Her Rachel wasn't that different, if you ask me.
Maggie played a mature woman with an air of confidence in the way she walked and talked. Katie tried to play a mature woman, but just looked like an awkward girl playing dress-up in the big league where she doesn't belong. That's a world of difference to me.
Don't you hink Holmes' version was preachier (not Holmes' fault) and Gyllenhaall's was 'more human'? (again, just lookig at the script)
Yes. But the preachiness kept Katie's character afloat throughout the entire movie. Maggie was just drowned out in TDK with all that was going on.
No no, I'm sorry but if you think that it's only because you shifted gears in the debate. Allow me to point it:
We were talking about how a natural progression must be achieved from film to film and if Robin fits that progression;
You disputed the strictness of that progression and ow it can take multiple avenues;
I tried to exemplify with the story progression made from Begin to TDK;
You objected saying it wasn't perfect, an example of it being the treatment of Rachel's character and how you felt she was her return was unnecessary and how her role could have been equally (if not better) filled by another character;
I replied saying Rachel's whole role was extense, relevant and multiple and no other character would have done witout compromising narrative flow and screentime;
To that specific point, your response ONLY touched upon the romantic side of her role (which you defined it as "girl he can't have") and ignored the other aspects for which Mr. Earle made a wonderful list.
Bottom line: we were properly discussing her WHOLE role in the series and you were the one who decided to take discussion exclusively to the romatic angle, which I also believe it was much more than a "girl he can't have" story.
As I said, I didn't want to bring in another angle to this discussion that'd further steer it off-course. I'll address it briefly to clarify my position, but note that I've been in this argument on 4 separate occasions and I don't wish to do it again. Earle's list composed down to Rachel's role as a "normal" person, playing the neutral position to which the characters and viewers could see as the voice of reason. She, along with others, guided Bruce as he found himself. My position is that I don't think Rachel was in any way special enough to have such a large role, when her assets could have been filled by the likes of Gordon, Alfred, Dent, and the Waynes. All much more intriguing and beloved characters. Yes, she has that childhood connection with Bruce, but was it necessary to tell the basic story of BB? In my opinion, no. It's very obvious to me Rachel was shoehorned into the script to fill that love-interest role that is
mandated in all pictures. Nolan and Goyer did the best they could, but I can't emphasize enough how unnecessary she was.
I meant that you can't find in the dramatic quality in the Camille-Bond relationship that you saw before between Bond and Vesper. Why? I completely blame the script, but also screentime priority. Not only CR had much less happening than QoS, but the relationship was also the backbone of the story. Besides, QoS was plot-driven and CR was character-driven. TDK was a mix of the two ways. All this is to point out the CR-TDK comparison was most certainly unfair.
It certainly can't be more unfair than bringing in a film that had
no love interest. It's not even said in jest, I mean the film
literally had no love interest. At all. There were girls, there was some brief kissing and bedding, but there was absolutely no semblance of romance in that movie. Camille was a partner to Bond at best. Criticizing their partnership for not having the dramatic quality of Bond and Vesper is like criticizing Bale for lacking the comedic vibrance Adam West had as Batman.
Craig, Forster, Haggis, the Broccoli's, Olga...they all made a point to say QoS was a revenge flick through and through with no room for any flings. Again, I've
no clue why you brought up this movie as it doesn't remotely pertain to the discussion.
You said it yourself. The Bond-Vesper relationship was, to put it simply, THE main storyline in CR. TDK had much more to deal with. Not to mention Bruce is not supposed to be really in love with Rachel and that can be easily seen.
Bruce/Rachel have had two films to try and convince the audience they have this connection with one another, despite not being together. CR accomplished this and more, with one film. This isn't an issue of who had to juggle what. It was there, shown to the audience in some form as a love/romantic angle. At some point in their respective movies, (major) plot points rest on what was presented beforehand, in order to trigger the proper response from the audience. TDK failed in this regard because most people didn't buy it and weren't emotionally invested into Rachel's relationship with either Bruce or Harvey. When she dies, it's a huge impact to everyone in the movie. The people watching? Not so much. The exact opposite occurred with Vesper in the same scenario.
No, but there was a promise and hope before and that it's a pretty big point. Losing hope is a big narrative change, from the hope of leaving Batman behind, to the resignation of never letting go of the burden. It's even bigger a point considering that initial hope is partially Bruce's driving motivation in the (at least) first hour of TDK.
I've noted that difference. Rachel's death is just a bigger blow to Bruce while he's already down. The more crucial event was Harvey's downfall, which led to a chain of events that just mucked things up completely. Bruce is in a worse situation than ever before, and the man that was the key to giving him freedom is now gone. Yeah I get Rachel's death being a big deal, but the damage is done. It's like kicking a cat whose legs have just been broken.
I still can't see how can you think her role in Begins was the better written.
Never said it was. I said it was the better script for Rachel, and that's largely due to Rachel being underwritten in TDK. This can't be that surprising, there are several posters here who feel the same way. It was a big talking point when TDK was released.
Stop right there. I'm not talking about the letter. I'm talking about her role in the story and the importance her death has in it.
So why even address my point on the letter itself, if you're not going to talk about it? That defeats the purpose of counter-arguing.
You're trying to bring parallels between he two last speeches in both films (which have one big difference between them) and I'm trying to talk about how her only presence was an important item in TDK. In the way her role was established in BB, no other character would have played her part better in TDK than herself. Including her allowed the writers to jump right into other important stuff, whereas a new character would need much more time-consuming, flow-breaking build up.
Like I stated above, the story didn't even need her to achieve what it did. The essential role is Harvey. Forget Rachel. Bruce needs Harvey to succeed in every way, so he can hang it up and lead a normal life. Rachel simply puts a name and face to that life. However you do not necessarily need that to convey the sense of loss Bruce feels when all hope is thrown out the window.
I assume a large part of her return (aside from the love interest mandate) is to add gravitas near the climax. A tangible idea would presumably be more weighty than an imagined one if executed properly. Unfortunately the fundamental flaw is Rachel never worked for the viewer. Regardless of the reasons for it, the bottom line is it didn't click with a great majority of the audiences. I hope this is at least something we can both agree on.
When you brought up Rachel we were discussing whether or not Robin would be an organic addition to this point in the story. All of this is to draw a parallel between two characters and see if that 'natural progression' paradigm of mine holds up. When we take the results back the Robin debate (and I hope we do) we won't be talking about Recasts or Performances, which are not pertinent here. We should discuss valid story ideas first, the rest depends solely on that.
Agreed. I'll try to segway us back into topic using my previous point. I will reference Rachel again, but that's only to give an example of where we originally started this conversation on. I haven't denied Rachel's inclusion was a valid means of progressing the themes BB left open. My issue was that with the story Nolan did eventually take on, Rachel could have been removed entirely, and all the major beats remain in tact with no loss to emotional resonance of the script. Some changes would have to be made, but none that significantly alter the story. TDK borrowed a lot from TLH, there's one instance that the story of Bruce/Gordon/Dent did not require a central female character.
Rachel has had baggage from BB, and on paper her death
should add to the narrative. But then we have to take back from the script and look at how this was executed on film. Cue in Katie and Maggie. Maggie's death scene is the only case where I appreciated Rachel in some form. It was just convincingly good acting. But...too little, too late. By the time this was going on, Rachel had long garnered my indifference. Many felt the same way.
Now with Robin, hypothetically if they find a way to insert him that goes with the flow of the picture; the question is does he simply fit, or can he actually enhance the story to a point where his exclusion actually becomes a visibly inferior route? I believe Rachel was a case of the former.
To be even more cynical, I advice you to remove "Ideally" and write "Mechanically" instead. Not all writing processes follow that strict pattern. In fact, Nolan himself said the genesis of the story was thinking about the Joker character and how he could fit the world created in Begins... then came the story.
The process is the same either which way. Ok, so you have a character that you
want to include. The job is to make sure it and the story meld together. If one of these don't match up, and you
still go through with it, who is at fault there? The writer. The writer is the brains behind the entire project. They lay the foundations. If an architect finds a flaw with the design, they don't just ignore it, hope for the best, and build it anyway. That would make them...incompetent. What is there to argue here?
Right now a story is already served, or at least the initial premise: Batman is being heavily hunted by cops for a crime he took the fall for. Now, being probably the last chapter, they writers must have a somewhat definite view an which note they which to leave it for other people to take it. That gives us a point A and a point B. The story is completed with the path from A to B. Some characters, due to the basic story points they bring to the story, may interrupt that path more or less. I think Robin has a story that demands a lot of attention to itself, for a number of reasons, and takes away from other important aspects of the narrative and the style.
I see it happening in one of two possible ways. The Robin arc is relatively big and does require a heavy amount of time if it's done justice. They could go all out and try to accomplish the origins and superhero aspects all in one film (ala BF), or take a more modest approach and tackle Dick first and
maybe introduce Robin at the end (ala Dent/Two-Face in TDK). The latter would then require the fourth film to fully flesh out the character.
Personally I've always preferred they go with the latter. Simultaneously I'm aware that we are possibly on the last legs of this series, so the required fourth film may not even be on the horizon. In which case, we look at the first plan, which is admittedly heavy-handed in the first place. Even if I still think it's possible to fit in a Robin story with how TDK left off, I'm not gonna deny that I'd fully expect either the story or the character to suffer as a result of trying to fit so much in (if they go for the first method).
My head hurts now.
Yea exactly.
