Do you wish Katie was in TDK, or do you wish Maggie was in BB?

Discussion in 'The Dark Knight' started by Rocketman, Apr 5, 2011.

  1. DOBSON10

    DOBSON10 Custom User Title

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,391
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't understand the hate Katie Holmes gets. I completely agree that because the rest of the cast was so good that it made it stand out alittle because she's not on that level, but I don't think she's a bad actress really. She's not great but I don't think she's bad.

    On top of that, I think she was better as Rachel Dawes than Maggie, despite Maggie being a better actress overall. Maggie was very annoying as Rachel in my opinion, I thought her performance stuck out as far more annoying than Holmes did to be honest. I understand I'm in the minority but it is what it is. I thought Maggie was annoying and I find her unattractive to boot. I definitely would have preferred Katie Holmes stay on for Dark Knight.
     
    #326
  2. Human Torch

    Human Torch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    10,850
    Likes Received:
    0
    It would've been better if either played both films,but I don't prefer one over the other.

    Katie was more believable as Bruce's childhood friend/love interest

    Maggie was more believable as an A.D.A./Harvey's love interest
     
    #327
  3. CountOrlok

    CountOrlok Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2014
    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    0
    They shouldn't have added the character at all. Giving Bruce a childhood friend takes away from his pain and loneliness. It also divides his loyalty between her and Alfred.

    With Bruce Wayne, love interests come and go, but there will always be his life as Batman. Batman has always come first, that's why he has never settled down.

    The whole idea of Bruce wanting to give up Batman for a love interest is just an extremely bad idea that totally goes against everything the character stands for. Yet somehow, many fans give this a pass. Doesn't make any sense to me.
     
    #328
  4. The Joker

    The Joker The Clown Prince of Crime

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    49,577
    Likes Received:
    114
    What a crock. Bruce having a childhood friend doesn't take away from his pain and loneliness any more than having Robin, Nightwing, Alfred, Leslie, Batgirl, Huntress etc as friends and confidants.

    His life as Batman is always there, whether those people are there or not.

    Mask of the Phantasm, one of the most popular Batman movies of all time with fans, says hello.
     
    #329
  5. CountOrlok

    CountOrlok Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2014
    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    0
    Robin, Nightwing, Batgirl and Huntress weren't childhood friends of Bruce. Leslie was a parental figure.



    He met Andrea Beaumont before he became Batman.
     
    #330
  6. The Joker

    The Joker The Clown Prince of Crime

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    49,577
    Likes Received:
    114
    Having a childhood friend is no different to having friends after Batman. It's friendship and companionship. Parental figure, brother figure, son figure....it's all the same. It's having someone there for you and it eases the loneliness.

    But since I'm talking to the master of pedantics, nobody cried this nonsense about Dawn Golden being his childhood friend in the comics;

    http://www.comicvine.com/dawn-golden/4005-75067/

    Or when they introduced Tommy Elliott as a best friend Bruce had as a child. There was no reason to. It doesn't change anything. It certainly never raised any questions about Bruce's loyalty to Alfred, or vice versa. The only time I've ever seen that come up in relation to a love interest is in Batman '89 with the whole infamous fan backlash over Alfred taking Vicki to the Batcave without Bruce's consent (something even Sam Hamm agreed with, "That would be Alfred's last day at Wayne Manor", which I loved).

    So what? He was still going to give up being Batman for her, both before he became Batman, and when she came back into his life years later.
     
    #331
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2014
  7. CountOrlok

    CountOrlok Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2014
    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's not all the same. A parental figure is different to a childhood friend because a childhood friend is on more equal terms than a parental figure.

    Could you please stop with the name-calling? It is extremely childish and immature.


    Who was introduced in the comics after the first two Nolan films came out, in 2011, so was probably inspired by Rachel Dawes.

    But Tommy Elliot turned to Hush and became a villain, although yes, that is one example you could use, although not a very good one:

    While at a summer camp with Bruce, Tommy attacks a boy and ends up in a psychiatric ward; he blames Bruce and his mother for his outburst.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush_(comics)

    Not really the best childhood friend that Bruce could have.

    It was implied Vicki Vale had already figured out that Bruce Wayne is Batman, so Alfred letting her into the Batcave was not really as controversial as so many people make out.

    How could he give up being Batman if he hadn't even become Batman yet?

    And where does it reference him wanting to give up Batman for her years later? I haven't seen the movie in a long time, so could you please point this out.
     
    #332
  8. The Joker

    The Joker The Clown Prince of Crime

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    49,577
    Likes Received:
    114
    It's exactly the same in the sense it's a companion, someone he loves and trusts. That was your whole beef with this. It takes away from Bruce's loneliness. Having people like that around you childhood friend or parental figure, takes away from that loneliness.

    Ok, I apologize and retract the name label, but you are someone who relies on pedantics to try and construct an argument to validate your point of view.

    Even if that's true, so what? Have you heard of any fan outrage over this? That's my point. Bruce having a childhood friend doesn't change a thing. That's why DC did it.

    Tommy Elliott didn't become Hush until they were adults. And regardless of Tommy having a violent outburst that got him put in hospital for a while, he still remained best friends with Bruce. Bruce stood by him.

    They were still best friends. That's how Bruce fondly remembered him. Like with Rachel it made sense that he made a friend before his parents were killed. Before he was damaged by it. But he was never going to turn his back on people he cared about just because his parents died. Bruce is not that kind of person. People call Batman a loner, but he has more friends and allies than you can shake a stick at.

    No offense I don't really care what you personally think about it. It's not the point, and I'm not getting into a Batman '89 discussion here. The point is it's the only example I've ever heard of about trust issues with Bruce and Alfred over a love interest. One that had a big fan backlash. And even criticized by the writer of the movie.

    In comparison to what you're saying here, which is a non entity issue.

    I assume that's a rhetorical question.

    He was giving up on his quest/promise to be Batman. Throwing away what he spent years preparing himself to do. Bruce was willing to give all that up for a girl. It's not even the same as Begins/TDK where Bruce could only consider being with Rachel AFTER he has saved Gotham. He was not going to give up before he even started, or give up when the city still needed him just to be with a girl. But he was in MOTP.

    In the scene after he has sex with her. At Wayne Manor. She drives off in her car after he kisses her goodbye and says he'll see her tonight. Alfred says it's great to see them together again, and asks what this means for his alter ego. And Bruce says he loves her, and after all this Phantasm business is settled then they can be together. He then looks at his parents portrait, and Alfred reassures him that they would have wanted him to be happy.
     
    #333
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2014
  9. shauner111

    shauner111 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    16,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    I find there's a lot of similarities with Mask of the Phantasm and Batman Begins. Little things here and there.

    There are days when MotP is my favorite batman movie and interpretation (the earlier B:TAS era). So if Bruce wants to be happy by hanging up the cowl, walking away with a love interest...if that goes against the essence of the character, then i guess i dont give a damn about the history or essence of the character because i LOVE it. Like in Begins, he doesn't end up doing it at such a young age. He ends up diving straight into the role of Batman to the point of obsession. It's the same in live-action as it is in animation.
     
    #334
  10. Gray Ghost

    Gray Ghost Beware!

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2013
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    The main difference to me is that in MotP it plays out like a major internal conflict. Bruce doesn't know what to do, culminating with the scene at his parents grave.
    In TDK he's itching to hang up the cowl and uses the first excuse that comes along. "Gotham has a competent DA now, guess Batman isn't needed anymore"
    I also find the Bruce/Andrea relationship a hundred times more believable than Bruce/Rachel in TDK.
     
    #335
  11. Travesty

    Travesty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    22,516
    Likes Received:
    14
    Agreed. It's all in the execution. In MotP, he's conflicted in the manner, but decides to be Batman. In TDK, he's whining about being Batman, and keeps bringing up examples of why he wants to retire. And of course, once TDKR comes out, we find out he actually did. :dry:
     
    #336
  12. shauner111

    shauner111 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    16,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes but when he does in Rises, it has nothing to do with Rachel. So that's completely irrelevant. But it's the same as Phantasm. We see at the end of Begins, he wont stop being Batman and Rachel knows it so they part ways. He ends up diving deeper into the role of Batman without Rachel by his side. His way out in TDK actually has nothing to do with "I wanna stop being batman so i can be with you". It's not that at all. It's "Harvey can take my place so i dont have to do this. THEN once im out maybe you and i can be together". There's a difference.

    I love it in Phantasm, but i actually prefer Bruce not stopping as batman, he's just beginning and Rachel tells him she cant deal with that because he's batman now, Bruce is gone. I prefer it over Andrea walking out of his life then Bruce is like "well now that it's over, ill just become batman now".
     
    #337
  13. The Joker

    The Joker The Clown Prince of Crime

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    49,577
    Likes Received:
    114
    There's two brief scenes in MOTP where he shows some conflicted feelings over it. When he's making little sketches of a costume, and then asks himself why is he doing it when he's with Andrea. Then he goes to the cemetery and asks his parents if it's ok for him to renege on his promise because he wants to be with Andrea. Then she shows up and says maybe they already have, maybe they sent her. And that's that. Not much of a conflict.

    In Batman Begins Bruce never considers quitting to be with Rachel. In The Dark Knight he backs Harvey because he's a better hero for the city than a masked vigilante could ever be. Batman's inspiring gun toting copycats and freaks like the Joker who are killing in his name. He even makes Harvey prove his worth first by giving him Lau and seeing if he can deliver the convictions. It had nothing to do with Rachel.

    Bruce in Mask of the Phantasm was willing to abandon his crusade to be happy both before he even embarked on it, and years later while he was in the midst of it. The fact of the matter is it's executed much worse in MOTP.

    Not that Batman wanting to quit is against his nature;

    [​IMG]
     
    #338
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2014
  14. Gray Ghost

    Gray Ghost Beware!

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2013
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, as I've already said I find the Bruce/Andrea relationship much more believable. I can see why Bruce would want to be with her. In TDK I don't buy for a second why he'd want to be with Rachel, let alone this whole "She was the only hope I had for a real life" talk.

    I also always found the whole Harvey thing to be pretty flimsy. One decent DA makes Batman obsolete? And didn't Bruce himself talk about that one man can be corrupted and destroyed? If Bruce had considered Harvey to be the first of a new generation of Gotham officials, as sort of a light at the end of a tunnel then maybe. But the whole White Knight thing? Eh.
     
    #339
  15. Human Torch

    Human Torch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    10,850
    Likes Received:
    0
    The difference between the MOTP Batman and TDK Batman is TDK Batman thinks the war on crime can be completed to his reasonable satisfaction,whereas the MOTP Batman has him devote his entire life to the concept.As long as a punk with a gun exists,Batman exists.

    It wasn't really a noticeable difference in TDK,since when Bruce tells Rachel about being together,Rachel is perceptive enough to eventually tell Bruce "I'm not sure the day will come when you don't need Batman." There would always come a time when he would don the costume for some reason or other.Crime would never be entirely gone from Gotham.

    But then TDKR happened and well....:dry:


    With MOTP,the thing with Andrea happened at a pivotal point.He hadn't yet committed himself-hadn't 'become' Batman yet.It was his last chance to be 'normal' and prevent the life he eventually chose.There were no half measures.He could devote his life as Batman or be a regular guy.No passing of the mantle someday or 'Batman can be anyone' crap.It was not meant to be a part time gig,and Bruce was well aware of what he had to give up to be Batman.And that to me,is what's endearing of the character.(and frankly SuperHeroes in general)
     
    #340
  16. Travesty

    Travesty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    22,516
    Likes Received:
    14
    :hehe: Oh TDKR.....
     
    #341
  17. shauner111

    shauner111 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    16,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    As a relationship? Yes. You're right. Bruce and Rachel wasn't a real relationship or anything like that. It was more like a confused friendship. It's two different types.

    But by TDK, Bruce has nobody. He's not exactly close with Rachel anymore, about a year after the events of Begins. But she's still his only friend. Since childhood. So of course i can buy that he would still feel connected to her in that way. He doesn't have a normal mindset.

    Well, that's what he means by white knight. A lighter hero that could start something. He's the dark knight, who in this universe, starts something which carries onto Blake + the cops of the city. Harvey would have been the white knight that could have spread hope into the hearts of the police, which is a good start. None of that fixes everything, but it's a good start.

    The whole point of the trilogy, starting with Begins into Rises, is that Bruce starts Batman to inspire hope. And it all begins with the people running the city. Bruce is naive in the beginning, thinking Batman will inspire right away. Then he realizes it's going to take a little longer until he sees that Harvey could do it instead. It's not even about Batman passing the torch to Harvey. It's more about Harvey starting it himself, so HE, Mr. Dent, can pass the torch to the officers, mayors, etc to do a better job. That doesn't work out so Bruce figures out years later that the Batman symbol has to be the one who passes the torch in his quirky way. Which might be slightly outside the boundaries of the law. Meaning, Blake and whoever Blake may or may not interact with in the force.
     
    #342
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2014
  18. The Joker

    The Joker The Clown Prince of Crime

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    49,577
    Likes Received:
    114
    Then Chris Nolan succeeded 100% in what he set out to do there. You were never meant to buy Bruce and Rachel were meant for each other. That's why he had Rachel turn around and choose Harvey.

    It wasn't 'one decent D.A.', it was a D.A. that locked up half of the city's criminals, and he did it in an afternoon. More of an accomplishment on the war on crime than Batman ever achieved. More inspiring and more heroic, and it was done by a hero with a face.

    Second, Bruce was talking about him going on a one man vigilante war on crime as a regular man. Not as a public official using the law and legal system to combat crime. Imagine going out to combat crime on your own as a regular man with no super powers,or intimidating image, or nothing? That's what he meant when he was talking about him being an ordinary flesh and blood man who can be ignored or destroyed.
     
    #343
  19. Travesty

    Travesty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    22,516
    Likes Received:
    14
    Which is a silly thing to think of, since Batman was the one who gave them Lau, so they could get the RICO case for the mob. It wasn't just Harvey's own doing.
     
    #344
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2014
  20. shauner111

    shauner111 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    16,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    It wasn't, you're right. But even with that, Harvey ends up accomplishing more.
     
    #345
  21. The Joker

    The Joker The Clown Prince of Crime

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    49,577
    Likes Received:
    114
    Batman: "If I get him to you, can you get him to talk?"
    Dent: "I'll get him to sing"

    Of course Dent would never have gotten Lau without Batman, that's the whole point. He didn't just look at Dent and say 'Oh look an honest D.A. who cares about saving the city, that's novel in Gotham. You can be the new hero. Enjoy'.

    This was Batman's test to see if Dent was really the right guy for job. So he gave him Lau to see could he not only get him to spill the dirt on the mob, but also get all the convictions, too.
     
    #346
  22. Travesty

    Travesty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    22,516
    Likes Received:
    14
    My point, is that Dent, regardless of how great he is at his job, still needed outside vigilante(illegal) help in order to lock up the criminals. He couldn't have done that on his own, he needed Batman's help. It wasn't "more of an accomplishment than Batman ever achieved", because Batman did achieve that. It wasn't Dent's own doing, it was both of theirs. So Batman did help lock up half the criminals in Gotham.
     
    #347
  23. Human Torch

    Human Torch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    10,850
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good point.Kinda reminds me of BB where Bats offers Falcone up.Bats does all the work.All he really needs is non corrupt people in the D.A's office to get them put away,but they wouldn't get very far without him offering them up in the first place.
     
    #348
  24. The Joker

    The Joker The Clown Prince of Crime

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    49,577
    Likes Received:
    114
    It was more of an accomplishment than Batman ever achieved. Batman has never locked up half of the city's criminals. Yes, Batman gave Lau to Dent, but what you're saying is the equivalent to someone giving you an important study book to help you pass your final exams. It's useless in the hands of someone who won't do it right. At the end of the day no matter how much someone helped you study, the onus is on you to pass the exam.

    Handing Lau to a lesser man than Dent would be the equivalent to handing a study book to a loser who can't or won't study and will fail. It's useless.
     
    #349
  25. Doctor Octopus

    Doctor Octopus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,422
    Likes Received:
    0
    The difference really is in MOTP he was able to give it up before he even started after he had spent many years preparing himself for it, and many years actually doing it as Batman afterwards as well.

    He had non corrupt people in the D.A. office. Rachel and that Finch who was the original D.A., he was honest, but he wasn't as good as Dent. Falcone still got locked up. But it didn't help. Maroni just took his place running his crime family. You need to damage a criminal empire by either shutting down their resources, or locking up their men.

    Harvey Dent did that.
     
    #350

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"