The Dark Knight The Rachel Dawes thread

[lixdexia]

so you guys think racheals going to survive this movie?

 

[DaddyGrayson]

I'm beginning to think yes. I'm beginning to think her only interaction with J man is a brief scene at the penthouse.

 

[slicendice]

You guys are way too demanding. I thought that line was pretty good as far as superhero movies are concerned.

I personally don't judge movies based on their genre's, just because a movie is a superhero movie doesn't mean it gets a get out of jail free card when it comes to dumbass lines desperately trying to be deep and utterly failing.

In my opinion anyway.

 

[Hole Shot]

I always thought Holmes was a wet blanket weighing down an otherwise flawless movie (acting wise)

everytime she says "its not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you" I cringe and die a little bit inside.

what a terrible line.

I think it's more Katie than the actual line, because I liked how Bruce used it later on to reveal is identity. It was a lot cooler than taking off his mask for her or having Alfred let her in the Batcave.

 

[slicendice]

I think it's more Katie than the actual line, because I liked how Bruce used it later on to reveal is identity. It was a lot cooler than taking off his mask for her or having Alfred let her in the Batcave.

very true, if bale can make "nice coat!" sounds awesome he can do anything

 

[Ryudoz]

I think it's more Katie than the actual line, because I liked how Bruce used it later on to reveal is identity. It was a lot cooler than taking off his mask for her or having Alfred let her in the Batcave.

Hopefully Bruce doesn't reveal himself to another person a la the Spider-Man series.

so you guys think racheals going to survive this movie?

I'm still leaning towards no, but the possibility is there. I think it depends on how her relationship is defined with Harvey. I would say the chances of her survival drop significantly if she's involved with the DA. Especially if the Joker makes him a target.

 

[KILLING JOKER]

Based on what I've seen and heard this is what I believe will take place in the Dark Knight. In a nutshell.

Spoiler

Though I've seen it mentioned in here no-one seems to be talking about it much. Some seem not to believe it. I'm talking about Rachel being preggers. She is very much so in the penthouse scene from the trailer. This is such a huge plot device for the story, I believe. What could happen in this film that would do 2 things? Turn the Joker into Batmans ultimate arch enemy and nightmare for life and also make Harvey Dent go insane(Beside the acid bit) It would be to kill a pregneant Rachel. Boom, Batman is raging and has to be put to the test because he wants to kill the Joker and Dent loses his son(Maybe) and his lover/wife. Maybe he marries Rachel. Either way this sets things in perfect motion. I can't see it really going any other way. Joker blows up a hospital full of people right? A place where someone giving birth could be right? What do you think?

 

[Juha]

I personally don't judge movies based on their genre's, just because a movie is a superhero movie doesn't mean it gets a get out of jail free card when it comes to dumbass lines desperately trying to be deep and utterly failing.

In my opinion anyway.

I somewhat disagree.

I don't judge movies based on their genre's either but you have to always consider the context IMO. Not all movies can be treated or judged equally so to speak. For example a superhero movie is always a world apart from a down-to-earth courtroom drama. No matter how "realistic" the superhero movie tries to be.

There are things you can say in a superhero movie that you couldn't say in a courtroom drama for instance. I think this is a no-brainer. Batman Begins etc. are based on larger-than-life characters and those characters are suppose to say larger-than-life things that are filled with pathos. That is, among other things, what actually makes them superhero movies. Otherwise they would just be, I don't know, regular movies.

 

[Ryudoz]

I somewhat disagree.

I don't judge movies based on their genre's either but you have to always consider the context IMO. Not all movies can be treated or judged equally so to speak. For example a superhero movie is always a world apart from a down-to-earth courtroom drama. No matter how "realistic" the superhero movie tries to be.

There are things you can say in a superhero movie that you couldn't say in a courtroom drama for instance. I think this is a no-brainer. Batman Begins etc. are based on larger-than-life characters and those characters are suppose to say larger-than-life things that are filled with pathos. That is, among other things, what actually makes them superhero movies. Otherwise they would just be, I don't know, regular movies.

Even so, is it to unrealistic to want the dialogue between characters to not sound like it came from Maude's Big Book of Cliche'd Dialogue?

 

[Laderlappen]

The reason Katie didn't return for the sequel is because she didn't wanna embaress herself again.

And it's pretty obvious that Rachel wont die in the movie.

 

[Morg]

keep that kind of opinion to yourself metalhead

 

[agentdawes]

I hate losing Katie. It just doesn't feel and look the same same situation with Jodie Foster and Julianne Moore in Hannibal and Richard Harris and Michael Gambon in Harry Potter. I confess I only want Rachel to escape death so we have no Catwoman and the real Rachel Dawes by Katie Holmes comes to finish it on the third part. She was perfectly suited for the part.

 

[Ryudoz]

I hate losing Katie. It just doesn't feel and look the same same situation with Jodie Foster and Julianne Moore in Hannibal and Richard Harris and Michael Gambon in Harry Potter. I confess I only want Rachel to escape death so we have no Catwoman and the real Rachel Dawes by Katie Holmes comes to finish it on the third part. She was perfectly suited for the part.

To be fair to Michael Gambon, Richard Harris passed away. That was beyond anyone's control. And after the first movie did so well, it was obvious they wanted to make all 7 of them. And so they are. However, for me, Hannibal was a step below Silence of the Lambs in terms of plot that I didn't care much that Moore had replaced Foster (plus I'm not big on Jodie anyhow).

As for Rachel, if she bites it then fine with me. If by that result Selina Kyle happens to show up, then okay. But if these events bring about a Catwoman the quality of Halle Berry's, then Nolan loses every shred of credibility ever. Then again, if Rachel lives then she will more than likely serve the plot in some way, or else keeping her is pointless.

 

[Laderlappen]

I hate losing Katie. It just doesn't feel and look the same same situation with Jodie Foster and Julianne Moore in Hannibal and Richard Harris and Michael Gambon in Harry Potter. I confess I only want Rachel to escape death so we have no Catwoman and the real Rachel Dawes by Katie Holmes comes to finish it on the third part. She was perfectly suited for the part.

I would compare the Rachel Dawes recasting more to the Hannibal Lecter casting. Anthony Hopkins was so good that nobody gave the $hit that somebody else played Hannibal before him. Just like Maggie has the ability to turn $hit into gold.

 

[Laderlappen]

To be fair to Michael Gambon, Richard Harris passed away. That was beyond anyone's control. And after the first movie did so well, it was obvious they wanted to make all 7 of them. And so they are. However, for me, Hannibal was a step below Silence of the Lambs in terms of plot that I didn't care much that Moore had replaced Foster (plus I'm not big on Jodie anyhow).

As for Rachel, if she bites it then fine with me. If by that result Selina Kyle happens to show up, then okay. But if these events bring about a Catwoman the quality of Halle Berry's, then Nolan loses every shred of credibility ever. Then again, if Rachel lives then she will more than likely serve the plot in some way, or else keeping her is pointless.

How would Rachel's death bring in Catwoman? It doesn't make sence. Bruce would go start a new relationship with another woman right after his old girlfriend/friend's death. Disrespectful.
And prevent it to be a nice love-triangle. To bring in Selina Kyle, Rachel has to be alive. There's no reason to kill her anyway.

 

[David Rice]

The reason Katie didn't return for the sequel is because she didn't wanna embaress herself again.

And it's pretty obvious that Rachel wont die in the movie.

LOL!

Go see the movie see left TDK for and then come back here and say that.



Her preformace in BB was not that bad and as far as Maggie turning crap into gold, get a clue dude she's not that great.

 

[redhawk23]

hey as far as the line goes at least we didn't have to listen to another rehashing of "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility"

 

[DieSmiling]

I'm beginning to think yes. I'm beginning to think her only interaction with J man is a brief scene at the penthouse.

Yeah, that's what I think too. It seemed likely she'd die, but the closer we get, the less I think that's going to be the case.

 

[Laderlappen]

LOL!

Go see the movie see left TDK for and then come back here and say that.



Her preformace in BB was not that bad and as far as Maggie turning crap into gold, get a clue dude she's not that great.

Yes, she's gonna embaress herself in another movie instead. But it's still the reason why she left the movie. It's a bit ironic. It's still better that she embaress herself in a crappy movie than in a good one.
If Katie would have been fine, than she most likely would have been in the movie.

And Katie WAS that bad. She wasn't just bad compared to the rest of the cast. She was bad period. Every move she made, every line she spoke was irritating. She was nominated for a razzie you know.
And Maggie IS that great. Well she aint gonna literally turn crap into gold but she's gonna make the character likeable and her performance will be miles ahead.

 

[David Rice]

Yes, she's gonna embaress herself in another movie instead. But it's still the reason why she left the movie. It's a bit ironic. It's still better that she embaress herself in a crappy movie than in a good one. If Katie would have been fine, than she most likely would have been in the movie.

And Katie WAS that bad. She wasn't just bad compared to the rest of the cast. She was bad period. Every move she made, every line she spoke was irritating. She was nominated for a razzie you know. And Maggie IS that great. Well she aint gonna literally turn crap into gold but she's gonna make the character likeable and her performance will be miles ahead.

How do you know? Are you her agent?

What are you trying to say here? Did you leave out a line?

Ummmm no, sorry. The role was writen for her. Nolan has said many times that he handed picked her. Nominated for a razzie? Go look at the rest of the list, she doesn't even belong.

Maggie is not great. She's a good actress, but not even she can make that character likeable.

 

[CaptainClown]

Am I like the only one who likes Maggie as Rachel? I must be.

 

[bkey]

Am I like the only one who likes Maggie as Rachel? I must be.

I like her. Of course I havn't seen her in action in the movie at all besides the trailer, but shes a much better actress than Katie IMO, so I think she'll be fine.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

I think Rachel may die in this

 

[Laderlappen]

How do you know? Are you her agent?

What are you trying to say here? Did you leave out a line?

Ummmm no, sorry. The role was writen for her. Nolan has said many times that he handed picked her. Nominated for a razzie? Go look at the rest of the list, she doesn't even belong.

Maggie is not great. She's a good actress, but not even she can make that character likeable.

No. I'm not her agent. But I think it's pretty obvious. When somebody gets so bad reviews for a performance, and when so many people hated her in the role, you obviously don't wanna go through that again. It doesn't matter anyway.

It doesn't matter if it was written for Katie Holmes. It doesn't change the fact that she did a horrible job.

Yes Maggie is great. It's not thatthe character is bad. It's Katie who is too unlikeable.

 

[David Rice]

No. I'm not her agent. But I think it's pretty obvious. When somebody gets so bad reviews for a performance, and when so many people hated her in the role, you obviously don't wanna go through that again. It doesn't matter anyway.

It doesn't matter if it was written for Katie Holmes. It doesn't change the fact that she did a horrible job.

Yes Maggie is great. It's not that the character is bad. It's Katie who is too unlikeable.

You need to remember that what YOU THINK is not fact. There could be many reasons why she didn't come back. As far as "bad reviews", I only read one. If you know of other please post them.

You missed the point. That's all that matters! The part WAS written for her, not Maggie. The ONLY reason Maggie has the part is because she looks a little like Katie and for some reason Nolan wanted to keep the character.

No, the character is bad. Period. There's not much you can do help that character. She served her purpose in BB and should have been left out of TDK. It's clear that she is not a love interest.

And once again the fact that YOU THINK she did a horrible job doesn't make it a fact.