Castlewood
Civilian
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 795
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
In a time where everyone is saying "Kill Rachel, Kill Rachel", I come here with a different approach. DON'T kill her.
For those who say "Just don't bring her back at all", others say "That screws everything up and ruins continuity."
WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE??
Well, for one, let's please BOTH groups.
YES, Rachel can be a "victim" of the Joker. However, she doesn't have to DIE, does she? What if she is somehow "transformed" into Harley Quinn by the hands of the Joker, whether it be by some kind of injury, or toxin?
Why not?
Look at it this way....Harley Quinn was NOT a comic book character. She first appeared in an episode of Batman: The Animated Series and the character took off with fans in the comic world. She later was thrown into the comics.
So, what does this mean? It means....there is no OFFICIAL record of true "depiction" in the comics of Harley Quinn. Therefore, it is technically acceptable to tweak the character and turn Rachel Dawes into Harley Quinn, and there would not be an issue of "taking liberties" to make that work. It would be 100% okay. Nobody could complain, because she was NOT a comic character.
If you want an example of something NOT acceptable, based on changing something from the actual COMIC world, then look at Spider-Man. The movie did NOT give him web-shooters....they made the webs inside his arms, which is NOT acceptable to the comic depiction.
So....I say, Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) COULD, in fact, become Harley Quinn.
And, how perfect would this be for Batman's storyline? It would seriously scar him in the movie. His childhood friend, his potential lover, now transformed into a villian by the hands of his arch-enemy!! I think the "revenge plot" of Batman vs. Joker would be 10 times MORE meaningful if it went this way, instead of simply killing Rachel off.
The only question is....Could Katie Homes actually DO IT?!?
She DOES have the face for it....wouldn't you agree?
For those who say "Just don't bring her back at all", others say "That screws everything up and ruins continuity."
WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE??
Well, for one, let's please BOTH groups.
YES, Rachel can be a "victim" of the Joker. However, she doesn't have to DIE, does she? What if she is somehow "transformed" into Harley Quinn by the hands of the Joker, whether it be by some kind of injury, or toxin?
Why not?
Look at it this way....Harley Quinn was NOT a comic book character. She first appeared in an episode of Batman: The Animated Series and the character took off with fans in the comic world. She later was thrown into the comics.
So, what does this mean? It means....there is no OFFICIAL record of true "depiction" in the comics of Harley Quinn. Therefore, it is technically acceptable to tweak the character and turn Rachel Dawes into Harley Quinn, and there would not be an issue of "taking liberties" to make that work. It would be 100% okay. Nobody could complain, because she was NOT a comic character.
If you want an example of something NOT acceptable, based on changing something from the actual COMIC world, then look at Spider-Man. The movie did NOT give him web-shooters....they made the webs inside his arms, which is NOT acceptable to the comic depiction.
So....I say, Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) COULD, in fact, become Harley Quinn.
And, how perfect would this be for Batman's storyline? It would seriously scar him in the movie. His childhood friend, his potential lover, now transformed into a villian by the hands of his arch-enemy!! I think the "revenge plot" of Batman vs. Joker would be 10 times MORE meaningful if it went this way, instead of simply killing Rachel off.
The only question is....Could Katie Homes actually DO IT?!?
She DOES have the face for it....wouldn't you agree?
