The Dark Knight The Rachel Dawes thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I also think this damsel in distress is getting so old. How many times will Batman rescue her like MJ in Spiderman.
You're right, BUT Rachel is Assistant DA, and MJ is... just a girl? There's no even one single logical reason for MJ to be in all these rescue-me-spider-man! actions. In SM3, yes, but not in SM1 and 2.

And now look at Rachel in BB. Why she was in Arkham? It's logical and reasonable.
 
You're right, BUT Rachel is Assistant DA, and MJ is... just a girl? There's no even one single logical reason for MJ to be in all these rescue-me-spider-man! actions. In SM3, yes, but not in SM1 and 2.
Huh? MJ was captured by the villain as ransom, in every single film. I don't see the difference.

And now look at Rachel in BB. Why she was in Arkham? It's logical and reasonable.
It was a ploy that still led to the same situation in which the hero has to save the captured damsel from the villain.
 
The bloodlust for the Rachel character exhibited by some in this thread is seriously creeping me out.
 
Huh? MJ was captured by the villain as ransom, in every single film. I don't see the difference.
I see. MJ is no one, she is always captured just because she's main female character in the movie.

Rachel is Assistant DA, she is not anonymous person in Gotham, and her work/plot leads her to all this situations.
 
I see. MJ is no one, she is always captured just because she's main female character in the movie.

Rachel is Assistant DA, she is not anonymous person in Gotham, and her work/plot leads her to all this situations.
Again, merely a superficial addition to the character that only slightly makes her peril in the villain's hands, a little less convenient.

Lest we forget, in TDK she is the main female character, gets in danger with another major villain, and is dating a guy that turns into another major villain. I mean really, you can sugarcoat it all you want, but she's just a glorified damsel in distress.
 
I mean really, you can sugarcoat it all you want, but she's just a glorified damsel in distress.
I didn't say she isn't :cwink:

Just sayin' that she is more believable because she is who she is, and she is not just simple girl.
 
Huh? MJ was captured by the villain as ransom, in every single film. I don't see the difference.


It was a ploy that still led to the same situation in which the hero has to save the captured damsel from the villain.
There's differences here. Rachel wasn't captured as ransom. Crane had every intent on killing her...his way. He didn't know the Batman was on to him, but it wouldn't have made much of a different. If this is another ploy, then everything is a ploy of a ploy and it becomes nothing.

So, not all of these sorts of 'ploys' need to be generalized. Sure, in a broad since, that's what happened, but this time, it was a little bit different as the scene was more about Batman tracking and following Rachel to Crane and Batman vs the police racing to the batcave, moreso than a hostage situation in where there's a big rescue attempt followed by some big showdown.

-TNC
 
There's differences here. Rachel wasn't captured as ransom. Crane had every intent on killing her...his way. He didn't know the Batman was on to him, but it wouldn't have made much of a different. If this is another ploy, then everything is a ploy of a ploy and it becomes nothing.

So, not all of these sorts of 'ploys' need to be generalized. Sure, in a broad since, that's what happened, but this time, it was a little bit different as the scene was more about Batman tracking and following Rachel to Crane and Batman vs the police racing to the batcave, moreso than a hostage situation in where there's a big rescue attempt followed by some big showdown.

-TNC


I agree here, yes she is a damsel in distress, but crane and dawes were going at it throughout the movie, so he wanted to kill her, not because he's batman's girl, but because he fn hated her. Crane poisened her and left her for dead when batman came in and saved her, she wasn't held or captured to lure in batman, she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and crane already hated her, so he decided, f it shes dead. Same when the thugs tried to kill her in the subway, they tried to hit her because she's not a corruptable person, and they needed her out of the way.
 
Huh? MJ was captured by the villain as ransom, in every single film. I don't see the difference.

It was a ploy that still led to the same situation in which the hero has to save the captured damsel from the villain.

Sad but true.

The bloodlust for the Rachel character exhibited by some in this thread is seriously creeping me out.

It's only because Katie was so God-awful for the role (Razzie anyone?) and that made me hate the character which ruined BB. Okay, maybe ruined is too strong a word, but she stuck out like a sore thumb in the midst of all those other actors who could actually - you know - ACT.

Again, merely a superficial addition to the character that only slightly makes her peril in the villain's hands, a little less convenient.

Lest we forget, in TDK she is the main female character, gets in danger with another major villain, and is dating a guy that turns into another major villain. I mean really, you can sugarcoat it all you want, but she's just a glorified damsel in distress.

Yes, they obviously built an entire script/storyline on "how do we put the damsel in peril?" As if there are no other ideas for how to tell a Batman story. Maybe they might want to hire Paul Dini next time.

I didn't say she isn't :cwink:

Just sayin' that she is more believable because she is who she is, and she is not just simple girl.

But who cares how "believable" a sexist plot is? It's still just as sexist and contrived to anyone who can put two and two together.

There's differences here. Rachel wasn't captured as ransom. Crane had every intent on killing her...his way. He didn't know the Batman was on to him, but it wouldn't have made much of a different. If this is another ploy, then everything is a ploy of a ploy and it becomes nothing.

So, not all of these sorts of 'ploys' need to be generalized. Sure, in a broad since, that's what happened, but this time, it was a little bit different as the scene was more about Batman tracking and following Rachel to Crane and Batman vs the police racing to the batcave, moreso than a hostage situation in where there's a big rescue attempt followed by some big showdown.

-TNC

Well IMHO it wasn't even necessary. Why should crane be obsessed with killing some lady, when there is Batman to take care of? Why not make that personal? Surely that would be more interesting. Perhaps the damsel angle would have worked a bit better if you ever actually cared about the damsel, or ever actually believed that Bruce felt any real feelings towards her. ZERO chemistry between those two.
 
It's only because Katie was so God-awful for the role (Razzie anyone?) and that made me hate the character which ruined BB. Okay, maybe ruined is too strong a word, but she stuck out like a sore thumb in the midst of all those other actors who could actually - you know - ACT.

I totally agree Rachel Dawes was AWFUL Batman Begins, but I blame it on two factors: the actress and the writing. Katie Holmes can't act, but some of the stuff that was written for the character irritated me so much that I think I still would have hated the character with a different actress.

I'm ready to see The Dark Knight with a neutral perspective towards Rachel, mostly because I think that Maggie Gyllenhaal is awsome. I don't want to end up disliking her in this movie. I really hope I don't dislike her in this movie!
 
I love Maggie G too and I don't want to see her die. I hope they don't kill Rachel now that Maggie is playing her.
 
I totally agree Rachel Dawes was AWFUL Batman Begins, but I blame it on two factors: the actress and the writing. Katie Holmes can't act, but some of the stuff that was written for the character irritated me so much that I think I still would have hated the character with a different actress.

I'm ready to see The Dark Knight with a neutral perspective towards Rachel, mostly because I think that Maggie Gyllenhaal is awsome. I don't want to end up disliking her in this movie. I really hope I don't dislike her in this movie!

Yup, have to agree with you. Not only is Katie a bad actress, but some of the things written for her - like condescending speeches to Bruce Wayne, just made me want to smack her.
 
Yup, have to agree with you. Not only is Katie a bad actress, but some of the things written for her - like condescending speeches to Bruce Wayne, just made me want to smack her.
If she doesnt smack you first. Twice.
 
Yup, have to agree with you. Not only is Katie a bad actress, but some of the things written for her - like condescending speeches to Bruce Wayne, just made me want to smack her.

Have to agree with you there but I think its a feminist trend of portraying strong female characters in films, tv, sitcoms. I don't particularly mind that but I could do w/o these females always being self-righteous and somehow having a stronger moral compass than the male characters. It gets irritating.
 
Heh, ironically all these female roles striving to become more than the classical damsel end up self-parodying themselves most of the time. It's just as bad.
 
This is the problem with a bunch of guys with that warped, modern view of what feminism is, writing a "strong" female character into the script.

Being a feminist doesn't actually mean holding some lofty position or fancy job title while you divorce yourself from human feeling , any hint of nurturing and compassion, treat your friends like crap and slap men when they say something you don't agree with.

That's just a twisted caricature of a feminist.

The essential idea of feminism is that women are equal to men - just because they are - not that they have to become men, or take up the roles and values typically associated with men in order to attain equality in the eyes of others or to prove something.

But those who lack this understanding just keep painting ridiculous, almost insulting portraits of "strong women." You would never see a clever housewife or a retired grandmother with a big role in a blockbuster film ... only these ambitious, career driven, obnoxious, "ball-busting" types. Like our beloved Rachel Dawes.
 
Whats going on guys ?

I thought we cleared this out. Maggie is ugly! :oldrazz:
 
Perhaps the damsel angle would have worked a bit better if you ever actually cared about the damsel, or ever actually believed that Bruce felt any real feelings towards her. ZERO chemistry between those two.
Now you're talking about something that's way too subjective to discuss. :o

-TNC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"