|
Post by gothamknight1992 on Jan 31, 2009 17:18:33 GMT -5
And could you name one or two actresses who would've been better for the part? I don't know why but I didn't like Rachel very much...I don't know if it was the way Rachel was written in the scripts or the actresses themselves but I didn't like her.
Sometimes I wonder if Kate Winslet or Sandra Bullock would've been better for the part. Because Winslet received an oscar for her role in The Reader and Crash received an oscar for best picture.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Jan 31, 2009 18:49:35 GMT -5
Rachel was necessary as a romantic interest in the first one. In a way that's all she was in the second one too, but to a different guy. I don't mind how they handled her character. I am glad that they recast her. I would say that the character was underwritten. I doubt that the best actress in the world would have difficulty working with the material. She wasn't given enough backstory or character to be a great addition to the cast. As is usual in superhero movies, the girls are underwritten. Lois Lane is a great character, which is why she is written into every Superman iteration. The reason Batman does not have that stability is because all of his best romantic interests are basically villains. Of course, all of this is merely my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jan 31, 2009 19:45:45 GMT -5
I had no problem with the character, but I did have a problem with Katie Holmes. During the media circuit for Batman Begins, all she ever talked about was her then new relationship with Tom Cruise. Who freakin cared about that?! Tom was nuts and he brainwashed Katie, we know! But I'm glad she was recast, but it would've felt better if Joker actually killed Katie-Rachel than Maggie-Rachel.
|
|
|
Post by gothamknight1992 on Jan 31, 2009 21:09:30 GMT -5
I guess the reason why I disliked Rachel is because of the actress...I don't like Katie Holmes or Maggie Gyllenhaal but I probably would've like Rachel if she was played by Jennifer Conelly or Sandra Bullock.
|
|
|
Post by Batlaw on Feb 1, 2009 4:41:41 GMT -5
No real love for the character but no serious hatred either. My hatred centers on how horribly mis-cast the role was. Holmes was clearly an executive decision that had nothing to do with what was best for the actual film. That being said, I dont Nec. despise Kattie Holmes. I think Holmes is an adequate actress and certainly "cute" and fitting / acceptable for certain roles. I consider Maggie Gyllenhaal to be a much better actress and far more believable in and for the part (even if slightly less attractive IMO lol).
|
|
Doomsday
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Y'wanna know how I got these scars?
Posts: 234
|
Post by Doomsday on Feb 1, 2009 9:06:29 GMT -5
You guys have got to be jokin. Katie was better than Maggie in every way imaginable. Instead of being sad when she died like I shouldve been I cheered out loud! Goes to show how much I hated Maggie. Well at least shes dead. Bring on Selina Kyle!
|
|
jef1963
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Posts: 130
|
Post by jef1963 on Feb 1, 2009 16:09:58 GMT -5
Iliked Maggie a lot more than Katie. That said it was a rather weak character. I really hope we get Talia or Selina in the next one!
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Feb 1, 2009 16:19:43 GMT -5
You guys have got to be jokin. Katie was better than Maggie in every way imaginable. Instead of being sad when she died like I shouldve been I cheered out loud! Goes to show how much I hated Maggie. Well at least shes dead. Bring on Selina Kyle! In what way was Katie better? The only reason I can see is in physical attractiveness. Maggie looked like an actual attorney. I thought Maggie delivered her lines better. Overall, neither performance is stellar. Given how flat the character was written, I am not surprised that the character has not impressed anyone. Now if she would have turned into Harley Quinn like one rumor I read, that would have given her some much needed depth.
|
|
|
Post by mistyfoe on Feb 2, 2009 4:45:21 GMT -5
With Rachel She Was A Good Charricter, I Think She Was Better In The First But Was Still Good In The Second 1. If She Didn't Die Imagion What Would Of Happened In The Dark Knight
|
|
|
Post by Jack the Skull on Feb 2, 2009 20:05:49 GMT -5
[shadow=red,left,300]Katie was pathetic as Rachel! She came off as an over emotional character with issues, that was more than happy to point out Bruce's errors over her own.
With Maggie, she was portrayed as a much stronger character. Which seemed to add to the film.
P.S: If you think Katie was that great, then go find a review from a top Critic with great credentials that backs up your statement. [/shadow]
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Feb 2, 2009 21:25:01 GMT -5
we can all agree that the character of rachel dawes was sorely under-developed. I don't think her character was at all necessary. If you need someone around the same age as bruce that has a long connection with him, why not use harvey dent? his transition in the dark knight would have been that much more tragic. and what about a romantic foil? it's batman! The dude has no time for romance, he's always thinking about his next mission. A better story would have been having lots of small female characters who try to get attached to bruce and show how he avoids relationships.
|
|
|
Post by MuksC on Feb 3, 2009 14:47:00 GMT -5
i didn't lke the character in either, but understand they "had" to have a love interest for the films. considering she gets killed off in TDK, i'd have rather it been Holmes instead of Maggie, it messes up the continuity between the movies by having different actresses, and that kind of thing annoys me. plus Maggie is a hound, at least Katie was pleasant to look at, even if she couldn't act. spot the difference: [ i love TDK, but i laugh everytime Joker says "well hello beautiful...and you are beautiful." it's a horrible thing for me to say about her, but that's how i feel. I agree that Jennifer Connelly would have been a much better choice from the start:
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Feb 3, 2009 15:07:25 GMT -5
^I don't know about you, but I would rather judge an actress on her acting than her appearance. I think this is a fundamental flaw of modern movies. They portray most everyone as being beautiful, which creates a false sense of what a person should look like as well as how America is perceived. I'm not saying that Maggie did an incredible job. There wasn't enough in the writing for the character to shine. I just wish that people would bringing up physical attractiveness as a reason to like one iteration of the character more than the other.
|
|
|
Post by electri on Feb 4, 2009 11:49:50 GMT -5
lol the dog!!! I to feel they should have done better but at least we can now have selina kyle or someone else like talia
|
|
|
Post by MuksC on Feb 6, 2009 11:50:48 GMT -5
^I don't know about you, but I would rather judge an actress on her acting than her appearance. I think this is a fundamental flaw of modern movies. They portray most everyone as being beautiful, which creates a false sense of what a person should look like as well as how America is perceived. I'm not saying that Maggie did an incredible job. There wasn't enough in the writing for the character to shine. I just wish that people would bringing up physical attractiveness as a reason to like one iteration of the character more than the other. but the point is that Joker emphasised how beautiful she was, when clearly she wasn't, there were at least 5 other more beautiful women at the party in Wayne's penthouse. had he not said that, it wouldn't have looked as stupid as it does, in my opinion. when you are trying to portray a character as eye-candy, she should look like eye-candy, or arm-candy for Bruce. Bruce would never go for her when he could have either the russian ballerina or the women he brought to the party at the penthouse, that's what i'm getting at. he's a good looking man, they don't fit together as a couple. this has nothing to do with how i view women or actresses or the world we live in, it's what the story is trying to portray and fails miserably at.
|
|
|
Post by gothamknight1992 on Feb 7, 2009 1:56:17 GMT -5
i didn't lke the character in either, but understand they "had" to have a love interest for the films. considering she gets killed off in TDK, i'd have rather it been Holmes instead of Maggie, it messes up the continuity between the movies by having different actresses, and that kind of thing annoys me. plus Maggie is a hound, at least Katie was pleasant to look at, even if she couldn't act. spot the difference: [ i love TDK, but i laugh everytime Joker says "well hello beautiful...and you are beautiful." it's a horrible thing for me to say about her, but that's how i feel. I agree that Jennifer Connelly would have been a much better choice from the start: Why do people complain about Maggie Gyllenhaal having a dog face? So what if she had a dog face? It didn't make or break The Dark Knight because she had so little camera time. I consider Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny) and Margot Kidder (Lois Lane) to be dog faced but that didn't stop me from enjoying Dr. No and Superman: The Movie.
|
|