The Dark Knight New casting rumour: Emily Blunt

True Excel, Katie has it all.She is beyond sex appeal and beauty but possesses those qualities in a woman you wonna fall in love and marry.
As Michael Caine said "Katie will make a wonderful and beautiful mother, she has maturity beyond her age".
Katie has the glow and is really blossoming.
 
This movie is going downhill fast.

First, Ledger for a role he simply can't handle.

Next, we get some recasting which is totally unnecessary for what's rumored to be a very small role.

And the possibility of the awful Jamie Foxx as Dent still looming like a vulture is spelling disaster.

Nolan's head got too big too fast.
 
She looks the part, but I have not seen her in anything. Could be good?
 
I just worry about Nolan's ego.

If some of these are WB decisions, I'll take it back.

But hunter rider is right. Recasting is bad.

On top of that, if Katie wasn't wanted back, it will bring unnecessary bad publicity her way for what is rumored to be a small role anyway. Either bring her back or write the character out.

Otherwise, I see it as a classless move.
 
Heath Ledger is just as good a choice for The Joker as Bale was for Batman IMO.

I disagree about Foxx, but I don't think he'll be cast anyhow. I hope its Aaron Eckhart, the latest rumor.

Recasting isn't all that desirable I agree, but if they get a good actress and its not a big part anyhow(as rumored), then I don't think it will harm the film. Jonathan Nolan is a FANTASTIC writer, remember that man.

I'd be fine with Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes.
 
I've not seen Devil Wears Prada or any of her other films but i do understand she won a Golden Globe last year for a tv movie.So obviously she's got the acting chops plus she's very pretty which is another plus.

I personally hope it's for another role other than Rachel Dawes cause i'm still not 100% convinced that recasting is right way to go.
 
I just worry about Nolan's ego.

If some of these are WB decisions, I'll take it back.

But hunter rider is right. Recasting is bad.

On top of that, if Katie wasn't wanted back, it will bring unnecessary bad publicity her way for what is rumored to be a small role anyway. Either bring her back or write the character out.

Otherwise, I see it as a classless move.

From our reports, Nolan not only put Rachel on the scripts but had conversations with Katie. Then the word out ther is she was dropped by WB because of the whole Tomkat thing. It´s a studio thing.

Recasting is good or bad depending on who´s the replacement, nothing else. A number of roles, some a thousand times more relevant than Rachel Dawes, have been recast, in many times with better results than the initial casting. A number of Bond fans were bitsching and moaning for months that replacing Brosnan for Daniel Craig was a horrible idea and now he´s probably the most praised Bond since Connery.
 
Relax, this is not a BR-BF scenario, or even a BF-B&R situation.

Think of this as Back to the Future, with a new Jennifer, and glimpses of Marty's dad. The sequels didn't suffer because of the new cast (probably by the plot holes in the story), but the good thing was the focus on Marty and doc, the most important characters in the film. Looking at who's coming back, the most important characters are Bruce, Gordon and Alfred (as it should be).

In terms of success, look at Dr.No, FRWL and Goldfinger. 3 different films, 2 recast roles (once 3 times) - Major Boothroyd (Q) and Felix Leiter (recast at least 6 times so far, and even had a film JUST ABOUT HIM) - it's still going on.
 
Filming is supposed to be starting this month so i really hope the end is near for casting rumors.
 
From our reports, Nolan not only put Rachel on the scripts but had conversations with Katie. Then the word out ther is she was dropped by WB because of the whole Tomkat thing. It´s a studio thing.

Recasting is good or bad depending on who´s the replacement, nothing else. A number of roles, some a thousand times more relevant than Rachel Dawes, have been recast, in many times with better results than the initial casting. A number of Bond fans were bitsching and moaning for months that replacing Brosnan for Daniel Craig was a horrible idea and now he´s probably the most praised Bond since Connery.

The idea of recasting is good or bad depending on what the role entails,if she is a full character who is Bruce's love then fine but if all she is there for is to get killed then it's bad and lazy

Craig was different,the reason he was hated at first was not because it was a recast(Bond has been recast 4 times already)it was because on the face of it he had none of the Bond movie characteristics
 
I see nothing but a positive with Katie being fired.

The cast is shaping up nicely - if Aaron gets the Dent role, and McAdams gets the Dawes role, this could be an improvement on the terrific cast from the first film.
 
The idea of recasting is good or bad depending on what the role entails,if she is a full character who is Bruce's love then fine but if all she is there for is to get killed then it's bad and lazy

Craig was different,the reason he was hated at first was not because it was a recast(Bond has been recast 4 times already)it was because on the face of it he had none of the Bond movie characteristics

Which is up to writing, and the Nolan brothers have quite a positive track record on that. Face of it is the key word. Like with Craig, people get pissed mostly for jumping into conclusions without seeing how the final product turns out.
 
Which is up to writing, and the Nolan brothers have quite a positive track record on that. Face of it is the key word. Like with Craig, people get pissed mostly for jumping into conclusions without seeing how the final product turns out.
Well it all pivots on what her role entails like i said if she is there to be killed then i will be greatly disappointed
 
Damn... so Dawes is probably in.... people should take my advice next time rather than listening to the other fanboy rumors on these other phony sites... but I myself was guilty of being persuaded that Dawes was dropped... hey but next time something comes up... if its LR just accept it... anything else is just a rumor...
 
Well it all pivots on what her role entails like i said if she is there to be killed then i will be greatly disappointed

*If* she ends up being in this, I doubt it's a 10 minute cameo. Otherwise, why go to the trouble of looking up 'name' actresses for it? Makes no sense.
 
*If* she ends up being in this, I doubt it's a 10 minute cameo. Otherwise, why go to the trouble of looking up 'name' actresses for it? Makes no sense.

If they cast McAdams then i'd agree but Blunt isn't really a name,i mean i along with many had never heard of her until yesterday
 
I don't think the movie needs to have big name for love interest role, TDK already has Bale, Caine, Ledger, Oldman and Freeman, so why we need another one?

Besides, the choice depends on talent, not on current star status of actress.
 
I don't think the movie needs to have big name for love interest role, TDK already has Bale, Caine, Ledger, Oldman and Freeman, so why we need another one?

Besides, the choice depends on talent, not on current star status of actress.

This is true.
 
Emily Blunt from the UK, yeah, she's probably got this role in the bag.
 
I'm surprised to hear that she is only 23! When I was watching Prada I thought that she was 28 to 30 years old.
 
^ I'd be happy with that.

Rachel2.jpg

what is she doing to that poor butterfly?!

:huh:

that's gross.
 
Filming is supposed to be starting this month so i really hope the end is near for casting rumors.
Well then Rachel will probably not be Blunt. Blunt is to start filming on a movie with Amy Adams mid Feb.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"