|
Post by MuksC on Jul 14, 2005 10:28:16 GMT -5
would it have worked it one of the Jokers victims was Rachel? how could that be tied in with the story?
or if she went permanently wacko with Crane's fear gas, that would also have been good. DAMN YOU BATMAN for INNOCULATING HER!!
|
|
|
Post by JokerFC on Jul 14, 2005 10:50:24 GMT -5
when the sequel starts she should already be one of his victims-let it fire up the hatred Bats and Joker have for one another a little bit
|
|
greg
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Le grille? What the hell is that?
Posts: 139
|
Post by greg on Jul 14, 2005 23:25:47 GMT -5
i think shes already been eliminated from the cast of the sequel.
|
|
|
Post by JokerFC on Jul 15, 2005 1:30:07 GMT -5
i think shes already been eliminated from the cast of the sequel. yeah thats true but she could still be mentioned as a Joker victim -thats what I was driving at.WB wont have Holmes in the sequel for sure-she will have to go to dreamworks for employment I think
|
|
|
Post by the_killing_joke on Aug 5, 2005 12:45:03 GMT -5
Personally I thought there was nothing wrong with her at all in Batman Begins. Normally the "love interest" in these films is so tacky but here it was done well and did not de-rail the movie. The idea of her being a victim of the Joker is an awesome one! I really am into that!
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Aug 5, 2005 13:17:55 GMT -5
If Katie Holmes isn't in the sequel, I'd rather have her simply referred to like Vicki Vale in Batman Returns than be dubbed as one of Joker's first victims in the beginning of the film. I'd rather see Joker kill Rachel in the middle or end of the movie than hear that she was one of Mr. J's victims at the start of the sequel.
This is because I'd want it to enhance the Batman-Joker conflict (ala kiling Jason Todd and paralyzing Barbara) and not spark it from the start. IMO, Batman should primarily hate Joker for killing innocent people, not because Joker happened to kill his ex. I'd rather not see the Batman-Joker relationship that personal or convenient from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by The Demons Head on Aug 12, 2005 12:34:37 GMT -5
If Katie Holmes isn't in the sequel, I'd rather have her simply referred to like Vicki Vale in Batman Returns than be dubbed as one of Joker's first victims in the beginning of the film. I'd rather see Joker kill Rachel in the middle or end of the movie than hear that she was one of Mr. J's victims at the start of the sequel. This is because I'd want it to enhance the Batman-Joker conflict (ala kiling Jason Todd and paralyzing Barbara) and not spark it from the start. IMO, Batman should primarily hate Joker for killing innocent people, not because Joker happened to kill his ex. I'd rather not see the Batman-Joker relationship that personal or convenient from the beginning. That's funny...I just posted a fan-fic sequel called Batman: War on Crime (I know that the title's been used before...I was attempting to tie it somehow into the comics)... In my story, Dawes is killed by the Joker to wards the start of the movie... Or so it would seem to the Batman (as well as the audience). I would "kill her off", so to speak, but do it with a purpose. Her death would put the one element, the one thing that I felt "Batman Begins" lacked; the detective part. Her death could be the platform where Batman learns that in order to succeed in his war on crime, he must not only become a warrior-legend, he must also become the Dark Knight Detective... That's just my 2 cents...
|
|
|
Post by MuksC on Aug 13, 2005 11:15:45 GMT -5
yeah, i like that idea.
|
|
|
Post by The Demons Head on Aug 13, 2005 11:58:40 GMT -5
I don't personally hate her or her performance, it's just that, IMO, she looked [on-screen] like she was a teenager trying to play the role of a grown woman...She wasn't horrible (I can still hear Kim Basinger's screams rattling in my head... ), it's just that, again, IMO, she looked out of place among veteran actors like Gary Oldman, Sir Micheal Caine, and Morgan Freeman.
|
|
|
Post by The Demons Head on Aug 13, 2005 12:01:02 GMT -5
(Voice of Burgess Meredith's Penguin) ;D Why, thank you my good man...Wagh-wagh-wagh-wagh-wagh...
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Aug 13, 2005 12:31:25 GMT -5
While I like your idea of giving her death a purpose, I honestly think that that growth into Dark Knight Detective could happen with just about any innocent victim. At the end of Begins, Joker's already committed a double homicide and Batman said that he'd "look into it." That's a perfect set-up, in my opinion. It doesn't have to be Rachel. It doesn't have to be personal.
|
|
|
Post by JokerFC on Aug 13, 2005 14:41:19 GMT -5
It has to be personal IMO to get that hatred between Bats and the Joker heated up.In 89 they made Jack Napier the Killer of the Waynes-Nolan has gotta get that hatred built right out of the gate too because Bats doesnt have that Hatred with any other villian except Joker-he is the only villian he has thought of killing
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Aug 13, 2005 14:50:53 GMT -5
I see what you're getting at, but I disagree entirely. It doesn't have to get personal at all.
Batman has loathed Joker all these years because Joker kills innocent people, terrorizes his city, and opposes everything he stands for- justice, order, morals, and all that good stuff. That's the way it was for over forty years:Joker first appeared in 1940 and was the comic book villain of all villains. He was toned down in the '50's and '60's, but was still Batman's enemy. In the 1970s, his homicidal tendencies returned. Yet throughout all that, he didn't get personal with Batman until the '80s when he paralyzed Barbara and killed Robin.
In the 1989 film, Batman hates Jack Napier/The Joker before he realizes that the man killed his parents. It added a sense of irony as well as added fuel to a fire that was already there.
|
|
|
Post by The Demons Head on Aug 13, 2005 14:57:59 GMT -5
While I like your idea of giving her death a purpose, I honestly think that that growth into Dark Knight Detective could happen with just about any innocent victim. At the end of Begins, Joker's already committed a double homicide and Batman said that he'd "look into it." That's a perfect set-up, in my opinion. It doesn't have to be Rachel. It doesn't have to be personal. I understand what you're saying, and, yes, you could have the person be any other innocent besides Dawes. It's just that, IMO, this/ it would be the perfect time to kill off, (once again, IMO), the only weak link in Batman Begins' armor...With her gone, the film could; - Introduce the relationship between the Joker and Batman through the death of a main character -Give one more reason why Batman should pursue his quest for justice and not vengeance - Eliminate the former D.A. [Dawes], and allow for the introduction of Gotham's newest District Attorney/ villain, Harvey Dent... - It would prove that in the/ his war on crime there will be casualties, some of them being personal; a sort of tribute to the death of Jason Todd From what I understood about the line/s "I'll look into it", was that he didn't know who he was up against, and just shrugs it off as "another criminal to bust".
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Aug 13, 2005 15:37:29 GMT -5
^ True, but also I would assume that Batman would want to investigate to find out who was behind the double homicide.
In reply to your points:
- I'm not sure if introducing the Joker-Batman conflict would benefit from the death of a main character. It's never been done in the comics. You could technically have the opening scene of the sequel take place right after Batman Begins's "I'll look into it ending" and audiences would be satisfied with that introduction.
- Yes, I would also imagine that Rachel's death would emotionally cause Batman to want vengeance, yet force him to restrain himself not to kill him in the name of justice. Similar to The Killing Joke, Death of a Family, and Hush. Especially in TKJ and Hush, Batman needed Gordon to remind him of the importance of justice. While Batman being reminded of that is something I'd like to see...I can easily see it happen at the end after Joker's obtained pleasure from killing a lot of innocent people-some in front of Batman's eyes. Similar to The Man Who Laughs, in which Batman is tempted to just throw Joker into the Joker Venom-infested water reservoir after Mr. J gleefully killed rich socialites. Again, it doesn't have to be Rachel.
- Well, Rachel isn't necessarily D.A. It's never mentioned in the movie who they'll replace Finch with. They could easily fit Harvey Dent in by having him replace Finch as her boss.
- One could kill off Rachel at any point of the movie to show that there are casualties of war on crime.
I'm trying not to come across as stubborn or close-minded here. I don't have an issue with killing Rachel in general (hell, have mob hitmen kill her), but I do take issue with killing her in the beginning of the film as a way to spark the Batman-Joker conflict.
EDIT: I forgot to say that I mean no offense whatsoever to your script. While I disagree with your opinion, I am very glad that you (and JokerFC) have well thought-out reasons for supporting it and your story idea. I've simply gotten sick of reading posters in other Batman forums who say stuff like, "Rachel must be killed by Joker because I hate her" without thinking of any consequence to the story.
|
|
|
Post by JokerFC on Aug 13, 2005 17:55:37 GMT -5
all good points BatmAngelus
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Aug 13, 2005 18:01:07 GMT -5
Thank you. I hero you for the compliment and for having an open mind ;D.
|
|
|
Post by The Demons Head on Aug 13, 2005 20:45:00 GMT -5
That's fine...I would've killed her in the starting mainly so that I could move onto another character/ develop new ones. Sometimes, I like to write stories similar to the way artillery rounds went off during a World War I barrage; BAM-(bam)-BAM-(bam)-BAM-(bam)-BOOM...I know that sounds like a strange (or very loud, as artillery shells are rather noisy), description, but, that's how I'd like to write comic-based properties; one thing after another, and everything happens for a purpose...
|
|
|
Post by The Demons Head on Aug 13, 2005 20:55:22 GMT -5
I understand that it might not go over well with some audience members to have a main character in a comic-based movie killed off by the villain/ one of the villains...Part of the reason why I wrote it [into the synopsis] was because it had never been done before; I thought that, if this was real, I/ it could start a whole new way of writing/ looking at comic-book movie characters. After this would happen, the audience would never know when, or, if one of their favorite characters would be killed by a/ the diabolical villain, making it slightly-more realistic in its depiction of a life-or-death situation/ scenario.
That's kind of what I was attempting to do...In my version/ concepts, It would take place/ start from the end sequence of Batman Begins...I would have some sort of "clock-image/ montage" to show that their meeting took place after the murder of Dawes, and after the murder of the other two people mentioned by Gordon.
|
|
|
Post by MuksC on Aug 15, 2005 12:52:31 GMT -5
we don't care who does it or how, as long as Rachel dies, we'll be happy she simply looked too young for the person she is supposed to be. we see Bruce's transformation from preppy student to grown man (with the use of hairstyles and clothing), but Rachel looks exactly the same when she is 21/22 and 29/30. when she is only 26 in real life, its strange they cast her to act as someone of 30 years old. i'm sure there were more suitable actresses out there who could have been made to look young, then older as the film progressed. maybe this was just sloppy work from the make-up/hair stylists?
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Aug 15, 2005 13:00:00 GMT -5
I agree that she was too young, but I have to say that she looked different to me. Not by much, but enough for me to differentiate between her in the past and her in present day.
It's hard to describe. In the flashback Rachel looks bright, glowy, and cute, especially in the kitchen with Bruce. Her face seems...fuller (I was tempted to say fatter, but that's not exactly what I'm trying to describe). In present day, she looks more weary (even when her hair is free and not tied back for work)-possibly from working so much in a town so corrupt.
|
|
|
Post by thedarkestnight on Aug 15, 2005 18:27:46 GMT -5
Yeah Rachel in the kitchen DOES look like she's 20 or something, she looks REALLY young to me. Regardless how much we hate Rachel(or even Holmes), she is still very important to Bruce and they both have feelings for each other. So IF she gets killed *Joker* it should be at least 3/4 into the movie, nearing the climax.
|
|
|
Post by The Demons Head on Aug 16, 2005 7:57:59 GMT -5
Yeah Rachel in the kitchen DOES look like she's 20 or something, she looks REALLY young to me. Regardless how much we hate Rachel(or even Holmes), she is still very important to Bruce and they both have feelings for each other. So IF she gets killed *Joker* it should be at least 3/4 into the movie, nearing the climax. I understand what you're saying...We should keep her until almost the very end (to appease the people who came to see a love story), and then, kill her off, (to appease the fans who wanted to see her dead by the hand of the Joker)...Everybody goes home happy...Except, the Dawes fans and Dawes herself, because she now has the unfortunate-handicap of being dead...
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Aug 31, 2005 17:56:20 GMT -5
I see that there aren't many Rachel fans. I have an idea that some of you might like (a lot of you may hate it). Rachel was given a full blown case of the fear toxin. But she was treated before any damage occured, right? Wrong! The antidote could have just suppressed it, considering she was not treated as quickly as everyone else. Now, there are two options that can come from this. She becomes a totally new villain, or she becomes the next Harley Quinn. Harley has not been in the Batman mythos long enough to have completely different backgrounds. I don't know if Katie Holmes is a good enough actress to pull off "crazy". But she could be replaced if need be.
|
|
|
Post by JokerFC on Sept 1, 2005 10:46:00 GMT -5
I see that there aren't many Rachel fans. I have an idea that some of you might like (a lot of you may hate it). Rachel was given a full blown case of the fear toxin. But she was treated before any damage occured, right? Wrong! The antidote could have just suppressed it, considering she was not treated as quickly as everyone else. Now, there are two options that can come from this. She becomes a totally new villain, or she becomes the next Harley Quinn. Harley has not been in the Batman mythos long enough to have completely different backgrounds. I don't know if Katie Holmes is a good enough actress to pull off "crazy". But she could be replaced if need be. not a bad notion at all-but a change of actress may be needed as "Carboards Kates" range isnt all that........
|
|
Batleaf93
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Posts: 234
|
Post by Batleaf93 on Sept 1, 2005 22:56:17 GMT -5
I want to see the joker kill her off not because I don't like the character but because I think it will add to the rivalry between bats the clown. As far as replacing her with another actress I am not down with starting to replace cast members already. Thats one of the reasons why the previous franchise went sour.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Sept 2, 2005 15:17:41 GMT -5
I want to see the joker kill her off not because I don't like the character but because I think it will add to the rivalry between bats the clown. As far as replacing her with another actress I am not down with starting to replace cast members already. Thats one of the reasons why the previous franchise went sour. Just think how much bigger that rivalry would be if Bruce's lifelong friend, had a similar image to the Joker, and furthermore, falls in love with the psycho. Bruce's guilt would be as bad, if not worse, than if she died. This would put her out of the DA's office and a new lawyer (Harv) could come to take her place. I would love to see Batman having a bit of avenging, by breaking into Arkham to try to kill Scarecrow for what he did to Rachel. I don't know how this could work with Rachel knowing Batman's identity. I have many ideas on the issue, each more ridiculous than the last.
|
|
|
Post by reideen1313 on Sept 2, 2005 15:23:47 GMT -5
This would put her out of the DA's office and a new lawyer (Harv) could come to take her place. I still say it's possible that Harvey is already part of the DA's office, since many cities have more than one DA to handle all the cases they have to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Sept 3, 2005 18:27:13 GMT -5
This would put her out of the DA's office and a new lawyer (Harv) could come to take her place. I still say it's possible that Harvey is already part of the DA's office, since many cities have more than one DA to handle all the cases they have to deal with. That is a possibility, but why would he not try to take on the organized crime syndicate? Is this version of Harvery Dent afraid of the outcome? This would not be true to his nature. Maybe he was in Barbados on a summer vacation. I could see why he would want to leave the place. However, coming in to try to change the city, after the last DA went crazy. And then irony that he too, goes through a similar ordeal later on in the story. I guess it depends on what you would prefer: a wimped out Harvey, a lawyer that took a summer vacation during a time of great need, or a heroic man who tries to build and improve on his predecessor by taking cases that no one else would... until his transformation. I like the last one.
|
|
|
Post by enchantaurora on Sept 6, 2005 11:50:12 GMT -5
I like the idea of Rachel becoming Harley but, as previously mentioned I'm not sure Holmes could pull it off and replacing actors too soon...
Well, we all know what happened last time. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I understand what you're saying...We should keep her until almost the very end (to appease the people who came to see a love story), and then, kill her off, (to appease the fans who wanted to see her dead by the hand of the Joker)..."
I don't understand what's wrong with the love story angle... Maybe it's a guy/girl thing but I can almost promise you that modern fairy tale aspect is what brings most girls into the whole Batman (and any super hero) world whether it's comics, any of the cartoons, or the movies.
If there wasn't some kind of love interest I think any Batman movie would be incredibly lacking; that's what we've come to see as part of the Batman saga. There can't NOT be a loeve interest.
|
|