The Dark Knight Katie VS Maggie

[Macphisto]

and she frequently had this strange lop-sided smirk on her face when she delivered her lines. I didn't even see that until some other poster here pointed it out and now I can't stop noticing it.

To be fair, Maggie even surpasses Holmes in the perma self-satisfied smirk category, while her shrill voice has all the authority of a ditsy 15-year-old cheerleader.

Loved her in Secretary, though.

 

[Panthro]

And Katie's voice has about as much authority as a spoiled 6-year old.

 

[Macphisto]

She certainly sounds youthful.

 

[El Payaso]

My thoughts exactly.

At last El Payaso, we our in agreement about something. This is a great day! Tonight, we celebrate with ribs!

 

[Schlosser85]

I didn't think there was much of a difference, to be honest.

I preface by saying I think Rachel Dawes is a completely superfluous and annoying self-righteous character who doesn't give anyone who plays her much to do.

I think Katie Holmes was more annoying, with her little lopsided smirk even when she was saying serious lines, and looked too young to be believable as an assistant DA.

I think Maggie looks a little more credible as a lawyer/assistant DA, but tried a little too much to seem sexy or something, with the way she walked and carried herself around.

So at the end of the day, they're about even IMO. Gyllenhaal might be a little more even, but I don't think either of them was anything memorable, which probably is more due to the character itself than whoever played her.

PS....as for all these people calling Gyllenhaal ugly, I don't find her ugly or even unattractive. Granted, she's not remotely beautiful, but I don't think Katie Holmes is either.

 

[cchriswake13]

Maggie's acting > Katie Holmes' .. whatever the hell she was doing in BBegins

However.. I still contest that this character did nothing for me and added nothing except a mere love interest, another painful loss for Wayne, and just a general *****.

 

[Wesley Dodds]

Maggie because i actually bought her as an attorney.

Also, with Gyllenhal I didnt get the unpleasant urge to shout "Rachel, just SHUT THE **** UP!" i got with Holmes' performmance.

 

[thedarks0ldier]

So why was she recasted in the first place? Did we ever get an official answer? Did Katie not want to do it or did the Nolan Bros. not want her?

 

[bunk]

I actually found Maggie more annoying to my surprise. It's like Katie can't help but be annoying, whereas Maggie was doing it on purpose.

 

[Team Andino]

I recently saw Insomnia one of Nolan's earlier films and it really made me wish that Hilary Swank was Rachael Dawes instead.

 

[Kane52630]

I would say this.
http://tinypic.com/r/2ex6mgn/5

 

[El Payaso]

So why was she recasted in the first place? Did we ever get an official answer? Did Katie not want to do it or did the Nolan Bros. not want her?

Those are the kind of questions I simply go 'who cares as long as it happened' at.

 

[Panthro]

So why was she recasted in the first place? Did we ever get an official answer? Did Katie not want to do it or did the Nolan Bros. not want her?

I believe the official answer was "scheduling conflicts" which is what they usually say when an actor or actress can't reprise a role. However, rumors circulated that her movie star husband Tom Cruise convinced her that "Mad Money" was the better project for her, which is a nice way of saying that he pressured her to back out because he didn't want her being part of a film that was bound to be a hit & might actually do something for her career.

 

[redfirebird2008]

You forgot the best option for this poll: NEITHER!

 

[Travesty]

You forgot the best option for this poll: NEITHER!

Hehe

I kinda agree. I'm not a fan of the character herself, but if it comes down to it, then I have to side with Katie Holmes. And the reason for this, and I'm not about to lie to anybody, is because I enjoy Begins MUCH more then TDK. Again, not that much a fan of the character......

 

[Panthro]

And yet Maggie is actually 3 years younger than Christian Bale in real life.

 

[edonian]

I didn't care for the character, but I'd say Gyllenhaal was the better actress.

 

[RustyCage]

Don't really get why people think Maggie is such a good actress. Her voice was scratchy and grating, and she put off a juvenile sort of giggly self-important arrogance that really rubbed me the wrong way. It was a completely different character.

Katie's version of Rachel, oppositely, was more smooth-voiced and pleasant, and her character was more about concern and about morale as opposed to just being annoying and cocky.

I saw NO reason for Bruce to love Rachel or even take her seriously in The Dark Knight. Not to mention the whole Twilighty love triangle crap. Maggie was basically Bella. Oh Jacob, I love you! Oh wait, Edward is back! Whatever shall I do? How can I choose? - That's an exaggeration, but really.

Also, frankly, Katie just looks way more attractive by comparison. That is clearly a less objective point though. :P She's more what I look for in a girl visually by leaps and bounds.

Sometimes I think people just jump on the underdog bandwagon to spite popularity, and that's why Maggie's become the favorite when she used to be trashed constantly. Fans are weird like that. Some people even go so far as to praise Batman & Robin and it's obvious that they share the same kind of mindset. We'll see if the Maggie approval lasts. To each their own I guess.

 

[The Joker]

Don't really get why people think Maggie is such a good actress. Her voice was scratchy and grating, and she put off a juvenile sort of giggly self-important arrogance that really rubbed me the wrong way. It was a completely different character.

Katie's version of Rachel, oppositely, was more smooth-voiced and pleasant, and her character was more about concern and about morale as opposed to just being annoying and cocky.

I disagree entirely. Katie's Rachel spent the entire movie preaching at Bruce, and getting little digs in at him. Even when she gave him his birthday present, she says "You enjoy your party, Bruce. Some of us have work to do".

All she seemed to do is moan for the entire movie. And yes, she is a lesser actress to Gyllenhaal. Rachel in TDK was far from Maggie's most inspired of performances, but given what she had to work with, she did a fine job, IMO.

I don't know where your scratchy and grating voice complaint is coming from. That's a first. But Maggie's Rachel at least served a specific purpose to both Harvey and Bruce. Not to mention her death impacted them both, too.

Rachel Dawes is a bland, uninteresting character. No actress could do more with what was in the script. But Maggie at least delivered a better acting performance, and wasn't nearly as whiny as Katie's Rachel was.

 

[Doc Ock]

I liked both Rachels. But Maggie was definitely better, she did a fantastic job! I really felt shocked when she.....well....blew up. I kinda missed her for the rest of the film. BUT, it was very important to the story and one of the many reasons TDK is such a great film.

 

[El Payaso]

Don't really get why people think Maggie is such a good actress. Her voice was scratchy and grating, and she put off a juvenile sort of giggly self-important arrogance that really rubbed me the wrong way. It was a completely different character.

Katie's version of Rachel, oppositely, was more smooth-voiced and pleasant, and her character was more about concern and about morale as opposed to just being annoying and cocky.

Well, slapping people twice is not what I'd call a pleasant non arrogant person.

I saw NO reason for Bruce to love Rachel or even take her seriously in The Dark Knight.

Me neither.

But I didn't see a reason in BB either. They were friends as kids and then suddenly he had to feel attracted to her? It was too obvious that they were trying to force a love interest in.

Not to mention the whole Twilighty love triangle crap. Maggie was basically Bella. Oh Jacob, I love you! Oh wait, Edward is back! Whatever shall I do? How can I choose? - That's an exaggeration, but really.

Twilighty? How is twilighty a romance that happened before the movie Twilight was released?

The description you give could be attached to any superhero movie triangle romance.

Now if you want a real retroactive twilightiness, try Raimi's Spiderman movies.

Also, frankly, Katie just looks way more attractive by comparison. That is clearly a less objective point though. :P She's more what I look for in a girl visually by leaps and bounds.

And that means ... what? It was a beauty contest?

That said, Katie's face is not a first prize either.

Sometimes I think people just jump on the underdog bandwagon to spite popularity, and that's why Maggie's become the favorite when she used to be trashed constantly. Fans are weird like that. Some people even go so far as to praise Batman & Robin and it's obvious that they share the same kind of mindset. We'll see if the Maggie approval lasts. To each their own I guess.

Man, Katie acts like crap. Her being popular makes it even more annoying, I admit it, but she looked and sounded like a teenager playing adult not a strong DA with lots of experience.

 

[RustyCage]

I disagree entirely. Katie's Rachel spent the entire movie preaching at Bruce, and getting little digs in at him.

The whole movie was preachy, but yes, I prefer the preachy Rachel to the screechy arrogant one.

Even when she gave him his birthday present, she says "You enjoy your party, Bruce. Some of us have work to do".

I'm not sure I understand why you've pointed this out. It doesn't exactly go against anything I said.

All she seemed to do is moan for the entire movie.

Yeah, apart from, you know, the countless times where she was teaching Bruce important lessons about values and saying meaningful things. I don't exactly view that as moaning if that's what you're referring to. Also can't think of anything particularly meaningful that Maggie had to say as Rachel, apart from 'ugh stop being Batman or I'm getting with Harvey'. And, well, the meaningfulness of that is debatable.

I will say that I'd welcome an example though, because I don't particularly enjoy disliking any part of a movie that I'm in love with otherwise. I'd be happy to have my mind changed provided there's a reason to change it.

Come to think of it, I'm compelled to search YouTube for a clip of the letter Alfred burned.

And yes, she is a lesser actress to Gyllenhaal.

Not in this case if you ask me, 'this case' being the circumstances by which they're being judged in this thread. We're talking about how they fared as Rachel, not as actresses in general. As far as the latter discussion topic goes, it's irrelevant to me so I don't really care to argue about it. Feel free to debate it with anyone else though.

Even then I'd say it's pretty pointless to go on about who's the 'lesser actress'. Stating a preference as a universal fact is silly. Bringing up criticisms based on the actual performance is something else entirely though, so I'm only going to respond to those from now on to be more concise. Just a disclaimer.

I don't know where your scratchy and grating voice complaint is coming from. That's a first.

A first? Really? I used to see people complaining about it all the time. It's especially apparent when she's screaming to Harvey while tied up. (God.) I can try to dig up some examples if necessary. Her voice in general just isn't all that easy on my ears.

Edit -- found an example at the top of the last page in this thread of someone complaining about her voice.

To be fair, Maggie even surpasses Holmes in the perma self-satisfied smirk category, while her shrill voice has all the authority of a ditsy 15-year-old cheerleader.

Loved her in Secretary, though.

Ditsy 15-year-old cheerleader pretty much describes what I was getting at.

But Maggie's Rachel at least served a specific purpose to both Harvey and Bruce.

Yeah, she filled a generic love triangle angst role. Sorry, I just didn't dig that.

By the way, in what way did Katie's Rachel NOT serve a specific purpose?? She was one of the most influential people in his life.

Not to mention her death impacted them both, too.

Which has what to do with Maggie herself exactly? This would have been the case regardless of who was playing Rachel.

Although I guess the same could be said about her attitude. If Katie had played the more arrogant love triangley version I'd be ripping her for that right now.

In fact maybe it's why she turned the role down.

But yeah, maybe I shouldn't blame Maggie for the writing. Either way, I dislike TDK's Rachel in general, not just Maggie. Not to say Maggie's off the hook entirely.

...and wasn't nearly as whiny as Katie's Rachel was.

I can't think of an example of her 'whining'. Preaching, sure. But preaching is also something I have no problem with, and something pretty much every character in the movie did. Ducard, Bruce's dad, Alfred, etc etc. Gave the story solid emotion for me, and Dark Knight felt somewhat more impersonal without as much of it. Alfred and Gordon sufficed though. <3

**Reply to El Payaso below**

Well, slapping people twice is not what I'd call a pleasant non arrogant person.

What about that is arrogant? He was behaving like a child and she was disgusted with how messed up it was that he was gonna kill the guy, she expected more of him. That response was hardly smug or cocky, but more like a mother reprimanding her son for doing something wrong.

But I didn't see a reason in BB either. They were friends as kids and then suddenly he had to feel attracted to her? It was too obvious that they were trying to force a love interest in.

In Begins she helped teach him how to be who he became, she was a powerful figure in his life for that reason. In TDK her value to him is based solely on Begins. Maggie brought nothing to that chemistry but the destruction of it via threatening to get with Harvey. And then she died.

Twilighty? How is twilighty a romance that happened before the movie Twilight was released?

Because it resembles Twilight regardless of when it was released? It's not a comparison that necessitates that sort of thing. It was an angsty love triangle, I was simply expressing why I dislike that and Twilight was a convenient and well-known example.

The description you give could be attached to any superhero movie triangle romance.

And I'd say the same thing about it. And infact I did with Spider-man, which you go on to mention.

And that means ... what? It was a beauty contest?

Well, we are comparing the two actresses. Beauty is part of that.

That said, Katie's face is not a first prize either.

Again, pointless. You may think Maggie looks better, while someone else thinks Katie looks better. You can state which you prefer, but don't respond to someone's preference and act like it somehow disproves their taste in women. These things aren't universal facts, they're subjective.

It's fine if you're just stating your preference, but you were responding to me when you said that, so I just wanted to make sure that was covered.

Man, Katie acts like crap.

It'd be nice if you'd support that with, you know, reasoning. 'Katie acts like crap' is pretty much just trolling.

Although I have to say I don't dig her all that much in most of her other roles, they're kind of uninteresting to me. We're talking Rachel though, so I'll stick to Rachel. I like Rachel.

 

[The Joker]

The whole movie was preachy, but yes, I prefer the preachy Rachel to the screechy arrogant one.

Good for you. I don't. I never found Maggie's Rachel to be arrogant either.

I'm not sure I understand why you've pointed this out. It doesn't exactly go against anything I said.

I'm re-enforcing my point with one of many examples of how she was always having digs at Bruce, even in scenes where she was supposed to be doing something nice like bring him a birthday gift.

Yeah, apart from, you know, the countless times where she was teaching Bruce important lessons about values and saying meaningful things. I don't exactly view that as moaning if that's what you're referring to.

I'm sorry, there's a difference between teaching someone something, and just plain nagging them like an old fish wife. The only scene where she finally says something positive to him without any negativity is the final scene.

Also it lessens Bruce as a character to have learn everything through a nagging friend. Alfred should play the moral compass part. The father figure. Not that Bruce's growth should come entirely from Alfred either.

Also can't think of anything particularly meaningful that Maggie had to say as Rachel, apart from 'ugh stop being Batman or I'm getting with Harvey'. And, well, the meaningfulness of that is debatable.

It's not what she had to say, it's the purpose she served as a character. And she had plenty of meaningful things to say, particularly in her scenes with Harvey. And I love the letter she left Bruce.

They just didn't make her a nagging preacher in TDK, which is probably one of many reasons as to why Maggie is preferred by most.

I will say that I'd welcome an example though, because I don't particularly enjoy disliking any part of a movie that I'm in love with otherwise. I'd be happy to have my mind changed provided there's a reason to change it.

An example of what?

And I'm not trying to change your mind, mate. Why on earth would I want to do that? No offense, but your opinion doesn't matter to me at the end of the day. Trying to change someone's mind is a fruitless and pointless task.

We're just having a discussion.

Come to think of it, I'm compelled to search YouTube for a clip of the letter Alfred burned.

For what? Do you forget what it said, because I can quote it word for word for you if you like.

Not in this case if you ask me, 'this case' being the circumstances by which they're being judged in this thread. We're talking about how they fared as Rachel, not as actresses in general.

I know. And Gyllenhaal was leaps and bounds better than Holmes, IMO. She was far more convincing.

As far as the latter discussion topic goes, it's irrelevant to me so I don't really care to argue about it. Feel free to debate it with anyone else though.

Even then I'd say it's pretty pointless to go on about who's the 'lesser actress'. Stating a preference as a universal fact is silly. Bringing up criticisms based on the actual performance is something else entirely though, so I'm only going to respond to those from now on to be more concise. Just a disclaimer.

As you wish.

A first? Really? I used to see people complaining about it all the time. It's especially apparent when she's screaming to Harvey while tied up. (God.) I can try to dig up some examples if necessary. Her voice in general just isn't all that easy on my ears.

Edit -- found an example at the top of the last page in this thread of someone complaining about her voice.

Yep, that's a first. I've never seen anyone complain about it before.

Ditsy 15-year-old cheerleader pretty much describes what I was getting at.

Sorry, but I don't see it. Holmes looks like she's old enough to be a cheerleader though. One of many reasons why she never convinced as a D.A.

Yeah, she filled a generic love triangle angst role. Sorry, I just didn't dig that.

I'd take a love triangle drama over a preachy moaner any day of the week. Especially when the love triangle ends in epic tragedy.

By the way, in what way did Katie's Rachel NOT serve a specific purpose?? She was one of the most influential people in his life.

Influential? She was your generic damsel in distress, who's so called love for Bruce came out of the clear blue sky at the end. It was like 'Wait, she's in love with him? Where the hell did that come from?'

Bruce never sought her out when he came back to Gotham. Didn't ask Alfred how she was. They only met up because they randomly bumped into eachother.

His only contact with her was saving her repeatedly. Generic damsel in distress. But at least she didn't scream consistently, I'll give her that.

Which has what to do with Maggie herself exactly? This would have been the case regardless of who was playing Rachel.

I could say the same about all the stuff you've been saying about Holmes' Rachel. Why are you suddenly crying foul about this now?

We're talking about the Rachel character each one played, yes?

Although I guess the same could be said about her attitude. If Katie had played the more arrogant love triangley version I'd be ripping her for that right now.

Good to know

In fact maybe it's why she turned the role down.

Yeah, because I'm sure she had much better offers coming in. Her career is just so stellar

I can't think of an example of her 'whining'. Preaching, sure. But preaching is also something I have no problem with, and something pretty much every character in the movie did.

The difference being that EVERY scene Rachel had with Bruce was filled with this nagging, preaching, whining, lecturing.

 

[El Payaso]

What about that is arrogant? He was behaving like a child and she was disgusted with how messed up it was that he was gonna kill the guy, she expected more of him. That response was hardly smug or cocky, but more like a mother reprimanding her son for doing something wrong.

Wait, she was behaving like she was his mom, when she was not? How arrogant from her.

But being a DA that wants to survive in Gotham, she should be cocky and rough. She needs to.

In Begins she helped teach him how to be who he became, she was a powerful figure in his life for that reason.

Well, Bruce must be screwed up enough to fall in love with a woman because she replaces her mother as a role model. Normal people would never fall in love with a woman because she teaches you morals and how to behave.

In TDK her value to him is based solely on Begins. Maggie brought nothing to that chemistry but the destruction of it via threatening to get with Harvey. And then she died.

Yes, basically the character was introduced in Begins and TDK had little to do with re-introducing her.

I see it as a weak plot (and character) that came from Begins.

Maggie brought nothing new to a chemistry that neves existed to begin with. We're supposed to believe that they're in love merely because the script says so.

Bottomline is, the character is bad and quite unnecessary. Being that the case, Maggie was the better actress.

Because it resembles Twilight regardless of when it was released? It's not a comparison that necessitates that sort of thing. It was an angsty love triangle, I was simply expressing why I dislike that and Twilight was a convenient and well-known example.

It resembles Twilight how exactly? Because it's a romantic triangle? I haven't heard about a romantic triangle that's not angsty.

Twilight was a convenient example because it makes it sound bad. So it was more convenient than appropriate.

It's like me comparing the romance between Rachel and Bruce in BB to some bad movie just because in both the characters don't end up together. How gratuitous is that.

And I'd say the same thing about it. And infact I did with Spider-man, which you go on to mention.

So, Maggie - or Katie - doesn't have to do with this at all. It's a common problem in superhero movies.

Well, we are comparing the two actresses. Beauty is part of that.

Rachel as a character doesn't need beauty but talent. Because neither of the actresses is ugly enough to not to be considered for the role, sop talent should be the measure.

It'd be nice if you'd support that with, you know, reasoning. 'Katie acts like crap' is pretty much just trolling.

Although I have to say I don't dig her all that much in most of her other roles, they're kind of uninteresting to me. We're talking Rachel though, so I'll stick to Rachel. I like Rachel.

Ak oh. Well, I meant that Katie acting like crap was what mainly pissed off people, not her popularity.

All Katie has had in her career have been nominations to MTV Awards and Teen Choice Award. All she won was one MTV and one Razzie. Maggie has been nominated to Oscar, Critics Choice, Golden Globe, etc and won some real valuable awards.

 

[ico]

After watching BB and TDK back to back today, I can honestly say that I enjoyed both performances just fine, but something about Katie as as Rachel just meshed better than Maggie did, imo.

Katie's performance felt real to me. And I'm not saying she was a font of pure emotion, but she felt like a real bland and uppity person. Whereas Maggie on the other hand felt to me like some sort of out-of-place element. She never seemed to quite fit in every scene she was in.