thenextnolan wrote:katie holmes is ONLY god-awful actress nolan has cast in any of his films so far...
i think youre just saying that out of impulse, it'd be nice to show some support for that response. youll never become the next nolan with that kind of input. wise up ldmanface:
The Silent Guardian wrote:I don't find a difference in the actresses. Rachel's character was stronger in BB, which is probably why some people like her over Maggie. However, they both gave equal performances.
i don't know about equal. i think christian bale was way more attracted to katie holmes than maggie, which could also be a reason(not the only) why bale gave a slightly better performance in BB than in Dark Knight. (as far as the bruce wayne and rachel scenes went) ldmanface:
Bale gave a better performance as Batman in BB because the story was completely around him.
As for his scenes with Rachel, he had more intense scenes in BB then in TDK, thus more intense acting, thus better acting.
MMatt wrote:Yeah, i hate recasting. No matter if the replacement is a better actor or not.
But you can't blame Nolan, he wanted Katie back. It's all Tom Cruise's fault apparently, ha.
actually i think it was just Katie's fault.. she preferred shooting that comedy with Queen Latifah... idiot
well, pity for her, she missed the 2008 best movie..
I think putting Katie in BB was a Cruise's idea instead... it was the year they got together (wasn't it?) and he wanted to make her appear in a great successful blockbuster, in order to promote their image and reputation. Nolan had chosen great actresses since BB (C-A. Moss, Hilary Swank), so it sounds strange that all of a sudden he chose that average tv-actress...
However, even if Maggie's a better actress, I hate recasting too.. it would have been better with Holmes again on board.
Katie Holmes didn't add anything to BB, but she didn't take too much away either. For me, she was just kind of there. I never would have cast her though.
Maggie on the other hand... Every line she delivered was cringe worthy to me. Awful, awful acting. And I don't know if it was the way they were lighting her (she isn't that bad looking in other movies), but she looked like a dog in TDK. I know it's harsh, but with each viewing of the movie the less I can stand her.
I feel Maggie Gyllenhaal did a much better job, she was much more genuine. She gave it an originality that Holmes never did.
If Katie Holmes had been in TDK her performance would not have mattered to me.
In fact after watching TDK, I wished Maggie would have been in BB.
Other than that, most guys find her unattractive because she's not as beautiful as their ridiculous standards of Megan Fox-like beauty, or whatever you people find attractive.
Maggie did a great job in TDK inspite of her limited role. But I still wish Katie had played it because BB was the only movie in which I thought she acted well, and secondly cos I'm not a fan of recasting in principle.
I never really understood why people complained about Katie in BB, sure she's not a great actor by any means, but Nolan is smart and gave her a role that didn't require much character development. The problem I had with Maggie wasn't her appearance (though Katie is far more attractive), but she seemed to be way overacting. She put so much enunciation and emphasis in her lines that it sounded like a play rather than an actual conversation.
horsehead wrote:Maggie on the other hand... Every line she delivered was cringe worthy to me. Awful, awful acting. And I don't know if it was the way they were lighting her (she isn't that bad looking in other movies), but she looked like a dog in TDK. I know it's harsh, but with each viewing of the movie the less I can stand her.
A woman's appearance should not ever be used as a reason to bash her. Ever. What about this is so fucking hard for people like you to grasp? I don't even.
ldmanface:
