dripping with an idiotic and shallow male lockerroom mentality? No.

 

[The Joker]

Of course you'd cheer for it, YOU were the one who blasted her ya crazy demented freak!

LOL! I like you

Well yeah there were definitely things Maggie was better at. But who knows, maybe Katie could've pulled a Heath Ledger (no not DIE, although she would've been doing that in-character).

I can't definitively she wouldn't, but if her general resume of acting is anything to go by, I doubt it. Maggie has done some fine performances outside of TDK, like The Secretary. I've never been impressed by Holmes in anything she's done.

But in Katie's defense, the scenes with Bruce, Alfred and the Joker would've been a lot better. Plus, I'm certain she would've been a lot more stern with the Batman.

Much like Maggie was. Which when you think about it, it was a natural progression for the character. You would toughen up after going through what she did in Begins.

It's why I think she was so fearless when face to face with the Joker.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

My helmet is much more purple than that.

Is it also a touch of gray with a shade of Jack Kirby-blasphemy thrown in it?

 

[regwec]

You are so much better than this reg. Once again, you are trying to jump on the 'mod abuse' train and trying to spin this into something it's not. Did LS, Hunter, or I say anything about every single post in here dripping with an idiotic and shallow male lockerroom mentality? No.

I'm not applying spin here at all. The 'debate' on Anne Hathaway's attractiveness is entirely one sided: pretty much every poster describes her as "gorgeous", while on the other hand I stick to my guns of saying she is "okay, not beautiful". Meanwhile, swarms of people rant and squeal about this invisible hoard of male chauvinists who are constantly calling Anne Hathaway dog ugly and talentless. Once in a while, a helpful mod turns up to say how dreadful and no doubt hideous these damn chauvinistic nerds are.

It frustrates me because it seems to be a reaction against something which isn't happening. It's as if a new guy started work at an office, who turned out to be an Arab, and before anyone had said anything, a few do gooders piped up to say how disgusting they find the racist attitude shown towards the new guy.

And no, it isn't an "anti mod" thing- I treat everyone just the same, as should you.

Anyway, I am sure Anne will do very well, regardless of anything I might have to say about her.

 

[Marx]

I'm not applying spin here at all. The 'debate' on Anne Hathaway's attractiveness is entirely one sided: pretty much every poster describes her as "gorgeous", while on the other hand I stick to my guns of saying she is "okay, not beautiful". Meanwhile, swarms of people rant and squeal about this invisible hoard of male chauvinists who are constantly calling Anne Hathaway dog ugly and talentless. Once in a while, a helpful mod turns up to say how dreadful and no doubt hideous these damn chauvinistic nerds are.

It frustrates me because it seems to be a reaction against something which isn't happening. It's as if a new guy started work at an office, who turned out to be an Arab, and before anyone had said anything, a few do gooders piped up to say how disgusting they find the racist attitude shown towards the new guy.

And no, it isn't an "anti mod" thing- I treat everyone just the same, as should you.

Anyway, I am sure Anne will do very well, regardless of anything I might have to say about her.

The fact that you continue to ignore the undertone of 'Hathaway is ugly, fat, homely' in this thread and the announcement thread is incredibly bothersome to me. That's all I am going to say...I would prefer not to waste anymore of this thread's last few posts on a pointless debate. Fanboys will be fanboys, and there is a reason why subforums like this one have such a bad reputation.

 

[regwec]

Undertone? You mean, as represented by something other than posts?

 

[Bat-Mite]

I don't agree with regwec at all about Hathaway, but I also see where he's coming from. These comments were made nearly a month ago keep getting brought up as if they were made yesterday, and as if they were made by a legion of "haters" as opposed to just a few people. It's almost like there's a need to create an attitude that will preemptively hush any future criticism of her, whether it be her looks, acting, etc.

It is important to keep things in perspective, especially when people make comments about her being "overweight", because she's quite thin, and reading a comment like that about her could be very psychologically harmful to young women reading these boards. It doesn't mean that anyone who has doubts about her should be made to feel fearful of expressing their opinion or automatically being lumped in with those who said those things, though.

 

[Marx]

Undertone? You mean, as represented by something other than posts?

 

[regwec]

I don't agree with regwec at all about Hathaway, but I also see where he's coming from. These comments were made nearly a month ago keep getting brought up as if they were made yesterday, and as if they were made by a legion of "haters" as opposed to just a few people. It's almost like there's a need to create an attitude that will preemptively hush any future criticism of her, whether it be her looks, acting, etc.

It is important to keep things in perspective, especially when people make comments about her being "overweight", because she's quite thin, and reading a comment like that about her could be very psychologically harmful to young women reading these boards. It doesn't mean that anyone who has doubts about her should be made to feel fearful of expressing their opinion or automatically being lumped in with those who said those things, though.

Golly gosh, what a shockingly reasonable and astute pair of paragraphs. I think that sums it up.

Now, who wants Catwoman in a purple leotard?

 

[Nave 'Torment']

LOL! I like you

Why thank you good sir , I like you too *pats back*

I can't definitively she wouldn't, but if her general resume of acting is anything to go by, I doubt it. Maggie has done some fine performances outside of TDK, like The Secretary. I've never been impressed by Holmes in anything she's done.

Well I meant that she'd do something that no one expected of her. I certainly never expected Heath "Casanova" Ledger, with his deep voice and chiseled jaw, to deliver a maniacal, squeaky voiced Joker (seriously guys, did you see how well he altered his voice there? I mean come on!) It's almost like what I'm saying with Anne "Jane Austen" Hathaway pulling a sultry, leather-clad, Michelle Pfeiffer-voiced Catwoman. I think it's her voice, above any thing else (even her teeth) that denies her Selina-perfectibility, and I think that's something Nolan and his team is very well aware of.

Much like Maggie was. Which when you think about it, it was a natural progression for the character. You would toughen up after going through what she did in Begins.

It's why I think she was so fearless when face to face with the Joker.

True, hence the end result with a MG Rachel never posed that big of a problem to the overall story. The objective of TDK was to show that these characters from Begins have grown, and I think from the lone Asst. D.A. bravely confronting the mob's agents to allied, publicly visible woman who is sending "thugs like Falcone behind bars, not therapy" is a very good progression, and is one of the strongest female characters Nolan wrote in his films.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Golly gosh, what a shockingly reasonable and astute pair of paragraphs. I think that sums it up.

Now, who wants Catwoman in a purple leotard?

Μe, me, me!!! t:

I don't agree with regwec at all about Hathaway, but I also see where he's coming from. These comments were made nearly a month ago keep getting brought up as if they were made yesterday, and as if they were made by a legion of "haters" as opposed to just a few people. It's almost like there's a need to create an attitude that will preemptively hush any future criticism of her, whether it be her looks, acting, etc.

It is important to keep things in perspective, especially when people make comments about her being "overweight", because she's quite thin, and reading a comment like that about her could be very psychologically harmful to young women reading these boards. It doesn't mean that anyone who has doubts about her should be made to feel fearful of expressing their opinion or automatically being lumped in with those who said those things, though.

Seconded.

 

[terry78]

One thing you can always count on when Nolan releases a film is inspiring heated debate.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

I don't agree with regwec at all about Hathaway, but I also see where he's coming from. These comments were made nearly a month ago keep getting brought up as if they were made yesterday, and as if they were made by a legion of "haters" as opposed to just a few people. It's almost like there's a need to create an attitude that will preemptively hush any future criticism of her, whether it be her looks, acting, etc.

It is important to keep things in perspective, especially when people make comments about her being "overweight", because she's quite thin, and reading a comment like that about her could be very psychologically harmful to young women reading these boards. It doesn't mean that anyone who has doubts about her should be made to feel fearful of expressing their opinion or automatically being lumped in with those who said those things, though.

Hmm, while I do get that making snide and unreasonable comments about any topic borders on trolling, I don't think any one here violated anything to that extent? Worse things have been said in much more sensitive issues. The 'male locker-room mentality', if there is one, isn't as overt as it's been suggested to be. We've all expressed our opinions, all in good humor and proper reasoning (well, at least as far of it can exist).

But I have to disagree with you about the psychological ramifications of calling Hathaway obese. The gals who do venture here deserve more credit than that. Though I do agree that remarks like that are uncalled for.

Now, who wants Catwoman in a purple leotard?

I do! I do!

 

[RustyCage]

I know that. But I think you're being pedantic regarding the situations these characters are in. You seem to begrudge Rachel enjoying making a criminal sweat in the hot seat. But it's ok for Batman, Gordon, and Dent to enjoy making criminals sweat?

They go about it differently, again. Also, this isn't the only time she acts that way - I brought the way she talks to Harvey in general into view. It's very playful and cocky. She has that kind of smile on her face very often in the film, not just with Lau.

But both still gloating and enjoying their victory over the mob.

Am I being pedantic or are you over-generalizing?

I'm not disputing she feels different. I agree she feels different. Different in a good way.

That's something that we can't settle with facts.

Believable in performance. The actor's job is to sell the character. I never ever believed Holmes as a mature D.A.

Why not? I see you bashing her a lot for this, but I don't recall your reasoning.

When Bruce knocked out Harvey. All she said was "What are you doing?". Is that such a terrible overreaction? I wouldn't even call it flat out panic. It's not like she started assaulting him with her purse

If you strip it of her voice and her facial expression, the simple sentence sounds like it's not an overreaction, sure.

But when you view the full context of the situation...

The way she says it isn't as plain as "What are you doing?", either. It's more like "What are you DOING?!".

When Harvey announced himself as Batman on TV. Again entirely justified that she'd panic over something as major as that.

Being concerned for Harvey is one thing. Not even beginning to consider the extremely common sense notion that maybe there's something tactical going on here and she should just ask them what that is, and further taking the liberty to assume that someone you've thoroughly learned you can trust to the ends of the Earth above any other human being is suddenly a conscienceless bastard and then subsequently walking out of his life is something else entirely.

That sentence was disgustingly long.

She didn't know Bruce was Batman in Begins until the end. So you cannot even compare the two. One was ignorant, the other one was not.

What affect does her knowing Batman's identity have on my point? She learned she can trust him, period. Very early on.

She also was ignorant of the truth behind intense things happening to her in both cases. In Begins, she handled those things maturely. In TDK, she handled them like an irrational brat and betrayed what was previously established as the character's logic (trust, faith, in Batman).

You're also taking the situation entirely out of context. Bruce walked up and assaulted Harvey in the middle of the party. All she said was "What are you doing?". That's it.

Your summary is far more out of context than mine, I'd say. As explained above.

What irrational conclusions did she jump to? She went and ASKED Alfred why Bruce was letting Harvey do that, especially after Bruce said he was going to go and turn himself in.

And sheignoresthe logic of his answer in favor of her own warped and mistaken logic, borne of irrationality. Why bother asking?

Maybe 'ignores' is the wrong word for it. She seems to simply be too stupid/stubborn to understand what Alfred tells her. She's too busy being pissed and freaking out about Bruce (someone she learned to trust completely in dangerous matters beforehand) being a big dummy to think reasonably or actually try to comprehend to the answer to the question she asked.

Instead she just retorts, 'you're right he's not heroic bluh bluh this is dumb I don't get it'.

Hell, before she even asked Alfred, she went and wrote a whole 'goodbye, I don't wanna be with you' letter to Bruce over it. Then she said bye to Alfred and promptly split. Clearly she had already made up her mind about the situation. How is any of her behavior here rational?

To hammer the nail in further, she explains to Harvey that she somehow magically 'knows' what Bruce is thinking, when she clearly doesn't, and is instead making a hot-headed assumption based on thin air.

If she were just concerned that the Joker was too much for Bruce, that would be an understandable thing to panic over. But this is way more than that, she's calling Bruce's integrity into question, and quite harshly!

She was drugged out of her brain. Hardly a fair comparison

Hardly fair for Begins Rachel, I would say. It was a fear toxin. We were talking about how they handle situations that warrant panic.

You're being pedantic again. Asking Bruce what is he doing is not a sign that she doesn't trust him.

It's not that she asked him, it's how she asked him. How things are said changes the context of them completely. This is a huge part of acting, or even just basic human communication.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that if your best friend walked up and knocked your father out in a choke hold out of the blue, your first reaction wouldn't be to ask him what the hell is he doing?

My best friend isn't Batman, and I don't trust him with my life. I wouldn't be able to assume he had an important, logical reason.

If my best friend happened to be Batman and did that, I would be like, 'Oh, it's just you Bruce. What's going down, should I hide too?'. Quite calmly. I mean duh, he knows what he's doing, he's the goddamn Batman and if I were Rachel that would be incredibly obvious to me by that point.

Rachel in TDK stood up to the Joker when he and his men stormed the party, and even kneed him the stomach when he had a knife to her face.

This is true, but bravery isn't always reflective of maturity - or even intelligence. Rachel was trying to get away, wisely, in Begins, and she was armed, but got cornered and had to retaliate. In TDK, she willingly throws herself to the wolf, unarmed, for little reason. She endangered herself deliberately, and that's stupid.

Even in her final moments, she tries to calm Harvey down when she realizes she's not going to be rescued.

This was the one time where I felt she was behaving maturely, like the original Rachel would have. So I agree with you here, it was a saving grace that at least kept her loosely attached to the original character.

If only her voice wasn't so high and scratchy in that scene. Y'agh.

 

[TheBatman072]

This is true, but bravery isn't always reflective of maturity - or even intelligence. Rachel was trying to get away, wisely, in Begins, and she was armed, but got cornered and had to retaliate. In TDK, she willingly throws herself to the wolf, unarmed, for little reason. She endangered herself deliberately, and that's stupid.

I think she was trying to keep the old guy from getting his face cut up.

Seems like more than just a little reason.

 

[RustyCage]

I think she was trying to keep the old guy from getting his face cut up.

Seems like more than just a little reason.

It accomplishes nothing, as someone is still in the position to get their face cut up.

Or did you miss the part where he puts the knife to her face and starts telling the story (or one like it) he told before he carved the other guy's face?