|
Post by jasontodd2 on Mar 8, 2007 22:38:34 GMT -5
www.accesshollywood.com/news/ah4401.shtml
AP Maggie Gyllenhaal Replaces Katie Holmes In New 'Batman' LOS ANGELES (March 8, 2007) -- It looks like Maggie Gyllenhaal is picking up right where Katie Holmes left off.
Gyllenhaal is in final talks to star opposite Christian Bale in "The Dark Knight," the next installment in the Batman franchise, reports Variety.
She will play Rachel Dawes, the role vacated by Holmes from "Batman Begins."
In January, Holmes announced she was dropping out of the project.
Also joining the cast for the next Batman film are Heath Ledger as the Joker and Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent/Two-Face.
"The Dark Knight" is expected in theaters summer of 2008.
|
|
|
Post by Blackgate on Mar 8, 2007 23:53:40 GMT -5
great news, im guessing that Dawes will probably have a bigger role than just 10 minutes like previously reported.
|
|
|
Post by jasontodd2 on Mar 9, 2007 11:52:46 GMT -5
I don't mind Maggie at all taking over for Katie Holmes, not only is she cute, but she's a great actress and should do just fine as Rachel Dawes.
I am a bit disappointed that Tom Cruise stepped in and basically forbid Katie from doing the sequel, man does Cruise have an ego, and it's too bad because I thought Katie was a stronger person, but I guess she does as she is told by Mr Tom "I Have An Ego taller than me" Cruise (and I hear his ego is only 4'9)
What's pretty cool is that unlike the other Batman movies this one is going to have the same love interest for Bruce, which is pretty exciting, sure some of us don't want that in the movies, but I don't mind it at all, because after all he needs to be happy. I am not a Huge fan of the Dark, Leave Me Alone, Brooding Batman, I like to see him as one of my favorite comic book writers sees Batman, and that is like a James Bond with a Cape...
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Mar 9, 2007 17:02:21 GMT -5
I am a bit disappointed that Tom Cruise stepped in and basically forbid Katie from doing the sequel, man does Cruise have an ego, and it's too bad because I thought Katie was a stronger person, but I guess she does as she is told by Mr Tom "I Have An Ego taller than me" Cruise (and I hear his ego is only 4'9)
Have you read my scit? Anyway, at least we can finally end all these casting rumors (at least until Batman 3).
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Knight on Mar 9, 2007 20:31:32 GMT -5
This is the best choice they could make, read it at Comics Continuum and was very pleased Not only is she a good actress, but they look nearly identical in some ways, which is good, unlike some crappy recasts made in the past.
|
|
|
Post by enchantaurora on Mar 10, 2007 0:11:47 GMT -5
Maggie Gyllenhal vs. Katie Holmes.
Maggie Gyllenhal vs. Katie Holmes.
Maggie Gyllenhal vs. Katie Holmes. Are we even asking this question?
This is such a HUGE step-up for this movie, I don't think I can contain my excitement right now.
OHMIGOSH, THIS IS GOING TO BE THE BEST BATMAN MOVIE EVER!!!
|
|
|
Post by jasontodd2 on Mar 12, 2007 23:00:38 GMT -5
I am a bit disappointed that Tom Cruise stepped in and basically forbid Katie from doing the sequel, man does Cruise have an ego, and it's too bad because I thought Katie was a stronger person, but I guess she does as she is told by Mr Tom "I Have An Ego taller than me" Cruise (and I hear his ego is only 4'9)
Have you read my scit? Anyway, at least we can finally end all these casting rumors (at least until Batman 3).
|
|
arkham
Gotham Tourist
"Did someone say fish? I haven't eaten all day." "Eat floor. High fiber."
Posts: 13
|
Post by arkham on Mar 21, 2007 15:27:59 GMT -5
While I'm pleased to see Maggie replacing Katie, I was honestly hoping that they would've dropped the character altogether.
|
|
|
Post by MuksC on Mar 22, 2007 18:59:52 GMT -5
yeah i'd rather they dropped Rachel altogether too, but nevermind, at least she'll probably act better than Katie in whatever screen time she has. and it's a shame they didn't pick someone better from the start, maybe Jennifer Connelly, then we could have had the same actor playing the same character from one movie to the next, instead of her morphing from Katie to Maggie between films.
|
|
|
Post by jasontodd2 on Mar 23, 2007 0:33:00 GMT -5
What's cool about having Rachel return is that it seems as they are going to give a solid love interest for Bruce Wayne, which is good to see. But I wonder what that will do for the entrie Batman/Catwoman scenerio? Would we even see her in the next film?
|
|
|
Post by HUSH on Mar 23, 2007 20:32:09 GMT -5
What's cool about having Rachel return is that it seems as they are going to give a solid love interest for Bruce Wayne Except I don't see how she's going to be a love interest in TDK, considering how Begins ended. Hopefully she can have a role in the story without having to get involved with Bruce. Seeing as how this is going to be an even darker film, I think romance for Bruce would be out of place and distracting.
|
|
|
Post by enchantaurora on Mar 25, 2007 11:56:12 GMT -5
What's cool about having Rachel return is that it seems as they are going to give a solid love interest for Bruce Wayne Except I don't see how she's going to be a love interest in TDK, considering how Begins ended. Hopefully she can have a role in the story without having to get involved with Bruce. Seeing as how this is going to be an even darker film, I think romance for Bruce would be out of place and distracting. I think that the film can be just as dark with a love interest, in fact that can definitely increase the emotional drama, particularly if something was to happen to Rachel Dawes. Not that I'm saying that something should happen to her, but that is one way to keep the movie dark while still including a love interest. Really to me, Batman/Bruce without a love interest is only half the story (and I think that this is one of the major differences between male and female superhero fans).
|
|
|
Post by /\/\att on Mar 28, 2007 2:23:35 GMT -5
You know..and this is just me...but having a love interest in the film is more realistic..and it can make things MUCH darker. If you have nothing to lose, where is the strife?
|
|
|
Post by jasontodd2 on Mar 31, 2007 15:08:59 GMT -5
I definately want to see a love thing going on, why shouldn't Bruce get to be happy? I feel as though that is what the other Batman films has always lacked, a solid "Love Interest Relationship" character for Bruce, and it will definately make thing that much more interesting and challenging for Batman...
|
|
baTT
Legions Of Gothamite
Chillin like a Villain!
Posts: 87
|
Post by baTT on Apr 6, 2007 18:37:44 GMT -5
yeah i'd rather they dropped Rachel altogether too, but nevermind, at least she'll probably act better than Katie in whatever screen time she has. and it's a shame they didn't pick someone better from the start, maybe Jennifer Connelly, then we could have had the same actor playing the same character from one movie to the next, instead of her morphing from Katie to Maggie between films. Ya, I agree with both of you guys on this one. It would be nice to simply not have her, but she could be refered to. Things like her being in court or in Metropolis covering the appearance of Superman. Just something nice to tie the universe together.
|
|
|
Post by BruceBatman on Jul 24, 2007 2:18:15 GMT -5
They made a great choice on the next Rachael Dawes! The two (Katie Holmes and Maggie Gyllenhaal) could be twins.
I am also one of those people who like a good wholesome relationship in my stories (especially Batman) because it gives the person inner strength, grief, gives the enemy an advantage, leverage, and more. It just provides for a better story!
|
|