|
Post by gothamknight1992 on Mar 9, 2009 11:41:40 GMT -5
It didn't make me cry...Vesper's death in Casino Royale was closer to making me cry than Rachel's.
|
|
|
Post by electri on Mar 9, 2009 11:49:40 GMT -5
I din't care for her character
|
|
batjoke
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Posts: 114
|
Post by batjoke on Mar 9, 2009 15:07:33 GMT -5
No it didnt I didnt really care what happened to her she only had my attention in batman begins. Then again I have not cried at a movie in a long time.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Mar 9, 2009 17:19:18 GMT -5
Not really, considering it was a rumor spreading and Eckhart let it slip out during an interview.
|
|
|
Post by svengali1337 on Mar 9, 2009 18:12:22 GMT -5
She was super annoying and her face was hard to look at.
|
|
|
Post by Jack the Skull on Mar 9, 2009 18:28:37 GMT -5
[shadow=red,left,300]^ I found the character annoying in Batman Begins.
I thought she was much better done in the Dark Knight. But I still didn't care that she died. [/shadow]
|
|
Doomsday
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Y'wanna know how I got these scars?
Posts: 234
|
Post by Doomsday on Mar 11, 2009 17:17:20 GMT -5
Make me CRY?! It made me cheer out loud!
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Mar 12, 2009 18:30:32 GMT -5
I laughed
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Mar 12, 2009 19:22:32 GMT -5
Regular laugh or Joker laugh?
|
|
|
Post by BruceBatman on Mar 16, 2009 12:10:16 GMT -5
I didn't cry, but it was very sad, and I didn't like it! I mean this is the first girlfriend of Batman's that has stayed in more than one movie!
|
|
|
Post by kilowog52 on Apr 7, 2009 16:03:50 GMT -5
No. But I was almost in tears at the end when Gordon said "He's the hero Gotham City deserves, but not the one it needs."
|
|
Shadow
Legions Of Gothamite
Posts: 40
|
Post by Shadow on May 24, 2009 23:08:15 GMT -5
I didn't like the character that much in Begins, but thought she was handled a lot better in The Dark Knight. I didn't cry at her death, but thought it was very well handled.
|
|
|
Post by wayneson on Jun 30, 2009 14:01:16 GMT -5
I think we were supposed to. It wasn't as effective for me, but I think it would have been much more powerful if Katie Holmes would have continued the role. Say what you want about her, but the fact remains that she was Rachel, and was firmly established in Nolan's mythos of Batman/Bruce Wayne in Begins. The re-casting of Rachel in TDK was a major flaw in the film, IMO, and certainly the reason her death didn't affect me as much as it could have.
|
|
|
Post by batfan93 on Jul 2, 2009 13:48:44 GMT -5
I'd hoped that she was going to die, so I definetely did not cry.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Jul 2, 2009 15:50:20 GMT -5
I disagree Wayneson. Maggie did a way better job. The mistake, in my opinion, wasn't that the character was recast, but rather how it was cast originally. I would have been excited that Rachel died in TDK if it were Katie.
|
|
|
Post by wayneson on Jul 5, 2009 2:34:22 GMT -5
I disagree Wayneson. Maggie did a way better job. The mistake, in my opinion, wasn't that the character was recast, but rather how it was cast originally. I would have been excited that Rachel died in TDK if it were Katie. I never said that Katie Holmes was better as Rachel than Maggie Gyllenhal; obviously it would have been better to have Maggie in Batman Begins if they knew that Holmes would not re-sign for TDK. That, however, don't matter - Holmes was Rachel when the story started in Begins, so you could have re-cast anyone for Rachel in TDK- I don't know, whoever you think the perfect actress for Rachel would be - and the emotional impact of her death would still have been stronger if it had been Katie Holmes...that's my point. Now if you are telling me that you would have preferred ("excited" was the exact word) to see the Rachel Dawes character die in TDK if the actress playing the role of Rachel was Katie Holmes, then...wow. That just dismisses the vital importance of this character to not only the plot of TDK, but also to the longer, overarching narrative of Bruce's life. Nolan was going for tears there, and the story did the work to earn them.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Jul 5, 2009 8:00:13 GMT -5
I meant excited. I didn't care for her character. She was a sore spot for Batman Begins, in my opinion. I was excited that they recast her. As far as recasts in general go, I used to be all about keeping the same actor/actress for sequels. But I've since decided that if someone can do it better, then I'd rather see them. If they don't do a better job, then I won't like it. I try to judge by the work, instead of the actual recast.
I'm really not seeing emotional impact coming from Katie being the Rachel that died. Like I said, I would be excited that her character would be gone. I was actually liking Maggie's Rachel.
|
|
|
Post by wayneson on Jul 8, 2009 2:27:02 GMT -5
I meant excited. I didn't care for her character. She was a sore spot for Batman Begins, in my opinion. I was excited that they recast her. As far as recasts in general go, I used to be all about keeping the same actor/actress for sequels. But I've since decided that if someone can do it better, then I'd rather see them. If they don't do a better job, then I won't like it. I try to judge by the work, instead of the actual recast. I'm really not seeing emotional impact coming from Katie being the Rachel that died. Like I said, I would be excited that her character would be gone. I was actually liking Maggie's Rachel. You didn't care for the character of Rachel? Really? Rachel Dawes was a brilliant invention, and a fantastic addition to the Batman canon. A childhood friend, she is there at the moment Bruce's phobia for bats emerges; later, her disappointment with him is the catalyst that sends him on his quest to discover a path for his life. By the end of the film they are still in love, as they have always been, but they cannot be lovers. She's the most important character in the entire story, other than Bruce. Rachel was the one thing in Bruce's life that kept him hopeful for the future, when Batman wouldn't be needed. Her death in TDK changes everything for him, and the story Nolan is telling hinges on Bruce's connection to her - his connection to reality, to humanity. That's broken now, and Bruce is lost. I am not one of the Katie-bashers; I think her sometimes awkward presence in Begins really served the character well. Rachel was a naiive idealist, and the daughter of a housemaid. Holmes' absence in TDK muted the impact Rachel's death should have had in the film. Re-casting her role in TDK weakened the film, in the same way that re-casting Heath's Joker would hurt the next one. Hey, Maggie G. is a very good actress, but Katie was Rachel.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Jul 8, 2009 9:47:25 GMT -5
I think there was a lot of potential with her character. I don't mind her addition to the mythos. What I see in Katie's performance is squandered potential. Everything you said just now (with a couple of exceptions) is true. The character is good for Bruce. If it hadn't been for Katie, I would have really liked her part in the story. Unfortunately, she played it so unbelievable and stupid. The moments that are the worst is when she is trying to show her authority. The shame is that Rachel didn't get as much screen time in TDK as in BB. I would have liked to have seen that. In fact, I would love it if they made an edit of BB that replaced her with Maggie.
I respect the character's importance to the story in Begins, but I can't enjoy a character who is played so badly. Maggie strengthened the character of Rachel, in my eyes.
|
|
twistedlaugh
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
No more rules... I'm a vampire!
Posts: 246
|
Post by twistedlaugh on Jul 8, 2009 14:55:38 GMT -5
I agree with Dark Nightwing. I really liked Maggie over Katie. She delivered all her lines with the proper authority of a woman in that professional position.
Holmes was terrible in BB, she was whinny and annoying and didn't hold an once of authority. To me, her bad acting wrecked every seen she was in.
And to answer the question; Katie ruined this extremely important character for me to feel an emotional attachment.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Jul 8, 2009 16:37:34 GMT -5
Wayneson, I would like to thank you for one of the best discussions I think I have had on a board. This is the way all contrasting ideas should be debated, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by supermanisbetter on Jul 13, 2009 0:00:11 GMT -5
i was only sad that it wasn't Katie Holmes. Her Rachel deserved it more than Maggie's
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jul 13, 2009 11:44:32 GMT -5
i was only sad that it wasn't Katie Holmes. Her Rachel deserved it more than Maggie's Quoted for truth.
|
|
|
Post by gothamknight1992 on Jul 13, 2009 21:09:53 GMT -5
That's like saying Terence Howard was Rhodey or Michael Keaton was Batman or Sean Connery was James Bond, but in reality they're all just actors performing in front of the cameras. Any actor can bring any character to life if the screenplay and the director are good enough.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jul 13, 2009 22:15:44 GMT -5
That's like saying Terence Howard was Rhodey or Michael Keaton was Batman or Sean Connery was James Bond, but in reality they're all just actors performing in front of the cameras. Any actor can bring any character to life if the screenplay and the director are good enough. So do you think anyone could've been Joker and be as good as Heath was?
|
|
|
Post by wayneson on Jul 14, 2009 13:15:05 GMT -5
That's like saying Terence Howard was Rhodey or Michael Keaton was Batman or Sean Connery was James Bond, but in reality they're all just actors performing in front of the cameras. Any actor can bring any character to life if the screenplay and the director are good enough. Misses the point entirely. I'm talking about a subtle element of visual storytelling here; my discussion was about the impact of Rachel Dawes' death in TDK being diluted by having a different actress in the role. I never said that Katie Homes was the best actress for the role, only that she was the actress that Nolan chose, and had been established as Rachel in Batman Begins. If you review the discussion from the beginning it should be clear.
|
|
|
Post by wayneson on Jul 14, 2009 13:23:09 GMT -5
i was only sad that it wasn't Katie Holmes. Her Rachel deserved it more than Maggie's Quoted for truth. I don't understand these statements; her Rachel? Both actresses played the same character. These statements seem to indicate that neither of you understand MAJOR elements of Nolan's story.
|
|
|
Post by coliv1977 on Jul 14, 2009 14:48:15 GMT -5
I don't understand these statements; her Rachel? Both actresses played the same character. These statements seem to indicate that neither of you understand MAJOR elements of Nolan's story. Yes, they played the same character, but apparently they like Maggie's portrayal/interpretation better than Katie's. That's what he's saying...That Katie was so annoying, they wish her character would've died
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Jul 14, 2009 15:44:00 GMT -5
What I have been saying, and it seems others are backing me up on this point, is that Katie's performance, not her character's role in the story, disrupted the emotional impact of her character's death. Had it been Katie's Rachel that died, people would have cheered because she was annoying. I agree with you that the character is a great idea for the Batman mythos, but because of Katie's acting, I never [italics]liked[/italics] her character. Had Katie been the Rachel killed off, I would more likely have tears of joy than sorrow. Had Maggie portrayed Rachel from the start, I'd probably feel kind of bad about that.
|
|
|
Post by gothamknight1992 on Jul 14, 2009 18:32:57 GMT -5
So do you think anyone could've been Joker and be as good as Heath was? Yeah there's a lot of actors out there so you can't tell me that Heath Ledger was the only one who could effectively play the Joker.
|
|