The Dark Knight Are we getting a love triangle?

[Darknightnomis]

It posted on the front of SHH from an interview in USATODAY Weekend but Maggie Gyllenhaal has now pretty much spoiled that she has two lovers inthe movie.

And I don't think she mean Alfred and the Joker.

 

[JStorm]

It posted on the front of SHH from an interview in USATODAY Weekend but Maggie Gyllenhaal has now pretty much spoiled that she has two lovers inthe movie.

And I don't think she mean Alfred and the Joker.

Alfred did have some 'alone time' with Rachel in BB, after the party.

And The Joker does get 'friendly' with Rachel at yet another party.

It could happen.

 

[ActuallyRobin]

Indeed, she could be one of those women that likes psychopathic clowns and old English butlers

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

No concerns, I think it could work really well. An extra dynamic between three of the most important characters.

Plus, they had to give Rachel something to do this time.

Agreed. I'd be interested in seeing something like that.

 

[Darknightnomis]

Alfred did have some 'alone time' with Rachel in BB, after the party.

LOL!

Now I know what he meant by she was a "llittle the worse for wear, I'm afraid."

 

[escobar2248]

LOL!

Now I know what he meant by she was a "llittle the worse for wear, I'm afraid."

Alfred's an old cockhound! I'd say that he wore her out. HAHA

 

[Crook]

But this movie could be where Bruce realises that he will never win his war on crime, that he will have to keep fighting forever. It isn't going to be a simple matter of putting away a few mob bosses and then back to the day job. We could see his idealism tempered by the reality of protecting Gotham against a seemingly never-ending stream of freaks and gangsters.

Well yeah. But what does that have to do with Rachel?

BB answered the question of whether Bruce could successfully be Batman and lead a normal life at the same time. Rachel basically said "I don't think so" to that one. TDK as you noted, will be delving into how or what Bruce's long term plan is for being Batman.

None of that really has much to do with Rachel.

 

[The Guard]

The romantic interest subplot in BATMAN BEGINS was very thin. While I believe that they are friends who cared about each other, there's just nothing to show why they would have feelings for each other, we're just supposed to believe that it exists without being shown why. There was more "I hate what the man I knew has become" than "I actually love you and hate what you've become, and it hurts me" to it. We're just supposed to sort of assume that she loves him. Because why else would a man and a woman interact if they're not in love, you know?

I don't really mind the existence of a love triangle in THE DARK KNIGHT, it just feels forced and obvious. It's the one solution to Rachel coming back into the franchise that pretty much everyone proposed. And since it's so obvious, I doubt it will be anything brilliant. It smacks of a reason to bring Rachel back despite the ending of BATMAN BEGINS, and to give the characters a cheap "personally emotional" reason to hate The Joker when he threatens her, and to give her more emotional investment in the story when Dent is scarred. And then Bruce and Rachel will get back together, la dee da dee da, and we'll never get to see Selina Kyle.

Whatever.

I'm sure they'll try to do something clever with it like "Dent doesn't like Batman at first because he breaks the law and Dent is a good boy but Rachel changes his mind, and Dent's character goes from, get this, not liking Batman to relucantly working with him, and then it costs him in the end when he's scarred as a result of his interactions with Batman and his war against crime, and Rachel will cry and be upset.

In short, I renew my objection to Rachel's existence. At least Chase Meridian taught us about repressed memories.

 

[Watson]

^Has Nolan ever said anything about Selina, one way or another? I just can't imagine her not being included at some point. I get discluding characters like Harley Quinn and (arguably) Robin, but Selina seems pretty damn essential.

 

[metkalfe]

I can see the cameo of Harley Quinn but Selina Kyle is out of place.

Bruce and Harv fighting over Maggie?

why bother with this ridiculous love story.

 

[itsthebatman]

You might have had a point, had this not already been covered in the first film.

BB was the time to sort out all those mistakes and apprehensions about coming into the role full-time. Going over it again is moving backwards.

But this movie could be where Bruce realises that he will never win his war on crime, that he will have to keep fighting forever. It isn't going to be a simple matter of putting away a few mob bosses and then back to the day job. We could see his idealism tempered by the reality of protecting Gotham against a seemingly never-ending stream of freaks and gangsters.

Well yeah. But what does that have to do with Rachel?

BB answered the question of whether Bruce could successfully be Batman and lead a normal life at the same time. Rachel basically said "I don't think so" to that one. TDK as you noted, will be delving into how or what Bruce's long term plan is for being Batman.

None of that really has much to do with Rachel.

Yes, I know, but I thought you were referring to a more general sense of how Batman affected Bruce, and what he hoped to accomplish by donning the cape and cowl, when you talked about the 'mistakes and apprehensions about coming into the role'. I took that as not just meaning specifically about Rachel. My mistake.
If only I had made this point in a more relevant thread.
The love triangle thing could work if it's Rachel who changes her mind - remember, at the end of BB it was Bruce who wanted the relationship, and Rachel who called a halt. Maybe something will happen to make her change her mind.

 

[The Guard]

Has Nolan ever said anything about Selina, one way or another? I just can't imagine her not being included at some point. I get discluding characters like Harley Quinn and (arguably) Robin, but Selina seems pretty damn essential.

Not to my knowledge. The smart move would have been to just make Rachel "Selina" and develop her into Catwoman over three movies. Hell, you could have even made her an attorney, or better, a social worker on the East End, fighting to save Gotham City.

 

[Ama Zing]

Not to my knowledge. The smart move would have been to just make Rachel "Selina" and develop her into Catwoman over three movies. Hell, you could have even made her an attorney, or better, a social worker on the East End, fighting to save Gotham City.

Oh boy, would that cause a rukus among the fanboys.

 

[The Guard]

Oh boy, would that cause a rukus among the fanboys.

Changing Bruce Wayne's origin didn't
Inventing Rachel didn't
Inventing Earle didn't
Ra's Al Ghul sans Talia and The Lazarus Pits didn't
None of the changes really did

You're telling me an intelligent and relevant portrayal of Selina Kyle evolving from a socially conscious crusader for Gotham to a feline cat burglar would piss off the fans?

I'm not saying don't make her a thief. She'd evolve into Catwoman, not start out as her. I think they missed a golden opportunity to tie Selina Kyle into the themes of the franchise.

 

[Ama Zing]

Inventing Rachel didn't
Ra's Al Ghul sans Talia didn't
None of the changes really did

You're telling me an intelligent and relevant portrayal of Selina Kyle evolving from a socially conscious crusader for Gotham to a feline cat burglar would piss off the fans?

I'm not saying don't make her a thief. She'd evolve into Catwoman, not start out as her. I think they missed a golden opportunity to tie Selina Kyle into the themes of the franchise.

I cannot rationalize for thousands of fanboys everywhere. But you can't say the changes you just mentioned didn't cause a rukus, because they sure did. I'm not talking riots in the streets, but the same thing we saw with Joker and his make-up: Countless of hours and posts of whine whine whine.
For the record, I agree that making Rachel into a varient Catwoman wouldn't be entirely left field and would be a nice evolution to her character. But for many fanboys, to just seemingly, randomly make a character Catwoman would bust a few veins. They're fans. Everything pisses them off.

 

[itsthebatman]

Changing Bruce Wayne's origin didn't
Inventing Rachel didn't
Inventing Earle didn't
Ra's Al Ghul sans Talia and The Lazarus Pits didn't
None of the changes really did

Yes they did. Nothing along the lines of the permawhite thing, but a lot of people weren't happy with the changes to Bruce's origin and training, the inclusion of Rachel when Selina and Talia were available as love interests, and there are are those unhappy with what they saw as a diluted Ra's al Ghul. There would inevitably be people pissed off with the portrayal of Selina as a social worker, any change from accepted canon pisses off certain fans.

You're telling me an intelligent and relevant portrayal of Selina Kyle evolving from a socially conscious crusader for Gotham to a feline cat burglar would piss off the fans?

I'm not saying don't make her a thief. She'd evolve into Catwoman, not start out as her. I think they missed a golden opportunity to tie Selina Kyle into the themes of the franchise.

This is all true. I still cling to the idea that Bruce will be going out on a date with Selina at the end of TDK. Hopeless romantic that I am.

 

[ActuallyRobin]

wow has the permawhite debate reached this thread too?

 

[The Guard]

Yes they did. Nothing along the lines of the permawhite thing, but a lot of people weren't happy with the changes to Bruce's origin and training, the inclusion of Rachel when Selina and Talia were available as love interests, and there are are those unhappy with what they saw as a diluted Ra's al Ghul.

What...three people? Most people, while they recognized change, also thought that it worked in the context of the movie, and understood the reasoning behind it. There was very little "This ruins the movie" kind of talk about those changes.

There would inevitably be people pissed off with the portrayal of Selina as a social worker, any change from accepted canon pisses off certain fans.

Then those people should read a comic book. The woman IS a social worker, essentially.

I cannot rationalize for thousands of fanboys everywhere. But you can't say the changes you just mentioned didn't cause a rukus, because they sure did. I'm not talking riots in the streets, but the same thing we saw with Joker and his make-up: Countless of hours and posts of whine whine whine.

But it's more of a debate than fans actually being really, really upset. For every person who says they hate the makeup, there are twenty that would prefer permawhite, but understand why makeup is used.

For the record, I agree that making Rachel into a varient Catwoman wouldn't be entirely left field and would be a nice evolution to her character. But for many fanboys, to just seemingly, randomly make a character Catwoman would bust a few veins. They're fans. Everything pisses them off.

Right, but she would never have been Rachel. She would have Bruce Wayne's childhood friend and later love interest/foil Selina Kyle, and easily could have been faithfully portrayed.

 

[Watson]

Not to my knowledge. The smart move would have been to just make Rachel "Selina" and develop her into Catwoman over three movies. Hell, you could have even made her an attorney, or better, a social worker on the East End, fighting to save Gotham City.

That would be a good solution to what to do with Rachel by the end of TDK (though like Ama said the uproar would certainly be large). I just can't figure where they are going to take Rachel's character by the end of the film, unless she just disappears into love interest purgatory with every Batman love interest prior.

 

[The Guard]

There's no point in doing it now. Rachel is obviously just going to be the stock love interest in this franchise. I'm saying Rachel should have been "Selina" from the start.

 

[Ama Zing]

What...three people? Most people, while they recognized change, also thought that it worked in the context of the movie, and understood the reasoning behind it. There was very little "This ruins the movie" kind of talk about those changes.

But it's more of a debate than fans actually being really, really upset. For every person who says they hate the makeup, there are twenty that would prefer permawhite, but understand why makeup is used.

On this forum maybe, but I'm around by nerds constantly and I hear more whining, complaining and arguing than actual debate.

 

[Watson]

There's no point in doing it now. Rachel is obviously just going to be the stock love interest in this franchise. I'm saying Rachel should have been "Selina" from the start.

I know, I was just agreeing it would have been a good approach

 

[The Guard]

Oh. Well, I've discovered that most comic book fans simply hate change on principle. But I think this change, since the concept I have in mind is fairly faithful, not some massive deviation from the mythology, would be mostly accepted.

 

[Ama Zing]

That would be a good solution to what to do with Rachel by the end of TDK (though like Ama said the uproar would certainly be large). I just can't figure where they are going to take Rachel's character by the end of the film, unless she just disappears into love interest purgatory with every Batman love interest prior.

She will probably die as a character foil. It sucks, but that seems to be the only direction they can take her. Or, she's used to 'reform' Harvey somehow during the third film, depending on how they decided to deal with him.

 

[itsthebatman]

What...three people? Most people, while they recognized change, also thought that it worked in the context of the movie, and understood the reasoning behind it. There was very little "This ruins the movie" kind of talk about those changes.
Then those people should read a comic book. The woman IS a social worker, essentially.
But it's more of a debate than fans actually being really, really upset. For every person who says they hate the makeup, there are twenty that would prefer permawhite, but understand why makeup is used.

Catwoman guarding the East End is only a recent development, I thought? As Ama Zing said, not riots in the street mad, but certainly a good few people (myself not included) were hoping for a more faithful adaptation, and were disappointed with what they got. I don't mean that kind of change to Catwoman's character would devastate people, but it would upset quite a few.