The Dark Knight The Rachel Dawes thread

[C. W. Saturn]

Well, Gylenhaal was no improvement over Katie Holmes. And the latter was definitely better too look at. Can't understand this casting decision. I thought "yeah, at least we get a better actress", because I did not know any movie with her. But she wasn't good.

 

[Heretic]

Yeah, thats great. Change a character and get praised. Thats all well and good. Except that it doesnt make sense. When I watch a movie (unless its a ridiculous comedy) I throw myself into that world, and I kind of expect that world to have a realistic flow. Thats why I dont like the (otherwise well-done) JLA stories by Giffen and Dematties. It takes place in the same universe where those characters act drastically different, so I dont accept is as official.

Besides, aside from Katie Holmes being a teen drama queen, Im not sure what was so unbelievable about her performance. It seems that people see her and say, "that is katie Holmes, not a character in a movie". Her performance in Begins was...passable...Ive seen worse...and her Rachel Dawes actually had depth, unlike Maggies, who stripped away the depth for a very one sided performance. Real people have layers, and unspoken reasons for doing things and weird little ticks and stuff. Maggie erased everything Katie had put into the character and left us with Girl Power Rachel.

 

[saberewok]

Good one Heretic. Im actually seeing more fans respecting actress Katie in BB now more than Maggie. Is it just me but Maggie's Rachel acted like a w###e. Fans even noticed how hard she tried to act and walk sexy and it was not working. Katie gave Rachel endearing qualities so easy to see why Bruce is in love with her even in BB the script was blah. ITA Katie sizzled more with Bale and many didnt see that with Maggie alongside Bale and even Eckhart.

The program that made Gyllenhaal cry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBMNChtXV_s

 

[CaptainClown]

Actually I have been seeing more fans wish Maggie was Rachel throughout.

 

[Laderlappen]

Yeah, thats great. Change a character and get praised. Thats all well and good. Except that it doesnt make sense. When I watch a movie (unless its a ridiculous comedy) I throw myself into that world, and I kind of expect that world to have a realistic flow. Thats why I dont like the (otherwise well-done) JLA stories by Giffen and Dematties. It takes place in the same universe where those characters act drastically different, so I dont accept is as official.

Besides, aside from Katie Holmes being a teen drama queen, Im not sure what was so unbelievable about her performance. It seems that people see her and say, "that is katie Holmes, not a character in a movie". Her performance in Begins was...passable...Ive seen worse...and her Rachel Dawes actually had depth, unlike Maggies, who stripped away the depth for a very one sided performance. Real people have layers, and unspoken reasons for doing things and weird little ticks and stuff. Maggie erased everything Katie had put into the character and left us with Girl Power Katie.

What in Maggie performance made it not believable that it was the same person, and why should Maggie copy Katie's performance? especially when her performance was as crappy as it was?! That's not acting. Thats what they do on SNL.

And Katie was really crappy. It felt like Katie have never stood infront of a camera before.

Almost every critic said Maggie's performance was a improvement from Katie's. The only people that have complain is the "fans" on the internet. And most of them are idiots. Atleast you complain about her performance.

Ah hell, I dont wanna get into a big discussion of it. Lets say that we disagree and just leave it.

 

[Marx]

Actually I have been seeing more fans wish Maggie was Rachel throughout.

I think she should have been. I never really found myself caring about Katie's Rachel. Maggie's Rachel though, kept me interested.

 

[Coleman Reese]

I thought Maggie was a better actress than Katie. But the Rachel Dawes character was so boring and I find it hard to believe Wayne would fawn over her that much. I hope that Catwoman is introduced to provide a much more exciting female into the mix and not just groin excitement but rather a more physical and mental vigor.

 

[Nightmare]

I hope there's no catwoman in nolan's 3rd batman film.

 

[Marx]

I thought Maggie was a better actress than Katie. But the Rachel Dawes character was so boring and I find it hard to believe Wayne would fawn over her that much. I hope that Catwoman is introduced to provide a much more exciting female into the mix and not just groin excitement but rather a more physical and mental vigor.

I was hoping that one of the many women Bruce paraded around with throughout the movie would have been Vicki Vale or Selina Kyle. (I've said that before though. )

 

[DigificWriter]

Saw the movie yesterday, and really have to give Maggie Gyllenhall some props for the work she does as Rachel. To me, Rachel was one of the highlights of Batman Begins, and she was of The Dark Knight as well.

Even though I understand why Nolan and Co. killed her off, I was hoping this wouldn't be the case, because she fills a central role in the Batman mythos that none of the other heroines we've seen come into Batman's life do: she represents the normal life that Bruce gave up when he became who he is. Rachel is the only person who has seen who Bruce truly is, and recognizes that the man he's become - both publicly and privately - is not the 'real' Bruce Wayne. There's not another character anywhere in the Batman mythos who epitomizes the fact that the death of Bruce Wayne's parents turned him into a wholly new person both privately and publicly. Her involvement in the plot of Batman Begins bore this out, and The Dark Knight does as well. The scenes between her and Bruce really demonstrate just how pivotal she is to what Bruce does, and, even as she's trying to dissuade him from pinning all of his hopes on both Harvey and on her, you can tell that there's a part of her that still yearns for the man she knew to make a reappearance.

Addressing performance, I would have really liked to see Katie Holmes return to the role of Rachel for continuity's sake, but Maggie, as I said above, did a superb job, particularly during Rachel's two biggest scenes in the film: confronting The Joker at Bruce's fundraiser for Harvey and her death scene.

 

[Crook]

Even though I understand why Nolan and Co. killed her off, I was hoping this wouldn't be the case, because she fills a central role in the Batman mythos that none of the other heroines we've seen come into Batman's life do: she represents the normal life that Bruce gave up when he became who he is. Rachel is the only person who has seen who Bruce truly is, and recognizes that the man he's become - both publicly and privately - is not the 'real' Bruce Wayne. There's not another character anywhere in the Batman mythos who epitomizes the fact that the death of Bruce Wayne's parents turned him into a wholly new person both privately and publicly.

Are you wholly not aware of Alfred Pennyworth and Leslie Thompkins? Do you honestly think in the 60+ years of this character's life, no one would think to explore/invent a person who realizes Bruce's torment from childhood to adulthood?

 

[the_tortel]

I missed katie.......maggie gyllenhaal just isn't believable as a person

 

[DigificWriter]

Are you wholly not aware of Alfred Pennyworth and Leslie Thompkins? Do you honestly think in the 60+ years of this character's life, no one would think to explore/invent a person who realizes Bruce's torment from childhood to adulthood?

Yes, Alfred and Leslie Thompkins fill parts of Rachel's role to an extent, but not in the same way; Rachel, as a character, is a bridge between the 3 facets of Bruce Wayne: who Bruce was as a child, who he became after his parents' deaths, and who he has now become, both privately (as Batman) and publicly. Alfred and Thompkins, while they understand Bruce on some levels, can never truly - and have never truly, at least not in any of the incarnations of which I'm aware - understand exactly what motivates him to do the things he does and behave in the manner he does, both in his public and private lives.

 

[ikkabudkrane]

Missing Katie too and Maggie's Rachel didnt endear me the way Katie did with Rachel.

 

[JP]

I missed katie.......maggie gyllenhaal just isn't believable as a person

 

[Crook]

Yes, Alfred and Leslie Thompkins fill parts of Rachel's role to an extent, but not in the same way; Rachel, as a character, is a bridge between the 3 facets of Bruce Wayne: who Bruce was as a child, who he became after his parents' deaths, and who he has now become, both privately (as Batman) and publicly. Alfred and Thompkins, while they understand Bruce on some levels, can never truly - and have never truly, at least not in any of the incarnations of which I'm aware - understand exactly what motivates him to do the things he does and behave in the manner he does, both in his public and private lives.

Explain how Rachel knows Bruce more than Alfred and Leslie, when she was effectively out of his life for the better part of their adulthood. After Bruce's parents were shot, Rachel and her servant mom left the mansion. Alfred was the one taking care of Bruce, hell, he raised him. Not to mention that he was actually part of the process in creating Batman and is one of the few people who knows his true identity. Ditto for Leslie in the comics.

Rachel is nothing more than a glorified childhood friend.

 

[InvisibleWoman]

Holy cow Batman!

I've been loving how Maggie has looked since filming Dark Knight. She sure scrubs up well IMO.

 

[Crook]

She looks better there because her cheek/mouth lines are photoshopped out.

 

[InvisibleWoman]

She looks better there because her cheek/mouth lines are photoshopped out.

That kinda goes for any celebrity female in any magazine...I'm yet to see a beautiful photo in a magazine that hasn't been photoshopped to death. Her **** look great tho, bet those haven't been altered. And if they have, can someone do that to mine??

 

[Nightmare]

She looks better there because her cheek/mouth lines are photoshopped out.

 

[Yellowfrug]

She looks better there because her cheek/mouth lines are photoshopped out.

Agree, don't they always do that? She looks pretty in that picture, but her cheek lines are more visible in the movie, no escape from it.

 

[Crook]

That kinda goes for any celebrity female in any magazine...

No doubt magazine spreads are photoshopped, but Maggie's cheek lines are very distinctive to her and are always seen. That's why when they aren't visible, it's immediately noticeable. It'd be the equivalent of a magazine reducing the size of Angelina Jolie's lips.

I'm yet to see a beautiful photo in a magazine that hasn't been photoshopped to death. Her **** look great tho, bet those haven't been altered. And if they have, can someone do that to mine??

I believe this request is only granted if you have great **** and a hot face. I'll have to check the forum guidelines though.

 

[Two-Face]

Maggie G. looks great there, very hot!

 

[InvisibleWoman]

I believe this request is only granted if you have great **** and a hot face. I'll have to check the forum guidelines though.

Cheeky! lol

 

[Hello Beautiful]

I bought that issue of Maxim when I was on hols in Orlando, sure is a good pic of her.

She's an attractive girl.