Discussion in 'The Dark Knight' started by Rocketman, Apr 5, 2011.
No, he's married... t:
He's been eyeing her since Batman Begins tbh
He did, at the end.
You have a point there actually.
I think both ladies did a good job as Rachel, but I would've prefered to see someone a little more attractive than Maggie. So if Katie was my only other choice I would've chosen her over Maggie. That's just my opinion.
Katie was a disservice in BB. Such a brilliant cast and then her notoriously lowering the level.
She ruins nearly every scene shes in.
I already made a connection with the character in BB and once you change the actress, no matter how close she plays the character, itll always be like a different person. Especially when she looked like a very young and naturally cute girl in one movie, and like a 40 year old unnatractive woman with eyebags in another. The thing is, Rachel's character is very b0itchy on the surface, and we wouldnt like her if we wouldnt know her better and how she really is, and BB shows her character well so we understand her. But when a new, and such a different (and much older) actress comes in, it feels like a new character who has an attitude, with no history behind it, or any attachment for that matter
Much older actress? Theres a year difference between Maggie and Katie. I cant imagine anyone connecting to Katie Holmes. Her acting was so bad.
Not to mention Maggie got a Saturn award nomination, while Katie got a Razzie lol.
The "much older" comment was more of a sarcasm since it looks like theres a 20 year old gap between them. Katie looks like a high school girl while Maggie looks like an old office woman with big eye bags. I seem to be in minority when it comes to this issue, but I really found Rachel to be very likable and fully connected with the character in BB. She was this little dog that barks the loudest, a little cute girl who had guts and morals of a huge fighter. Maggie was for me an old office woman who I just never felt any sympathy or connection with, and who wasnt special or distnctive in any way
As for Razzie, everyone has their bad moments or is unfairly "awarded". For example, the late Jerry Goldsmith received Razzie awards for his Rambo soundtracks
Regardless, it is worth mentioning Rachel was the only one who understood Bruce's actual relationship with Batman. Bruce had these naive notions about retirement, but Rachel knew he needed Batman.
I see the problem, but in this case I was so glad we didn't have the spoiled brat we had in BB and got a more mature woman.
Well, first of all things I refuse to appreciate a woman or a female character based on her external looks only.
Then again in TDK Rachel seemed to be Bruce's age. Because in BB we have a first scene where Bruce and Rachel were the same age and then when they're grown ups she looks like she's 17 while Bruce in his 30's.
We might understand her but in no case like her because of those reasons. More than "knowing her better" is required, when the actress makes the character look like a brat playing adult.
Am I wrong or if it is the same character you can have her story in the first movie all the same? How is suddenly a different actress makes it a different character with a different past?
And again, do you consider a year "much older"? Katie's birthday: December 18th, 1978. Maggie's: November 16th, 1977.
Not only that, there's a giant talent gap between them. Somehow you sound concerned about the gap between their looks only.
My point exactly. Maggie looks like a mature and serious DA. Katie just a high school girl playing adult. When you have to have scenes like Rachel lecturing Bruce about justice or slapping him for being an idiot and you have a school girl doing it, it just doesn't work.
And again, women can be more than eye candy for your visual pleasure.
The sympathy you have for this or that is respectable preference. But you make it sound once and again like it's all about how young and beautiful one is vs how old and ugly is the other one. Can't connect myself to that line of thinking.
Rachel the character was very pointless, except when she died, to start with. But if I have one talentless actress who looks like a high school girl (your won words) and another one who looks and acts maturely to play a mature brave DA then I have to pick the second option. But again, if there was no rachel at all I'd be even happier.
I kind of wonder, had Maggie been in BB would BB have been better received than TDK. Katie Holmes is really atrocious at acting, and Maggie is actually pretty good. Considering Holmes' little clever smirk ruins every line she delivers and every scene she is in, if Maggie had been in it, BB could've been the perfect Bat-movie.
Begins was good enough that I don't think Holmes really hindered it's success. I agree she was a stand out weak point, but Begins was well received by fans and critics, even if it didn't light the box office on fire.
To me it'd have been an improvement. But I have problems with BB way beyond Katie's performance.
Thats not what Im saying although I absolutely dont agree if youre saying looks dont matter. They matter a whole lot, thats why directors pick actors who also have the"right look" or express a certain aura and persona. Again, for me Katie portrayed a little girl who seeimgly wouldnt be dangerous at all and who physically can be laughable for others as a threat, yet her personality greatly ougrows her physicality and surprises whoever meets her - and thats in part thanks to Katie's portrayal and in part thanks to her looks and what Nolan aimed for
Nolan: Katie also has a maturity beyond her years that comes across in the film and is essential to the idea that Rachel is something of a moral conscience for Bruce. (indielondon.co.uk)
Maggie for me was just an obvious casting for a character, a lazy casting and a very ordinary character. She looks like a worn out old DA (I know shes not much older but shes so old looking and unnatractive that she really looks like over a decade older) and really shes a 'what you see is what you get". I never found her Rachel to be sympathetic or anything other than bland at all and therefore didnt feel for her at all.
I hope I expressed my personal preference for Katie well enough
You have, but I still don't understand it
Katie was easier on the eyes than Maggie, but Maggie felt like a character because her acting was decent. Katie was never convincing in her role. The fact she was mixed in among a cast of incredible talent who have more acting ability in their little fingers than she does in her entirety just amplified how bad her performance was, IMO.
Maggie in Begins because she was better...
But, Katie in TDK just to see he "O" face when she gets blown up.
No no. I was talking about looks in general: beautiful wins automatically over ugly. Not about the "right look" for a certain character. That because you have mentioned Katie's cute face vs. Maggie's eye bags so often. And I don't know exactly why is rachel supposed to be cute.
Now, Rachel was created from scratch. Any look would have defined her partially (apart from what's in the script). But nothing in the story pointed to a 'little girl.' She was supposed to be brave and very moral but nowhere it's stated that she's supposed to look fragile but be strong. That's just the way it came out since Katie hardly looked mature and strong.
That's a good thing. But beyond Katie's eyes, her acting was too poor to meet those expectations. She didn't sound or look mature except for what it was written for her to say.
Maggie, on the other hand, has that maturity both on her face but also in her acting.
What you see is what you get. Unless Rachel's supposed to be a deceptive character, that is hardly a bad thing to say about any cast.
Im nt talking about being deceptive. Im talking about an interesting, full and 3 dimensional character. A physically fragile woman with strength and charisma bigger of a strongest man was a very appealing and likeable and admirable character for me, wheter script described it or not. And its obviously not the look alone, she could portray this strong woman who seemed like a b0itch on the outside but appeared to be a caring and very righteous and delicate woman on the inside. She sold this idea of this little, loudly barking puppy to really be cuddly and loving for those who deserve it very well. Maggie was just a dime a dozen character. Shes part of a mass, shes not unique or interesting in any possible way. As I already said, what you see is what you get with her and its just your average, bored and worn out woman working at the DA's office. Im not talking about deception, Im talking no depth, no flavor to the character, just an off the street old political office worker. And not just visually, but behavior-wise as well. She seems jaded, bored and dismissive and its just a bland, gray portrayal. No flavor to the character, no flare. Thats just my opinion and my perception of how I see it guys so dont jump me for it.
Nobody's jumping on you for it, mate.
Well, I felt pressured because of my preference for Katie, even tho I think I gave a justifiable reason and something better than just "Maggie sucks". I cant explain why I prefer Katie any better than in my last post, plus I think this is an issue where theres absolutely no right or wrong, it all comes down to preference. I expressed mine and the reason behind it. And its also has nothing to do with championing an actress since Ive never seen Katie or Maggie in any other movie. My opinion is based strictly on the character they portray.
That's fair enough. Apologies if you felt like you were being attacked.