The Dark Knight Rises Freeman: 'Nolan to return to Batman'

[The Joker]

Does Catwoman have a logical place in this movie?

When we find out the storyline for the movie, we'll let you know

Batman Begins and The Dark Knight have both felt like there's too many male characters. Having a third movie without any female character in the main cast would be sad. Plus Catwoman is by far the best character Nolan haven't used yet in his movies. Im kinda weak(no pun intended) for these strong female characters that can kick most guys' butts in action films.

This

Rachel was a pretty weak leading lady and love interest. Which is a shame, because Batman has so many strong love interest characters. I don't know why Nolan felt he had to invent a character.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I am glad he did because not only was she a childhood friend, but she also served as batman's anchor to a normal life.
Everytime we saw Bruce as a kid, he would be a kid alone in the mansion, crying "ma parents are dead". Here Rachel fleshed out his childhood and then after the accident, its pretty obvious that they lost most contact but not all (which would have been pretty unrealistic and borderline psychotic). Then, she being a normal person of his age, she helped him mature as well, showing him how a normal person of his age should feel, things that Alfred could not show.

Here's an example: Lets go to Bruce and Rachel's last year in high school. Rachel would obviously take part in school activities, go out, go to the prom, while Bruce would be secluded and refrain from most of these activities.
And this is why you need people close to Bruce as foils, as people he can talk to and express himself, etc. Bruce is obviously secluded, brooding and miserable, but he always keeps people around him, even if he is pushing them away at times. Look at House. He abuses everyone around him, but when they're gone, he finds ways to bring them back without acting like he needs them. Bruce is something like that, especially in his younger life when fighting crime hasnt had a toll on his psychological health.

Then, as a love interest who isnt entangled in vigilantism, Rachel lures him towards a normal life the way Catwoman allows him to be batman. So in that sense she was perfect as his first love interest because it fit his character development at the beginning of his career when he doesnt yet know what to do with Batman and thinks that he might have a chance at a normal life.

Basically, Rachel was a foil to him, showing us an aspect of his personality that wants to be normal, but cant help but not be.

 

[KalMart]

When we find out the storyline for the movie, we'll let you know



This

Rachel was a pretty weak leading lady and love interest. Which is a shame, because Batman has so many strong love interest characters. I don't know why Nolan felt he had to invent a character.

How was she weak?

 

[Dark Knight]

I guess the Catwoman haters have never read great Batman stories featuring Catwoman like The Long Halloween, Dark Victory or Hush?

 

[Marx]

Rachel Dawes is dead. It makes sense story-wise to bring in Selina Kyle/Catwoman.

 

[The Joker]

How was she weak?

For starters, there was no implied romantic feelings between her and Bruce all through Begins. They acted like friends, nothing more. Then at the end, she suddenly says that he's the man she loves and they share a kiss. Came completely out of left field, and felt totally false.

In TDK, she was put to better use, in that she was pivotal in Harvey's storyline/downfall, and was a factor in the reasons why Bruce wanted to give up being Batman, because she said they could be together on the day where Gotham no longer needed Batman.

But overall the character is very bland.

 

[Mr. Earle]

For starters, there was no implied romantic feelings between her and Bruce all through Begins. They acted like friends, nothing more. Then at the end, she suddenly says that he's the man she loves and they share a kiss. Came completely out of left field, and felt totally false.

I agree with this. It was completely out the blue.

But overall the character is very bland.

Because she isnt a flamboyant superhero but rather a normal nerdy girl that went to law school. By comics standards yes she is bland. And casting droopy faced Maggie or talentless Katie didnt help the character.

 

[Dark Knight]

Rachel Dawes is dead. It makes sense story-wise to bring in Selina Kyle/Catwoman.

By killing Rachel off (which was a logical move) it opens the door for REAL characters like Catwoman and Talia from the Batman mythos to be introduced.

 

[KalMart]

For starters, there was no implied romantic feelings between her and Bruce all through Begins.
They acted like friends, nothing more. Then at the end, she suddenly says that he's the man she loves and they share a kiss. Came completely out of left field, and felt totally false.

In TDK, she was put to better use, in that she was pivotal in Harvey's storyline/downfall, and was a factor in the reasons why Bruce wanted to give up being Batman, because she said they could be together on the day where Gotham no longer needed Batman.

But overall the character is very bland.

In BB, it's not the amount of romantic interplay that was important, but what it was grounded in. It was clear that they were more than just friends. Rachel was very much a moral reminder and cornerstone to Wayne, someone who knew him his whole life and truly understood what he had gone through, and someone who reminded him not to lose the man the is inside, even when she didn't know that Batman and Wayne were the same person. And Wayne took that to heart every time...it made him reevaluate. So when the possibility for romance is finally addressed at the end, it feels much more natural and true because of that friendship and closeness. She's the deepest and truest love interest that we've seen for Batman in any Batman film, even if we didn't see it fully consummated. And that's gonna be a tough act to follow, emotionally, for anyone...regardless how many asses they can kick, how hot they look in leather, or how close to the comics they may be.

 

[The Joker]

In BB, it's not the amount of romantic interplay that was important, but what it was grounded in. It was clear that they were more than just friends. Rachel was very much a moral reminder and cornerstone to Wayne, someone who knew him his whole life and truly understood what he had gone through, and someone who reminded him not to lose the man the is inside, even when she didn't know that Batman and Wayne were the same person. And Wayne took that to heart every time...it made him reevaluate. So when the possibility for romance is finally addressed at the end, it feels much more natural and true because of that friendship and closeness. She's the deepest and truest love interest that we've seen for Batman in any Batman film, even if we didn't see it fully consummated. And that's gonna be a tough act to follow, emotionally, for anyone...regardless how many asses they can kick or how hot they look in leather.

Rachel being a moral compass, that's Alfred's job. Gordon's job. Robin's job. They all bring Bruce back into focus when he gets too close to the edge, or loses sight of something.

Corny lines like "It's not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you" just felt shallow and forced. There was no chemistry between Bruce and Rachel. There was nothing there to imply they felt anything more than a friendship. It's one of the reasons why the romantic thing at the end felt so out of place, forced, and false.

Rachel is going to be one of the most easily replaceable characters ever. You won't see many people missing her. Count on it. Nobody gave a damn when she died in TDK. Most people are glad, because now a REAL love interest and stronger female lead can be brought in.

Because she isnt a flamboyant superhero but rather a normal nerdy girl that went to law school. By comics standards yes she is bland. And casting droopy faced Maggie or talentless Katie didnt help the character.

While I think Maggie is a much better actress than Katie, I think it's more down to the material rather than the casting. Not many actresses could do much with such a bland, uninteresting character.

I think she was more pivotal in TDK, but as a plot device for Bruce and Harvey. The character itself was still bleh.

 

[kedrell]

By killing Rachel off (which was a logical move) it opens the door for REAL characters like Catwoman and Talia from the Batman mythos to be introduced.

Or Vicky Vale.

 

[The Joker]

Or Vicky Vale.

Or Silver St Cloud. Or Julie Madison. Or Vesper Fairchild.

So many to choose from.

 

[Wedge A.]

Does Catwoman have a logical place in this movie?

Further blurring the line between hero and villain for Batman? It could only improve on what was lightly touched on by Two-Face in The Dark Knight. It also helps that she's a love interest, something this series will be lacking from now on. She's the most logical choice for a new character.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I think that Rachel was far better and more important than Vicky Vale or Chase Meridian.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Further blurring the line between hero and villain for Batman? It could only improve on what was lightly touched on by Two-Face in The Dark Knight. It also helps that she's a love interest, something this series will be lacking from now on. She's the most logical choice for a new character.

Not only that but they can introduce her in B3 and if Nolan or some other director keeps the continuity going with more films, she could reappear. She doesnt have to be the focus of the story, just there for Batman to keep a look out for.
The villains dont have to be locked up at the end of each film so that they can be replaced in the sequel. Keep her around like Lois is around.

 

[KalMart]

Rachel being a moral compass, that's Alfred's job. Gordon's job. Robin's job. They all bring Bruce back into focus when he gets too close to the edge, or loses sight of something.

And in BB, it was Rachel's job as well. If you don't like that decision, that's one thing. But it doesn't diminish what she was in that story just because someone feels that it should've been someone else. If that's the case, then Gordon should be viewed as 'weak' as well.

Corny lines like "It's not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you" just felt shallow and forced.

Was it any more corny than "Why do we fall....", originally coined by that insignificant father character?

There was no chemistry between Bruce and Rachel. There was nothing there to imply they felt anything more than a friendship. It's one of the reasons why the romantic thing at the end felt so out of place, forced, and false.

There wasn't time for that kind of 'chemistry' in the story and with what was going on until the end. And again, it wasn't meant to be that kind of romantic interplay throughout. Looking at that story, how could more romance along the way have helped? Was their friendship alone not enough to warrant his saving her from Scarecrow the way he did? Should he have tried to kiss her at the subway stop after taking out those muggers?

Rachel is going to be one of the most easily replaceable characters ever. You won't see many people missing her. Count on it. Nobody gave a damn when she died in TDK. Most people are glad, because now a REAL love interest and stronger female lead can be brought in.

I'm not saying people will miss her. If anything, it speaks more to people expecting something more hot n' heavy, or a femme fatale, but not getting it. Understandable, but what they got was a story that in which a character like Rachel, and her significance to Wayne, was better suited for. That may not make her as exciting or as memorable as a Catwoman or Talia...but it doesn't make her weak. She was as 'REAL' of a love interest as there can be. If people are looking for more sexual tension/flirting, loosely referred to as 'love interest', that's something else. Perhaps Rachel was too mature and realistic of a love interest character for some....which again, is understandable from a certain perspective and more about the movie as a whole. But it still doesn't make her weak.

While I think Maggie is a much better actress than Katie, I think it's more down to the material rather than the casting. Not many actresses could do much with such a bland, uninteresting character.

Especially if the viewer already wanted a Catwoman, a blonde bombshell, or what have you instead.

I think she was more pivotal in TDK, but as a plot device for Bruce and Harvey. The character itself was still bleh.

What love interest of any degree...or other supporting character...isn't a plot device? Rachel's character fit the kind of story that Nolan was specifically telling with those movies better than a Catwoman or whoever would have. True, it didn't quite fulfill a sense of token wildness and infatuation that a more comic-like presentation may...but such can be said about a lot of interpretations for those Batman movies. Collectively, everything pretty much fit together well. So if you want more swooning, then hopefully you'll get a movie and story that will be more appropriate for it. Othewise, you run the danger of injecting it for the sake of conformity and plasticity...which really would make it weak.

 

[The Joker]

And in BB, it was Rachel's job as well. If you don't like that decision, that's one thing. But it doesn't diminish what she was in that story just because someone feels that it should've been someone else.

No, I diminish it because unlike with Alfred and Gordon, it felt unnatural and forced. She was just preachy, *****y, and forever putting Bruce down.

There was nothing endearing about the character. There was no connection or chemistry between them. Did anyone really care if she lived or died? No.

If that's the case, then Gordon should be viewed as 'weak' as well.

Why is that?

Was it any more corny than "Why do we fall....", originally coined by that insignificant father character?

Yes, that was corny, too. There was a ton of corny dialogue in BB. Why do you think so many people were happy Goyer wasn't writing the script for TDK?

There wasn't time for that kind of 'chemistry' in the story and with what was going on until the end.

Is that supposed to excuse it?

And again, it wasn't meant to be that kind of romantic interplay throughout. Looking at that story, how could more romance along the way have helped? Was their friendship alone not enough to warrant his saving her from Scarecrow the way he did? Should he have tried to kiss her at the subway stop after taking out those muggers?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Batman would save ANY innocent from danger. I'm talking about how this platonic friendship suddenly turned into a romance in one quick scene, where she declares he's the man she loves.

Came out of nowhere.

I'm not saying people will miss her. If anything, it speaks more to people expecting something more hot n' heavy, or a femme fatale, but not getting it. Understandable, but what they got was a story that in which a character like Rachel, and her significance to Wayne, was better suited for. That may not make her as exciting or as memorable as a Catwoman or Talia...but it doesn't make her weak. She was as 'REAL' of a love interest as there can be. If people are looking for more sexual tension/flirting, loosely referred to as 'love interest', that's something else.

I don't know why you keep bringing up Catwoman. Nobody's comparing her to Catwoman. Nobody wanted a femme fatale. Just a character who was interesting, and had some chemistry with Bruce.

Especially if the viewer already wanted a Catwoman, a blonde bombshell, or what have you instead.

Again nobody was championing for Catwoman. In fact, I think when Ra's was announced, alot of people wanted Talia.

What love interest of any degree...or other supporting character...isn't a plot device?

Selina Kyle, Mary Jane Watson, Lois Lane etc. They all brought alot more to the hero's lives than what Rachel did.

For example, I don't like Kirsten Dunst's MJ, but I cannot deny that she is a more pivotal element in Spidey's life, and there is chemistry between her and Maguire. Alot of what he does revolves around her. She's more than a plot device. Alot of his growth as a character was with her. Which is akin to the Peter Parker character, who gets alot of character development through his relationships with women.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Was it any more corny than "Why do we fall....", originally coined by that insignificant father character?

Did you just diss Bruce's father? OH HELL NAWWW!!! He was awesome!

That may not make her as exciting or as memorable as a Catwoman or Talia...but it doesn't make her weak. She was as 'REAL' of a love interest as there can be. If people are looking for more sexual tension/flirting, loosely referred to as 'love interest', that's something else. Perhaps Rachel was too mature and realistic of a love interest character for some....which again, is understandable from a certain perspective and more about the movie as a whole. But it still doesn't make her weak.

If anything, what she had with Bruce was a lot deeper than what Talia has (basically she is obsessed with him and he doesnt return her love other than doing her), or Vicky Vale, in B89 or comics.

I don't know why you keep bringing up Catwoman. Nobody's comparing her to Catwoman. Nobody wanted a femme fatale. Just a character who was interesting, and had some chemistry with Bruce.

The chemistry was Nolan's fault but in the end i found the character necessary. I needed Bruce to have someone besides Alfred in his childhood years.

Selina Kyle, Mary Jane Watson, Lois Lane etc. They all brought alot more to the hero's lives than what Rachel did.

Becauce they are their hero's ultimate love interest. But Rachel brought a lot to the table as well. Be it helping Bruce mature, being his connection to a normal life, being his childhood sweetheart, etc.

 

[The Joker]

Did you just diss Bruce's father? OH HELL NAWWW!!! He was awesome!

"It's fine. It's fine"

 

[Mr. Earle]

"It's fine. It's fine"

Maybe "why do we fall" was cheesy, but other than that, Bruce's father was great. I loved how caring he was in stark contrast to his comics version who is a very strict and uptight person.
And in the end, i can excuse that line. He had a motto in life, to never give up and he was trying to instill that to his son. Batman is after all known for his perseverance.

 

[Two-Face]

I think it was fine, "Nice coat" or Excuse me" were cringe worthy.

 

[The Joker]

Maybe "why do we fall" was cheesy, but other than that, Bruce's father was great. I loved how caring he was in stark contrast to his comics version who is a very strict and uptight person.
And in the end, i can excuse that line. He had a motto in life, to never give up and he was trying to instill that to his son. Batman is after all known for his perseverance.

Don't worry, man, I wasn't knocking Bruce's father. I liked him, too. I just wish the mother had a bit more dialogue, too.

 

[Two-Face]

Don't worry, man, I wasn't knocking Bruce's father. I liked him, too. I just wish the mother had a bit more dialogue, too.

Yeah they forgot about the Martha.

 

[KalMart]

No, I diminish it because unlike with Alfred and Gordon, it didn't feel unnatural and forced. She was just preachy, *****y, and forever putting Bruce down.

And she was right in what she was saying. Otherwise, Wayne wouldn't have taken it so seriously. I guess Wayne was weak too.

There was nothing endearing about the character. There was no connection or chemistry between them. Did anyone really care if she lived or died? No.

So why did Batman/Wayne, then?

Why is that?

That was proposed in case you thought Gordon and Alfred should have taken up more of Rachel's moral responsibility. Wayne seemed more affected by Rachel's concerns along the way than with Alfred's....so should Alfred have been stronger?

Yes, that was corny, too. There was a ton of corny dialogue in BB. Why do you think so many people were happy Goyer wasn't writing the script for TDK?

Because it didn't tickle the inner comic geek in them enough maybe? I dunno.

Is that supposed to excuse it?

It's not an excuse, it's a reason. There's a difference.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Batman would save ANY innocent from danger. I'm talking about how this platonic friendship suddenly turned into a romance in one quick scene, where she declares he's the man she loves.

And he basically reveals that he's always felt the same by receiving that sentiment the way he did.

Came out of nowhere.

It came from their hearts. Who woulda' thunk?

CI don't know why you keep bringing up Catwoman.

Nobody's comparing her to Catwoman. Nobody wanted a femme fatale. Just a character who was interesting, and had some chemistry with Bruce.

On what basis though? On something that was different than what that particular story was doing. A comic-character or femme-fatale is just an example. Whatever one may choose, it's something other than what was meant to work in that specific movie. You want a 'better' love interest than Rachel? You should want a story with more of that kind of steady romance written into it.

They probably wanted a comic-book love interest...and in a lot of ways, probably a more comic-book movie. What they got was something that perhaps didn't address the fantasy enough...but it wasn't really meant to, which again, is a bigger decision to take issue with.



Selina Kyle, Mary Jane Watson, Lois Lane etc. They all brought alot more to the hero's lives than what Rachel did.

For example, I don't like Kirsten Dunst's MJ, but I cannot deny that she is a more pivotal element in Spidey's life, and there is chemistry between her and Maguire. Alot of what he does revolves around her. She's more than a plot device. Alot of his growth as a character was with her. Which is akin to the Peter Parker character, who gets alot of character development through his relationships with women.

I can kinda' see how people didn't like how Holmes performed the role, although I didn't think it was that bad. But as I said above, it was appropriate for the story at hand. So the Rachel character wasn't weak for what was intended and delivered.....even though the romantic part of the narrative may not have been what people would have wanted. So if people want a 'better' love interest, then it better be in a story that warrants it. It's kinda' like saying "I hope the next Batmobile is more like a Sports car, because I didn't like that the Tumbler looked more like a tank." Well then, if the action in the next story calls for more sports-car performance with less crashing through and hopping over chunks of concrete...then maybe you'll get one.

 

[Mr. Earle]

That was proposed in case you thought Gordon and Alfred should have taken up more of Rachel's moral responsibility. Wayne seemed more affected by Rachel's concerns along the way than with Alfred's....so should Alfred have been stronger?

I think it was fine. Its only natural for young people to listen more to other people of their age, especially girls than their parents.
Besides, Bruce would never dare talk about killing Chill with Alfred because he'd get his legs broken. He confided in Rachel who set him straight. Not only was she a normal person, but an ADA at that, with a strong moral fibre and deep knowledge on subjects like justice and revenge.

It's not an excuse, it's a reason. There's a difference.

Agreed.