The Dark Knight The Rachel Dawes thread

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

OOHH WOW!! Now that I see that, I put two and two together, thanks for the extra info Crook!

 

[Crook]

No problem. I hope that clarifies some people's stances on the Anti-Rachel/Maggie/Katie camp.

We're not all shallow guys that look for the hottest piece of ass to play a female role.

 

[MAKIEVELLI]

I wouldn't go as far as saying Maggie is ugly, but she is average and cute at best. I can't understand anybody who would say she is hot.

 

[Laderlappen]

Katie is NOT more pleasing to the eye when she keeps making all those ugly facial expressions.

I adore Amy Adams. Shes one of the greatest young actresses in hollywood. But there's one problem. She doesnt resembles Katie Holmes one bit. Maggie does. But Amy Adams would be my top choices for Rachel in Batman Begins. And not because I think shes pretty.

 

[Crook]

Katie is NOT more pleasing to the eye when she keeps making all those ugly facial expressions.

I adore Amy Adams. Shes one of the greatest young actresses in hollywood. But there's one problem. She doesnt resembles Katie Holmes one bit. Maggie does. But Amy Adams would be my top choices for Rachel in Batman Begins. And not because I think shes pretty.

If they really insisted on a love interest for a pre/post Batman, Amy would have been such the perfect choice for Andrea Beaumont.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I wouldn't go as far as saying Maggie is ugly, but she is average and cute at best. I can't understand anybody who would say she is hot.

Hey man, for the guys like me that like Old Fashioned women with true beauty, to me that is Hot.

 

[Crook]

Hey man, for the guys like me that like Old Fashioned women with true beauty, to me that is Hot.

She's nowhere near the level of Audrey Hepburn or Grace Kelly.

 

[itsthebatman]

If they really insisted on a love interest for a pre/post Batman, Amy would have been such the perfect choice for Andrea Beaumont.

Mask of the Phantasm, right? That would have been sweet.
While not agreeing with the creation of Rachel in the first place (there are plenty of established women in the Batverse), I am looking forward to seeing what happens with the role now that a talented actress has it, and hope it doesn't just end up as woman-in-a-refrigerator syndrome.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Mask of the Phantasm, right? That would have been sweet.
While not agreeing with the creation of Rachel in the first place (there are plenty of established women in the Batverse), I am looking forward to seeing what happens with the role now that a talented actress has it, and hope it doesn't just end up as woman-in-a-refrigerator syndrome.

I dont think it will, Im truly excited myself to see what Maggie is going to bring to the table for the character of Rachel, I have lots of faith in her annd think she will be and always shouldve been the real Rachel Dawes.

 

[Laderlappen]

How many actersses actually is in the same league as Grace or Audrey? One?
It doesnt matter. Rachel isnt supposed to be the most beautiful woman in the world.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

How many actersses actually is in the same league as Grace or Audrey? One?
It doesnt matter. Rachel isnt supposed to be the most beautiful woman in the world.

No shes supposed to have natural beauty, the girl next door type. Shes not supposed to be frickin Vicky Vale or any other of Bruce/Batmans sexy flings.

 

[Crook]

How many actersses actually is in the same league as Grace or Audrey? One?
It doesnt matter. Rachel isnt supposed to be the most beautiful woman in the world.

Technically, Rachel can be whatever, considering she's made up just for the movies. Holmes was the first to represent her, so I guess in a way she's the "benchmark". But that role could have gone to a much more capable and beautiful actress regardless. There was no "Rachel blueprint" before Katie.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

Unless you post a picture of yourslef and it's of a 6'4" tanned guy with a sixpack and model like looks, this is just laughable.

Maggie is great looking. Honestly, I don't know what half the guys who say she's not think girls look like.

Well, I'm not only not a guy, but also an art major and freelance portrait painter. I know some things about what proportions make a face beautiful and have studied faces in my art classes to death.

Gee, I hope it's okay with you if I have an opinion?

Whether or not I think he's "hot" doesn't have anything to do with who I am or how well she acts in TDK - it's only up for discussion because it's a surprise to see such a plain face be the leading lady opposite Christian Bale the stud, who is also pretending to be a billionaire playboy in the film. It's a very a-typical choice for casting. Even the ad she did for that lingerie line whos pics I posted, the company said "Maggie is not a typical sex symbol but..." which translates into "Maggie isn't really that good looking, but... she has other qualities that stand out!"

For me it's a question of believability in the role as his love interest, I'm not saying she isn't a good actress, or isn't "cute in some special way" or doesn't "have a great personality" ... whatever.

So you're saying that in order to judge another person's looks....you have to be qualified under certain requirements to do so? Which is laughable again?

Exactly. You don't have to be gorgeous to be able to tell if someone else is. Everyone is capable of discerning beauty. People do have different opinions, but again, as I've learned in art there are universal standards for what is considered beautiful for a lot of things. No one looks at a rotting corpse and says "that's gorgeous!" But most people will have a favorable reaction to flowers, to name an example.

If I criticize Bush's fiscal policies does it mean I need a MBA from Wharton to do so?

If I think the war with Iraq is a horrible decision does it mean I need to have graduated from West Point to make that opinion?

Do I need an engineering degree from MIT before I make the claim that Ferraris are better automobiles than a Chevrolets?

Exactly the point I'm trying to make as well. We also don't all need to kill someone before we can rightly judge if it's "wrong" to do so.

I don't find her all that attractive. I guess I don't know what girls look like.

Aside from that I think it's pretty obvious from Eckhart's remarks that she's his fiance and that she's the victim of Joker's push off the building. The real question is if she bites it there, or elsewhere.

I agree, I think the question is WHEN she kicks the bucket.

So many tasteless men here...

And Rachel WILL NOT die in TDK. You'll see.

Let's bet? =)

lol!

i like big bewbs!!1


Maggie's teh ugly!


Soz Katie but she's teh stewpid 2!!!1


This thread offends me on several different levels as an intelligent human being. From what I've seen, it only really discusses Maggie's role as Rachel in the movie every couple hundred posts, IF that. And the rest of them are either saying how ugly she is and how some of you would NEVER, like you had the choice, or still discussing Katie. Who once WAS apart of this franchise, and isn't now. And really wasn't all that GREAT a part of the franchise.

Why this thread hasn't seriously been overhauled and cleaned up, or locked with a new one made with some ground rules set is beyond me.

But, hey, that's just me.

I believe the reason we are spending so much time talking about her looks is that she is a very atypical choice for a leading lady in a massive blockbuster film, and not the kind of girl you would expect Bruce Wayne to give his time too. She's certainly not a very good example of him being the shallow d*ck he pretends to be as playboy Wayne, and if he keeps looking at girls like Maggie people are going to suspect he's actually got half a brain and some feelings ... which is bad for the mission

Now if we had any examples of Maggie actually acting, we'd be talking about them, but we don't. So all we have is her head-shot.

Honestly, if they cast Catwoman with Nikki Blonsky, I'm pretty sure you'd find that a topic worthy of discussion based on looks and character faithfulness alone, and that doesn't automatically make us all shallow and horrible for pointing out the problem.

Oh, and to those of you who say, "Well, you can just IGNORE this thread."

You're right, I can. But Maggie AS Rachel is apart of this movie and some of us would very much like to discuss her role AS Rachel past "She's hot" or "she's ugly."

Becuase that's what lesser beings do. And I KNOW that most of you here are NOT lesser beings.

Well we'd love to discuss that also, as soon as we SEE THE FILM. Until then, there isn't much else to say. We've got "is she pretty enough to be a Bruce Wayne playboy bunny" and "when/if she dies."

I know, but there is difference between high standards and calling Maggie (or Katie) ugly, fugly etc.

Well I for one have not and will not say anything that insulting or disrespectful toward her, I am a woman after all and dont want to be judged on looks alone. But I also know that if you're an actress the reality is that they find people who look right for the part. And I don't think that just being "cute in her own way" is necessarily fitting for her role as "the one girl Bruce Wayne wanted to spend the rest of his life with..." part

 

[BatmanFanatic]

I would have wanted someone that encompasses acting skills and undoubted beauty. There are quite a few people that do like Maggie, and I respect that, but clearly her appearance is controversial. If Bale can get critiqued for his muscle mass, I don't see why a girl's appearance is not any more different.

Probably the smartest comment I've read about this topic on the entire thread. Thumbs up!

 

[Crook]

Dude, she was agreeing with you.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

Dude, she was agreeing with you.

 

[Crook]

I guess I don't get it.

 

[deathfromabove]

Well, I'm not only not a guy, but also an art major and freelance portrait painter. I know some things about what proportions make a face beautiful and have studied faces in my art classes to death.

hahaha. you forgot to mention you were an indie filmaker too.

and half this board is artistic. i am so sick of people dropping that. get over it. i run an art gallery and i think maggie is good looking. who cares?

btw the quote you are answering wasn't even directed at you.

 

[Laderlappen]

Technically, Rachel can be whatever, considering she's made up just for the movies. Holmes was the first to represent her, so I guess in a way she's the "benchmark". But that role could have gone to a much more capable and beautiful actress regardless. There was no "Rachel blueprint" before Katie.

Yes technically you could do what that you wanted with her. Before Katie that is. But if you have made one movie with the character as a average looking, cute, girl next door kind of character, you cant change that in the sequel and suddenly make her a knock out.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

She's nowhere near the level of Audrey Hepburn or Grace Kelly.

Interesting that you mention Audrey Hepburn. See.. these days we look upon her as this legendary actress, but in her day she wasn't considered to be in the same league as Liz Taylor, Marilyn Monroe or the aforementioned Grace Kelly. Audrey was definitely not your conventional beauty.

She said it herself actually:

"I'm certainly not beautiful in any conventional way. I didn't make my career on beauty."

If you want to call Maggie's looks controversial, then she has something in common with the great Ms. Hepburn.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Probably the smartest comment I've read about this topic on the entire thread. Thumbs up!

Crook usually makes sense even when I don't agree with his point of view.

 

[Crook]

Yes technically you could do what that you wanted with her. Before Katie that is. But if you have made one movie with the character as a average looking, cute, girl next door kind of character, you cant change that in the sequel and suddenly make her a knock out.

Rachel was completely unforgettable though. I guarantee no one can even recall what she looks like, unless you're a Batman fan.

Interesting that you mention Audrey Hepburn. See.. these days we look upon her as this legendary actress, but in her day she wasn't considered to be in the same league as Liz Taylor, Marilyn Monroe or the aforementioned Grace Kelly. Audrey was definitely not your conventional beauty.

She said it herself actually:

"I'm certainly not beautiful in any conventional way. I didn't make my career on beauty."

So if we're to use that example, are you trying to say that in a few decades time, one day Maggie will be considered ---- ?

 

[deathfromabove]

Interesting that you mention Audrey Hepburn. See.. these days we look upon her as this legendary actress, but in her day she wasn't considered to be in the same league as Liz Taylor, Marilyn Monroe or the aforementioned Grace Kelly. Audrey was definitely not your conventional beauty.

She said it herself actually:

"I'm certainly not beautiful in any conventional way. I didn't make my career on beauty."

If you want to call Maggie's looks controversial, then she has something in common with the great Ms. Hepburn.

that is shocking because i measure beauty on a scale of one to audrey hepburn.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Rachel was completely unforgettable though. I guarantee no one can even recall what she looks like, unless you're a Batman fan.


So if we're to use that example, are you trying to say that in a few decades time, one day Maggie will be considered ---- ?

That would depend on what she does with her career. Also we live in different times now. People have actually become even more shallow than they were in past generations I think.

You made a point earlier on suggesting that it would be good idea if someone was cast who is (in a sense) universally appealing right? And based on your comments regarding Audrey, I get the feeling that she's way up there on your list.

My point is that even Audrey's looks were considered non-conventional in her day. So who cares if some people don't like Maggie?

Personally I find Elizabeth Taylor (in her prime) or Grace Kelly to be the epitome of beauty, but Audrey doesn't quite do it for me. But so what?

 

[Crook]

You made a point earlier on suggesting that it would be good idea if someone was cast who is (in a sense) universally appealing right? And based on your comments regarding Audrey, I get the feeling that she's way up there on your list.

My point is that even Audrey's looks were considered non-conventional in her day. So who cares if some people don't like Maggie?

Non-conventional and appeal are independent factors however. For example, Blanchett, in both appearance and acting range, is pretty unconventional for the modern Hollywood actress. It however does not change how she is viewed.

Maybe you are a better expert at this, but do you know if Audrey wasn't liked amongst the general audience during that time? I was under the impression that she was loved. But correct me if I'm wrong.

Personally I find Elizabeth Taylor (in her prime) or Grace Kelly to be the epitome of beauty, but Audrey doesn't quite do it for me. But so what?

Nothing, really. I agree that Liz and Grace do look better than Audrey overall. But they all have a common factor in that they do look universally beautiful, conventional or not.