Nolan Fans

Highland_3 wrote:

oliverjj wrote:
Same. Pretty much Nolan's worst decision as a director/writer was that character and both actresses he had to play her.

lolwut?

Rachel Dawes is very important in BB. Less so in TDK, but she still has a role to play in the film. Stating that the character is Nolan's "worst decision as a director/writer" is ludicrous.

The CASTING was ludicrous.

Highland_3 wrote:

oliverjj wrote:
Same. Pretty much Nolan's worst decision as a director/writer was that character and both actresses he had to play her.

lolwut?

Rachel Dawes is very important in BB. Less so in TDK, but she still has a role to play in the film. Stating that the character is Nolan's "worst decision as a director/writer" is ludicrous.

Agree to disagree, but I stand by my reasoning. I for one feel this character with the way she was written and the way she was portrayed poorly--TWICE--was always the weakest link from any of Nolan's films. The first time she was portrayed by someone very attractive but too babyfaced and with zero convincing acting skill. The second time, by someone not attractive at all and who also sounded like she was reading from the page. Between two movies the character has failed to make me care at all for her.

Much as I enjoy Nolan's decisions with his movies, he's not flawless to me and the writing and acting of Rachel Dawes stands out to me and many others fans as example(s) of his poorer decisions.

I like Maggie more than Katie but Katie's portrayal of Rachel was far better than Maggy's. The only problem with Katie's performance was that she couldn't keep her seriousness as a lawyer and be likable at the same time which is something that I think for example an actress like Reese Witherspoon could've done a lot better. The thing with Gyllenhaal was that she couldn't seem like a serious lawyer in the first place.

Oh there's no argument about the casting from my side, but the character is important - not just as a "love interest" - but for both BB and TDK to work.

She is essentially Harvey Dent in BB. She represents that ray of light in a corrupt justice service. Just like Gordon is that ray of light in a corrupt police department, and Batman is that ray of light in the corrupt society.

In TDK, that's why her and Harvey are together. The old meets the new with regards to the justice system in Gotham.

That triangle needs to exist, and we see when Dent is removed, that triangle no longer exists and hell breaks loose. It's useful imagery on Nolan's part, or at least that is how I interpret it.

yes, just for the sake of continuity.

that's a little flaw for a trilogy.

but nothing too serious.

Highland_3 wrote:Oh there's no argument about the casting from my side, but the character is important - not just as a "love interest" - but for both BB and TDK to work.

She is essentially Harvey Dent in BB. She represents that ray of light in a corrupt justice service. Just like Gordon is that ray of light in a corrupt police department, and Batman is that ray of light in the corrupt society.

I agree. And it would have been amazingly ballsy to follow that train of thought and turn Rachel into a female Two-Face (i.e. Harvey Dent would not even be in TDK).

TDK was of course an amazingly ballsy masterpiece anyway. I'm just curious about the road not taken.

I personally think that Maggie did a great job in her scene with The Joker. She looked truly terrified and it felt very real to me. Just saying.

"... And you are beautiful."

No, no she isn't. God, simply saying a character is beautiful doesn't make it true. Maggie Gyl is a good enough actress, but I seriously would have taken a less talented actress in favor of someone comparable to Bale or Eckhart's attraction and stature.

In your opinion. Worth noting because looks are incredibly subjective, and she has been super attractive in past roles.

In my opinion, she looked like shit in this. And she gave a mostly "okay" to bad performance. Never took much away from the movie though, minus a few scenes. She did well in the climactic chained up scene though.

-Vader