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

[The Joker]

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

Yes, she was right. But the problem is that was all she did was put him down. Unlike Alfred and Gordon, who supported him. Even when Alfred took the tough love approach, there was a kindness and warmth to it underneath.

Never got that from Dawes.

So why did Batman/Wayne, then?

Because she was his friend. It'd be a pretty cold hearted bastard who didn't care about 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?

Absolutely. Alfred is supposed to be the surrogate father figure. He knows Bruce better than anyone. Alfred's words should always hit home the most with Bruce.

And in some cases it did, like when he challenged Alfred to why he gave a damn about what happens to Wayne Manor, and Alfred put him in place by telling him why.

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

Or they just don't like corny dialogue?

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

The reason being the script didn't allow for it? Then it shouldn't have been included. If you can't sell it in the script, then don't do it.

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

Which is why it's so unbelievable. There's no hint of these strong feelings of love between them anywhere in the movie.

It came from their hearts. Who woulda' thunk?

Certainly not the viewers based on watching Begins.

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.

Exactly. The story didn't allow for a strong love interest like the ones he has in the comic books. So it's a criticism on the writing of the movie, and hence the characters in 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.

Batman has a long line of love interests. Some are more interesting than others, but none of them I would personally call dull or uninteresting.

It's not like there was a lack of characters to choose from.

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.

It's not even Holmes. I'm not as hard on her as some are. Yeah, she didn't light the screen on fire with awesomeness, but I don't think she acted as awful as some people claim. But to each their own.

I don't think any great actress could have done much with the character. Like I said before, it's down to the writing, not the casting.

Harking back to the Spider-Man movies, alot of people diss Tobey Maguire because he doesn't quip enough as Spider-Man. That's not Tobey's fault. That's the script. He's just doing the material he's given.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Marion Cotillard couldve done a better job as Rachel,lol.

 

[Mr. Earle]

And in some cases it did, like when he challenged Alfred to why he gave a damn about what happens to Wayne Manor, and Alfred put him in place by telling him why.

But you cant have all the dialogue and exposition happen with Alfred. Also:

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.
Agreed.

But for some reason you only respond to KalMart.

Batman has a long line of love interests. Some are more interesting than others, but none of them I would personally call dull or uninteresting.

It's not like there was a lack of characters to choose from.

But none of those would fit in his childhood years. In Begins Rachel was mostly his friend and then his love interest while she went to full love interest mode in TDK.
So in BB there was no need for a bimbo like Vale, a psycho like Talia running around crying "beloved, beloved" or another vigilante like Selina.

Bruce needed a childhood friend to flesh out his childhood years and a person to exchange dialogue with other than Alfred. Even in Mask of the Phantasm he had Andrea. She is basically Bruce's Lana Lang.

Imho Rachel was much more important than Pepper Potts, Vicky Vale and certainly Talia. But the fact that Nolan didnt write her so well, and that she isnt a character from the comics makes her harder to accept.

 

[Laderlappen]

Marion is a too good actress for playing sucha pos character

 

[Mr. Earle]

So i guess you guys also find Lana Lang unnecessary to the SM mythos. But oh wait, she is in the comics, so its OK!

 

[The Joker]

But you cant have all the dialogue and exposition happen with Alfred

No, you can't. He had some with his father. With Fox. With Gordon etc.

But for some reason you only respond to KalMart.

Sorry, I didn't get that memo

I think that's nonsense in this case, since Bruce spent the first quarter of the movie listening and being trained by a mature older head, Ra's. He's not a teenager here. He's a grown man. Not to mention he always listened to Alfred in the comics. Even when he didn't want to.

But none of those would fit in his childhood years. In Begins Rachel was mostly his friend and then his love interest while she went to full love interest in TDK.
So in BB there was no need for a bimbo like Vale, a psycho like Talia running around crying "beloved, beloved" or another vigilante like Selina.

Rewrite a character like Julie Madison, Vesper, or Silver. Make them have a connection to his childhood. It'd be far less of a stray from the comics than completely inventing a character like Rachel.

Bruce needed a childhood friend to flesh out his childhood years and a person to exchange dialogue with other than Alfred. Even in Mask of the Phantasm he had Andrea. She is basically Bruce's Lana Lang.

Andrea Beaumont was fantastic. Had Rachel Dawes been given the kind of brilliant writing Andrea had with Bruce as far as their relationship went, then it would have been cool. That first scene where they meet in the graveyard had more chemistry alone between the two characters than all of Rachel's scenes put together in the two movies.

You instantly like Andrea, and are intrigued by her.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Just bring Rachel back as that female Ventriloquist. The explosion didnt kill her,just scarred her face. THEN Marion can play Rachel,lol.

 

[flickchick85]

Why the hell would Marion Cotillard want to play Rachel Dawes, a character already established by two other actresses (who are NOTHING like her) who was killed off and no one wants back? That's such a random thought, lol.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Why the hell would Marion Cotillard want to play Rachel Dawes, a character already established by two other actresses (who are NOTHING like her) who was killed off and no one wants back? That's such a random thought, lol.

Im proud that its controversial though,lol.t:

 

[Mr. Earle]

No, you can't. He had some with his father. With Fox. With Gordon etc.

His father died when he was 12. Gordon and Fox he had just met.

I think that's nonsense in this case, since Bruce spent the first quarter of the movie listening and being trained by a mature older head, Ra's. He's not a teenager here. He's a grown man. Not to mention he always listened to Alfred in the comics. Even when he didn't want to.

Listen, watching "Superman: the movie" you'd think that Clark didnt have any friends in smallville, let alone a girlfriend. If you skip through most of the origin, that's fine, but if you settle down and analyse it, you need to have more characters than Clark and his parents. Hell you need more than Clark, his parents and Lana. You need to give him a friend or two.
The same in this case. No matter how secluded Bruce was, he must have made a friend or two, like Andrea in "Mask of the Phantasm" or "Thomas Elliot" in the comics. Even if you dont want to give him/her a big role in his development, you gotta have someone there. Besides, Nolan placed her in his life before his parents murder so if you want you can assume that he was lucky to meet her before cause later he didnt get any friends later.
But the mere fact that Rachel was his one true friend all these years makes it enough for him to love her. Men often fall in love with their best female friends.

Their romance in BB was out of the blue in BB, i'll give you that, but it came in the end and carried no significance to the plot of the movie, so i couldnt care less about it. The fact of the matter is that Rachel was first of all a friend in BB.

Rewrite a character like Julie Madison, Vesper, or Silver.

I dont know who these are.

Make them have a connection to his childhood. It'd be far less of a stray from the comics than completely inventing a character like Rachel.

I didnt care that Nolan invented a character. Why, is it only a priviledge of the comic book writers?

Andrea Beaumont was fantastic. Had Rachel Dawes been given the kind of brilliant writing Andrea had with Bruce as far as their relationship went, then it would have been cool. That first scene where they meet in the graveyard had more chemistry alone between the two characters than all of Rachel's scenes put together in the two movies.

You instantly like Andrea, and are intrigued by her.

Andrea was better indeed, but we met her as a woman, and we along with Bruce were intrigued by her mysterious nature. Rachel is supposed to be there from his childhood, being a normal person dumbfounded by Bruce's ways and she is his only reason to quit being Batman. And as i said, she is supposed to be another person besides Alfred that Bruce can grow up with and hell even discuss a few things. Would you tell your step father you're about to commit murder?

Andrea seemed like she would be fine with Bruce's identity had bruce revealed it to her when they were about to get married. That's the vibe i got from her anyway.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Well instead of Catwoman, have The Phantasm. I liked the moral dynamic and relationship between Andrea and Bruce. Virtually a female Batman,but with the exception of killing,unlike him.

 

[TheBatman072]

Well instead of Catwoman, have The Phantasm. I liked the moral dynamic and relationship between Andrea and Bruce. Virtually a female Batman,but with the exception of killing,unlike him.

Uh. No. Phantasm isn't Batman like in any way except for the whole costume thing.

Phantasm was about nothing but personal revenge.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Something that Batman couldve done and become.

 

[TheBatman072]

Something that Batman couldve done and become.

The bolded part implied that they were the same, but opposite genders. They're not.

 

[The Joker]

His father died when he was 12. Gordon and Fox he had just met.

Yet he went with outrageous requests with BS excuses to Fox from the get go. Fox made it clear that he knew what was going on "Don't think of me as an idiot".

He had not seen Rachel since he was a child. People grow and change, yet he just picked up with her like he had just seen her last week.

Bruce was not averse to placing faith and trust in people in Begins.

Listen, watching "Superman: the movie" you'd think that Clark didnt have any friends in smallville, let alone a girlfriend. If you skip through most of the origin, that's fine, but if you settle down and analyse it, you need to have more characters than Clark and his parents. Hell you need more than Clark, his parents and Lana. You need to give him a friend or two.
The same in this case. No matter how secluded Bruce was, he must have made a friend or two, like Andrea in "Mask of the Phantasm" or "Thomas Elliot" in the comics. Even if you dont want to give him/her a big role in his development, you gotta have someone there. Besides, Nolan placed her in his life before his parents murder so if you want you can assume that he was lucky to meet her before cause later he didnt get any friends later.
But the mere fact that Rachel was his one true friend all these years makes it enough for him to love her. Men often fall in love with their best female friends.

I get what you're saying, and have never disputed why Rachel was placed in the movie. My criticisms lie in how she was handled as a character. Both as a moral compass, and as a supposed love interest.

I dont know who these are.

Really? You not read the comics much, mate? Or just specific eras? They're all former love interests of Bruce's.

I didnt care that Nolan invented a character. Why, is it only a priviledge of the comic book writers?

When it comes to pivotal characters in the hero's life, absolutely. Why invent such a character, when the comics offer so many choices?

Andrea was better indeed, but we met her as a woman, and we along with Bruce were intrigued by her mysterious nature. Rachel is supposed to be there from his childhood, being a normal person dumbfounded by Bruce's ways and she is his only reason to quit being Batman. And as i said, she is supposed to be another person besides Alfred that Bruce can grow up with and hell even discuss a few things. Would you tell your step father you're about to commit murder?

I wouldn't tell anyone I was about to commit murder if I ever was going to do it. But I see what you're saying.

Again it falls back to how the character was handled. She was there just to pour scorn on all Bruce's wrong decisions. It doesn't make the character endearing or interesting.

Remember when Begins was released? Aside from the fight scenes and the realism, what was the biggest complaint? The Rachel Dawes character. Both in the writing and the acting. Although I personally had no major issue with Katie's performance myself.

This is supposed to be someone who we're asked to believe Bruce loves. In that sense we should like her. But Nolan never sold Rachel as a likeable character. She was a wet rag and a put down.

Andrea seemed like she would be fine with Bruce's identity had bruce revealed it to her when they were about to get married. That's the vibe i got from her anyway.

So did I. I think she's the best love interest Batman's ever had.

 

[ASL]

Wow.

Joker, you have the worst case of Oral *********ion I've EVER seen.

Get a hobby or something, son.

 

[The Joker]

Wow.

Joker, you have the worst case of Oral *********ion I've EVER seen.

You obviously don't post here very often then, if that's the biggest discussion you've ever seen.

Get a hobby or something, son.

Comic books are my hobby. But thanks for caring

 

[TheBatman072]

Wow.

Joker, you have the worst case of Oral *********ion I've EVER seen.

Get a hobby or something, son.

Yeah, how dare he discuss things on a message board designed for just that!

That ****ing loser!

Get over yourself. "Son."

 

[Mr. Earle]

Really? You not read the comics much, mate? Or just specific eras? They're all former love interests of Bruce's.

No, i 've read many Batman comic books, but not all of them so that's why i havent run into them.

I get what you're saying, and have never disputed why Rachel was placed in the movie. My criticisms lie in how she was handled as a character. Both as a moral compass, and as a supposed love interest.

Thanks.

When it comes to pivotal characters in the hero's life, absolutely. Why invent such a character, when the comics offer so many choices?

Yes, but to be honest Batman has never had a childhood friend/sweetheart so far, so there wasnt someone else they could choose. And in the end, Rachel >>>>> Thomas Elliot. In fact a piece of turd >>>>> Thomas Elliot.

I wouldn't tell anyone I was about to commit murder if I ever was going to do it. But I see what you're saying.

He told her afterwards.

Again it falls back to how the character was handled. She was there just to pour scorn on all Bruce's wrong decisions. It doesn't make the character endearing or interesting.

I agree that the way she was written, she was very annoying.
But, that said, i think that she should be part of the mythos in some extent or the other. For example they incorporated Pete Ross and Chloe in Superman's Secret Origins story.
So even if you dont want to give Rachel a role in Bruce's character development, i'd at least have her there as his friend. I never liked the idea that after the accident bruce locked himself up in the manor with alfred, as if he was Miller's Batman from his 12 years of age. Batman is Batman, not Rorschach.

Wow.

Joker, you have the worst case of Oral *********ion I've EVER seen.

Get a hobby or something, son.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Wow.

Joker, you have the worst case of Oral *********ion I've EVER seen.

Get a hobby or something, son.

Bully

 

[OPAZO]

OMFG I would love to see Megan Fox as Catwoman, I aint got words to describe this girl but DAMN shes a SEXY *****!

but I dont know if she got the acting skills to pull this off but I would love to see her with thoese clothes

 

[KILLING JOKER]

Catwoman is not a very interesting character psychologically or romantically. She's just a conflicted female version of Batman but instead of wearing a bat-suit she wears a cat-suit. She's already been in 2 feature films. 3 if you count Adam West.

I do believe her popularity (A-hem) stems from the fact that she's sexy, hot and alot fanboys want to see a hot actress in a black leather suit with a whip. Same guys that worship the annoyance that is Harley Quinn. That's all well and fine but as I said, the character is just not that interesting and is, in fact, just as corny as Bat-girl. She would not hold the weight of a story like Ras, Joker and Two-face. She's just a random, wacked out thief.

Bring in a new romance like Vicki Vale but keep it on the side. It's far more interesting to see Bruce TRY to live a normal life while dealing with the hell that he goes through. More drama to chew on. Personally I don't think every superhero movie HAS to have some major love story. It's getting ridicuous. The Dark Knight had some elements of romance but the movie hardly centered around it. In fact, none of Nolans movies have centered around love or romantic relationships. He deals with bigger and much more mature themes. He's not going to want to deal with the whole Batman/Catwoman relationship. I'll bet we will not see Catwoman in part 3.

 

[KILLING JOKER]

OMFG I would love to see Megan Fox as Catwoman, I aint got words to describe this girl but DAMN shes a SEXY *****!

but I dont know if she got the acting skills to pull this off but I would love to see her with thoese clothes

lol

 

[Rodrigo90]

Megan Fox with Marion Cotillards acting ability,then I would want her as Catwoman. Its a shame really.

 

[Laderlappen]

Marion is already like a billion times hotter than Megan Fox. Catwoman is not a ****ty and stupid teenager.