The Dark Knight The Rachel Dawes thread

[ArmsHeldOut]

Yah well I remember months ago you were trying to convince everyone your "breasts" avatar was a self portrait

I remember that!! That was Crook???

Those New Yorkers! ::covers location with Batman's Penthouse::

 

[BatmanFanatic]

I remember that!! That was Crook???

Those New Yorkers! ::covers location with Batman's Penthouse::

I think we're onto something It's a conspiracy!

 

[Crook]

I was always under the impression that Leslie just checked in on Bruce once in a while. She served as the closest thing he had to a mother after the tragedy took place, but didn't quite fill Martha's shoes. Or did she?

I don't think she served as the traditional motherly role of cooking breakfast and reading him stories or anything, but I think she definitely imposed some form of maternal care towards Bruce. As you said, Leslie's the closest thing Bruce has to a mother. And it's not for a random reason that she was one of the first to know his secret identity.

Yah well I remember months ago you were trying to convince everyone your "breasts" avatar was a self portrait

It was a short phase I like to consider "I wanna be an attention ****e for a few weeks". The past is the past.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

I don't think she served as the traditional motherly role of cooking breakfast and reading him stories or anything, but I think she definitely imposed some form of maternal care towards Bruce. As you said, Leslie's the closest thing Bruce has to a mother. And it's not for a random reason that she was one of the first to know his secret identity.


It was a short phase I like to consider "I wanna be an attention ****e for a few weeks". The past is the past.

You're just jealous 'cause you don't have real boobies like us girls

 

[Nightmare]

You're just jealous 'cause you don't have real boobies like us girls

Your a girl? Whyyyyyy hellllloooooooo Beautiful.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

Your a girl? Whyyyyyy hellllloooooooo Beautiful.

Don't push me off any buildings or I'll make you sorry

Maybe you can be my new stalker since inflames turned out to be insane.

 

[inflames]

Don't push me off any buildings or I'll make you sorry

Maybe you can be my new stalker since inflames turned out to be insane.

I'm not insane!

 

[BatmanFanatic]

I'm not insane!

This guy is normal too ===>

 

[Laderlappen]

Killing a major good character is supposed to bring sadness. But wanting a character to die because you dont like him/her would only be pointless and hurt the movie. Its kinda sick too.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Killing a major good character is supposed to bring sadness. But wanting a character to die because you dont like him/her would only be pointless and hurt the movie. Its kinda sick too.

It's only sick if they wanted the actress portraying the role to die, but Dawes is a fictional character, as is Jason Todd.

But I'm on your side. t:

 

[Laderlappen]

Its a little sick I think that someone sees pleasure of someone good dieing. Even if its a fictional character.

 

[magus]

Its a little sick I think that someone sees pleasure of someone good dieing. Even if its a fictional character.

Not really. You can't make the distinction that it is ok to wish for someone "bad" to die and not for someone "good" to die; if you say it is morally wrong to kill someone, then it is morally wrong to kill anyone.

As for Rachel specifically, she would accomplish much more through her death then she ever could while alive: story progression. Batman needs to lose someone during this crusade, and since we don't have Jason Todd or Stephanie, Rachel Dawes, the most arbitrary and useless character in this series of movies, is the one that should take the hit.

It isn't that her death brings "pleasure"; I don't want to see her get mauled and mangled as if she was in a Saw/Hostel movie but for the sake of good storytelling she has to go away. The most powerful way for her to go away is to die. If Bruce just upset her and she left Gotham, the reaction would be: ok, later. If Bruce was partly responsible for her death, then there would be a tremendous guilt and anguish that Batman commonly goes through in other mediums.

 

[Laderlappen]

But the reason why the majority wants her to die is not because 'for the good of the story'. They want her to die because they dont like her. And I dont really see why she 'need' to die or what her death would do. Batman has already a reason to catch and hate bad guys. The death of his parents served that purpose.

 

[magus]

But the reason why the majority wants her to die is not because 'for the good of the story'. They want her to die because they dont like her. And I dont really see why she 'need' to die or what her death would do. Batman has already a reason to catch and hate bad guys. The death of his parents served that purpose.

It isn't like "people not liking Rachel" and "for the good of the story" are unrelated: people don't like Rachel because she isn't good for the story. It wasn't some random decision of "ooh I don't like her". It is more like, "Wow, this character is completely useless. She did not need to be here and I really don't like her because she is taking away from other aspects of Batman".

If you can say that Rachel dying would have no significance then you can say the loss of Jason Todd, Stephanie Brown, Harvey Dent, Tim Drake's father, etc. have had no effect on Batman, and I don't believe that is true. The loss of innocents during Batman's crusade is part of the evolution of the character. Rachel's death would make him seriously question what it is he is doing. It wouldn't be the helpless feeling he had when his parents died, but a responsibility and guilt because he is directly and/or indirectly responsible for the death.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

It isn't like "people not liking Rachel" and "for the good of the story" are unrelated: people don't like Rachel because she isn't good for the story.

Exactly. As a leader in the "I hate Rachel and hope she dies" camp, I agree completely.

If she was good for the story, we obviously wouldn't hate her.

 

[Laderlappen]

Ok, so you people thinks she's useless. Doesnt matter, the reason people still wants her to die is because of that. It doesnt seem like many really gives a flying fudge of what the effect it would give. And we already have Harvey Dent as that purpose you just mention. To question himself and whatever, which he will do anyway becuase of all the deaths caused by Joker and other criminals. I feel Rachel's death would make the movies to depressing, to serious, and would probably kill the idea of using Catwoman in the third movie. The significance of Rachel's death would in my opinion make Batman/Bruce too depressing, which I have no desire to see. Because that is really what matters here. The popularity of the character is insignificant in the context of what we are talking about. What the effect of her death would be is the big thing here. So there are really no facts there, just different opinions. And in MY opinion, the effect and significance are nothing that would help the movie.

So if they shouldnt have the character in the third, just dont have her in the movie. Much better idea in my opinion.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

Ok, so you people thinks she's useless. Doesnt matter, the reason people still wants her to die is because of that. It doesnt seem like many really gives a flying fudge of what the effect it would give. And we already have Harvey Dent as that purpose you just mention. To question himself and whatever, which he will do anyway becuase of all the deaths caused by Joker and other criminals. I feel Rachel's death would make the movies to depressing, to serious, and would probably kill the idea of using Catwoman in the third movie. The significance of Rachel's death would in my opinion make Batman/Bruce too depressing, which I have no desire to see. Because that is really what matters here. The popularity of the character is insignificant in the context of what we are talking about. What the effect of her death would be is the big thing here. So there are really no facts there, just different opinions. And in MY opinion, the effect and significance are nothing that would help the movie.

So if they shouldnt have the character in the third, just dont have her in the movie. Much better idea in my opinion.

Rachels death would make the film too depressing for you, but Heath Ledgers actual death is fine? If you're going to be depressed over something...

 

[David Rice]

Ok, so you people thinks she's useless. Doesnt matter, the reason people still wants her to die is because of that. It doesnt seem like many really gives a flying fudge of what the effect it would give. And we already have Harvey Dent as that purpose you just mention. To question himself and whatever, which he will do anyway becuase of all the deaths caused by Joker and other criminals. I feel Rachel's death would make the movies to depressing, to serious, and would probably kill the idea of using Catwoman in the third movie. The significance of Rachel's death would in my opinion make Batman/Bruce too depressing, which I have no desire to see. Because that is really what matters here. The popularity of the character is insignificant in the context of what we are talking about. What the effect of her death would be is the big thing here. So there are really no facts there, just different opinions. And in MY opinion, the effect and significance are nothing that would help the movie.

So if they shouldnt have the character in the third, just dont have her in the movie. Much better idea in my opinion.

Why would it kill the idea of using Catwoman?

 

[David Rice]

Hush is a ******ed character and so are his stories.

You really need to start putting IMO after everything you post.

 

[Crook]

Ok, so you people thinks she's useless. Doesnt matter, the reason people still wants her to die is because of that. It doesnt seem like many really gives a flying fudge of what the effect it would give.

Quite the contrary. While our primary reason for offing her is in the distaste of the character, it's a matter of the cherry being on top that her death has significance in the overall story. Her close ties with Bruce and Harvey alone, guarantee an emotional resonance that will surely ripple over into the third film.

I feel Rachel's death would make the movies to depressing, to serious,

Why, exactly? People die in this franchise, and I'm sure that'll rack up once TDK hits, thanks to Joker. If parents can die in a traumatic way to a child that it shapes the rest of his life...what is it about Rachel's death that'll make it go all overboard?

and would probably kill the idea of using Catwoman in the third movie.

...how?

The significance of Rachel's death would in my opinion make Batman/Bruce too depressing

Again, what is it about Rachel that'd make it too anything? The comic book Batman has gone through waaaaaayyy more serious stuff than her death would, and he's just as well as he could be.

So if they shouldnt have the character in the third, just dont have her in the movie. Much better idea in my opinion.

I'll take any approach that'll get her out of this franchise. Imo, BB was a gracious way to leave the character be. But alas...

 

[David Rice]

Quite the contrary. While our primary reason for offing her is in the distaste of the character, it's a matter of the cherry being on top that her death has significance in the overall story. Her close ties with Bruce and Harvey alone, guarantee an emotional resonance that will surely ripple over into the third film.

Why, exactly? People die in this franchise, and I'm sure that'll rack up once TDK hits, thanks to Joker. If parents can die in a traumatic way to a child that it shapes the rest of his life...what is it about Rachel's death that'll make it go all overboard?


...how?


Again, what is it about Rachel that'd make it too anything? The comic book Batman has gone through waaaaaayyy more serious stuff than her death would, and he's just as well as he could be.


I'll take any approach that'll get her out of this franchise. Imo, BB was a gracious way to leave the character be. But alas...

And it's Crook for the win!!!!!!

 

[Majik1387]

You really need to start putting IMO after everything you post.

You really need to get over this grudge that you have against me.
And you also need to learn that in a message board everything is an opinion, stating it becomes redundant, and if people actually believe it, that's their problem.

 

[Saint]

Exactly. As a leader in the "I hate Rachel and hope she dies" camp, I agree completely.

If she was good for the story, we obviously wouldn't hate her.

More importantly, whether she was good for the story or not, her death would make her good for the story. Hating Rachel can be completely removed from the equation, as far as I'm concerned: Rachel can die simply because it serves where I think this franchise needs to go. We've had the naive, energetic, explosive, "save-the-city-and-get-out" Batman, and the death of Rachel serves to send him down the path of hopeless, reserved, cold, "Michael-Keaton-is-awesome" Batman. She needs to be the Jason Todd of this franchise, since there won't be any Robin (and certainly no Jason Todd).

Then, of course, in the third film Batman digs himself out of the rut. These films (assuming TDK crushes at the box office) have the advantage of the opportunity to paint a complete character arc. I think if Burton had stayed on board for Batman Forever, it would have been similar: at the end of Batman Returns, we see where Batman's darkness has taken him, and more importantly, Batman sees, in the Penguin and Catwoman, what could happen if he allows revenge to rule him. They were versions of himself. That ending was just so absolutely miserable, and I love it for that. It was just like tearing Batman's heart out. In Forever under Burton, I would have loved to see the result of this, a Batman who swears off killing in an attempt to save his soul from the sort of darkness that ate Catwoman and Penguin alive.

It's true that idea was present in Bruce's lectures to Dick about "revenge [becoming his] whole life," but not to the extent I would have liked, and it was hampered by the overall crappiness of everything in that film.

Er, sort of went off the rails there. Rachel, right. Ideally, I want that same sort of Batman Returns ending of misery, and Rachel's death and the fall of Dent would definitely serve that. Sadly, I think the chances are slim; the ending will have to be at least marginally happy, first because I don't believe Nolan will have any sort of cliffhanger (just in case he doesn't return), and second because Warner probably wouldn't allow it (considering their reaction to Batman Returns).

 

[deathfromabove]

i agree with the notion that it would be incredibly satisfying to have some sort of thematic closure to bruce/bats story in a nolan helmed trilogy.

*fingers crossed*

and i really like the jason todd/rachel analogy.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

More importantly, whether she was good for the story or not, her death would make her good for the story. Hating Rachel can be completely removed from the equation, as far as I'm concerned: Rachel can die simply because it serves where I think this franchise needs to go.

Ah, but I feel hating her is still relevant. Because of course, if the majority of people who saw the movie didn't hate her (I know thats an opinion, but she did get a Razzie, so it's not just a few oddballs) ... If most people didn't hate her, than her death would work even better for that purpose, as we'd have a genuine emotional attachment to her character.

Can you imagine - I know it's difficult - but imagine that Rachel Dawes was really a stunning, charming, plucky girl who stole our and Batmans heart. Imagine that she just touches something innocent and wonderful inside all of us, the belief in fighting for justice, the faith in true love from childhood friendship, imagine she represented Bruce Wayne thought was good and pure in this world. And then imagine the Joker poisons her to death, or whatever he does.

Doesn't it send chills down your spine? Like a truly great, sweeping character drama? Instead we're reduced down to "Hope the B**** dies!" and "Hows the B**** gonna die, ya think?" Believe me, I'd much rather have option 1. Soul-crushing, intense, but amazing and full of passion.

We've had the naive, energetic, explosive, "save-the-city-and-get-out" Batman, and the death of Rachel serves to send him down the path of hopeless, reserved, cold, "Michael-Keaton-is-awesome" Batman. She needs to be the Jason Todd of this franchise, since there won't be any Robin (and certainly no Jason Todd).

Yes, and if we all loved her it would be all the better for that purpose. Instead it's sort of the "oh...yah we know how this works. 'motive for angry Batman. got it.'" and the audience is still completely detached, sucking down their soda, waiting for the explosions to come.

Then, of course, in the third film Batman digs himself out of the rut. These films (assuming TDK crushes at the box office) have the advantage of the opportunity to paint a complete character arc. I think if Burton had stayed on board for Batman Forever, it would have been similar: at the end of Batman Returns, we see where Batman's darkness has taken him, and more importantly, Batman sees, in the Penguin and Catwoman, what could happen if he allows revenge to rule him. They were versions of himself. That ending was just so absolutely miserable, and I love it for that. It was just like tearing Batman's heart out.

Wow, I think you just summed up what really made me love that film no matter how many glaring problems it had...what it really did RIGHT was the tone between Batman and Selina. Not comic book faithful I grant, but I think the addition of Selinas blood-lust and insanity mirrored what Batman could turn into with his cold detachment as you said, and how badly he wanted to stop it all from going downhill at the end, how much he wanted to create a "happy ending" for her, and instead went home all alone, in the cold and in the snow, and at Christmas. God that was good! And then Catwomans head pops back up on screen, in a new shiny outfit and there is that little ray of hope....

*sighs wistfully*

If only I could edit the film down. With a big pair of scissors.

In Forever under Burton, I would have loved to see the result of this, a Batman who swears off killing in an attempt to save his soul from the sort of darkness that ate Catwoman and Penguin alive.

Now that you mention it, I suppose he was killing people in the films. It just seems so.... not Batman ... that I almost miss it.

It's true that idea was present in Bruce's lectures to Dick about "revenge [becoming his] whole life," but not to the extent I would have liked, and it was hampered by the overall crappiness of everything in that film.

Everything was messed up by the overall crappiness. "Hampered" is a kind choice of words.

Er, sort of went off the rails there. Rachel, right. Ideally, I want that same sort of Batman Returns ending of misery, and Rachel's death and the fall of Dent would definitely serve that. Sadly, I think the chances are slim; the ending will have to be at least marginally happy, first because I don't believe Nolan will have any sort of cliffhanger (just in case he doesn't return), and second because Warner probably wouldn't allow it (considering their reaction to Batman Returns).

I don't think we'll have a truly miserable ending even if Rachel dies unless we feel something for the character first. A good thing to make a prediction about though! Tone of the end.