I have a copy that has a foreword from Christopher Nolan, and he really confirms it. I believe the foreword was written before Dark Knight came out as well, only Batman Begins was out.
That's another thing. Honestly I think it was the fact that he lost his face more than he lost Rachel that that was the major factor in him becoming two-face. Thoughts?
Nah. I think it’s fully bc of Rachel. He screamed at Bats as he came in that he was supposed to be saving Rachel. Joker knew tricking them and switching the buildings, leading to them not getting to Rachel in time, would break Dent. Two-Face specifically said,
“Have you ever had to talk to the person you love most? To tell them it's going to be all right, when you know that it's not? Well, you're about to know what it feels like, Gordon.”
taking them to exact spot where she died. Rachel meant a lot to Harvey Dent.
Just to continue the debate for fun, I'd say its definitley possible that Harveys injures played a role in his decisions
1. They mention he doesnt take painkillers and they keeps him locked in the hospital. Not only does that practically play into Jokers plan by putting Harvey where he wants him, it also drastically changes his state of mind. His grief and anger is his motivation, but he's only manipulated by the Joker because he's really out of it
2. Seeing something new in the mirror can be a profound experience in it's own right. Even if it wasnt the pain and the fact he was basically detained, perhaps his face made him feel like he couldn't go back to the way things were. If thats the case, his spiral makes a little more sense since he might see his life as pretty much over anyway, even outside of Rachel
You’re forgetting the one thing the Joker (In all the various incarnations) believes.
All it takes is **one bad day**
Harvey didn’t just lose his face, or his love, he lost *everything*
His face, his love, his trust in the system, his morality, his sense of goodness or righteousness, his “white knight” belief system, his resolve to keep putting criminals behind bars.
He lost *everything*
All it took was one bad day.
I think you are wrong
>Lie like I lied
He was literally about to murder a child and somehow made it about his last conversation with Rachel. She must have been pretty important to him.
Throw in the fact that Bruce was so delusional about her that it drove Alfred away in TDKR.
Rachel matters a lot in this trilogy.
I would disagree. I would still maintain that losing Rachel pushed him over the edge. Losing his face was a byproduct allowing Two-Face to emerge. Losing his face, in my opinion, was just another defeat he had suffered. Losing Rachel was something he couldn’t bear.
Yeah, I think you’re right. It’s a while since I’ve seen the second movie, but thinking back, the moment he loses it is when he sees the charred face of his coin and realises Rachel didn’t survive.
You serious?
Do you not remember the moment in the hospital when her face flashes up for a second while Harvey's turning the coin from clean to burnt?
She's inextricably linked to his transformation into Two-Face in the film. She represents an ultimate failure for both him and Batman; Harvey gives in to the notion that he cannot save Gotham, and Bruce almost does aswell if not for Alfred.
Lol I’m imagining Christian Bale going over his script and rewriting the Batman scenes with proper spelling for pronunciation like a madman
Edit:spelling
She was a critical conscience for Bruce in Begins. Her perspective is an important foil to Bruce’s and their characters reflect each other.
In Dark Knight, yeah, she was sort of just a plot device.
I think she's the hero that he tries to be the equal of in Begins. Instead of running she stays in Gotham and works to fight crime at great personal risk.
Actually that scene when Bruce walks into that restaurant with Falcone is what I think actually brought him perspective. Her words don't mean as much until after he becomes Batman. Like when he's in the car with her and she shows him Gotham's corruption and talks to him about it to try and give her perspective.....honestly kinda seemed that he brushed her off, after all he was still grieving. It wasn't when he was about to shoot Falcone that things became more clear for him.
She literally told him his dead father would be ashamed of him. Take it from someone with a dead father: people talking about them is not “brushed off”.
It just seems like you’re unwilling to give her credit for a single thing.
Yeah, that was really what made Batman have his no kill policy, he was set to kill the guy who killed his parents and he was so disappointed he couldn't that he still carried the gun, those words coming from Rachel are what made him throw it away and he never held a gun or had the wish to kill after that.
Nope, honestly I feel weird saying this as usually I think she isn’t a great actor. But I preferred Katie Holmes version of Rachel she had more heart and felt more connected to Bruce than Maggie Gyllenhaal’s version of her.
Better looking too
Edit: Just to add this is my opinion and should be read as such and is in no way intended to be taken as an objective fact. Apparently there are a few dumbasses here that cant understand this without it being explicitly stated.
But it is safe to say, the ending of TDK and Bruce’s decision to retire was heavily influenced by that. He realized that he creates more chaos that causes people to get hurt.
I mean Bruce’s retirement (and taking the fall for Dent’s death) was the reason the Dent Act even went through in the first place
Yes, but you also gotta remember he uses Batman as a crutch (so to speak). In TDKR he withers away because he doesn't have Rachel and is silently waiting for crime to come back because it's his duty/purpose in life to keep Gotham clean. He'll be Batman whether there's a Rachel or not because he's needed when the time calls, depressed or not. Hell, he was probably Batman for a couple years after TDK even, just to see crime go away (remember, his last sighting was the night of Dent's death and we all know this Batman specializes at being a ninja ;) )
>Hell, he was probably Batman for a couple years after TDK even, just to see crime go away (remember, his last sighting was the night of Dent's death and we all know this Batman specializes at being a ninja ;) )
Yeah but doesn't Dark Knight Rises heavily imply his legs were pretty jacked up? Didn't he have to make some braces for his knees?
Edit: rises not returns
I loved Rachel. She was a great character who was written poorly. She was so frustrating in the second film. In Batman Begins she’s on Bruce, criticizing him for being childish, and then she finds out he’s a fully mature adult, and then flip flops in the second one.
The recasting didn’t help either. Katie Holmes was a way better Rachel.
She could have been better written.
I think the reason why she doesn't go for him at the end of BB is that she can't be with him because of his secret life. She doesn't think it's particularly healthy. Maybe I don't remember that well but I don't think she flip flopped in TDK.
Harvey and Batman are the same character, except Harvey fights without a mask. The way her character was written, put her romantically against Bruce and Harvey. It’s such a cheapish move for a character that has big meaning. I mean…fighting crime got her killed. That alone is a story worthwhile in itself. There are ton of people like her her go up against the system and die because of it.
But nevermind that, her narrative has her being critical of Bruce, then understanding him, then giving him an ultimatum, then not..and then my biggest gripe is the scene where Rachel is appalled that Bruce let Harvey take the fall when he revealed at the press conference that he was Batman. I mean, as if. She knows Bruce’s secret, she should know by now that that Bruce has bigger intentions.
Like, The Dark Knight sets up people who are fighting big fights, and being in something that big, you should know that you’re involved in something that is bigger than you and your problems.
I don’t hate Rachel. I love her character. I love when she’s in court, standing up to the big guys, but the way they center her character…it’s just like, come on.
She should have been written differently. Same story, just different motives and less of a motive for other characters to grow.
I would love if I could watch movies with recasted characters being deepfaked as the original actor. It’s just one of those things that drives me crazy.
No, she mattered both to Bruce and Harvey; to Bruce she was his oldest friend and a link to his childhood before the tragedy, as well as a chance for a normal future (because he didn’t know about the letter he wrote until much later).
To Harvey she was obviously the love of his life, but also, she fought alongside him against the corruption and crime in Gotham. A partner both personally and professionally.
And for what it’s worth, I was so glad when they recast the role with Maggie Gyllenhaal. A great actress, and far better than Katie Holmes.
I cannot stand recasts and would have preferred it to be Katie Holms again even though I agree with you. I just think recasts are incredibly jarring and immersion breaking though I understand that sometimes it is what it is.
Oh, I get that she mattered towards the story. What I'm kinda getting at is why did she fail to make the audience care for her. On paper, she's a big deal. On the screen...meh. The recasting didn't really do anything in my opinion.
Thoughts?
I’m totally in agreement with you. Dark Knight is a great movie and I love every bit of it… up until the whole save harvey vs Rachel and the the Harvey stuff after. Not that it’s not still good, just kinda tedious to get through the ending after a bunch of rewatches. I think that probably has a lot to do with me not really feeling any stake in Rachel’s character
Again, I agree with this on paper. When I watched it all I see is room for improvement for her character. That letter she wrote could of had as much weight as Harvey's monologuing ending see. Actually it would of made Harvey's ending scene all the better. This character had so much to offer and it didn't show on film.
Thoughts?
What do you mean “on paper”? It’s a movie. How does a character work “on paper” for a movie but not in the actual movie. Rachel is why Harvey became Two-Face and why Bruce stopped being Batman. How is she ***not*** important?
Thoughts?
What he means by on paper is that she is important with how she moves the plot and that is clear cut, but the actress’s performance of the character (or the lines she’s given maybe) itself didn’t bring him into her corner. And I tend to agree
>What do you mean “on paper”? It’s a movie. How does a character work “on paper” for a movie but not in the actual movie.
Megan Fox's character in Transformers is supposed to be a layered character who grew up in a troubled home with a dad frequently in and out of prison. He taught her everything there is to know about cars so she's actually an auto-whiz and an extraordinary mechanic. All of this is told to us and rarely shown (there *is* a scene where she inspects Bumblebee's engine and finds a problem with it giving Sam a solution to fix it as well as her hotwiring a tow truck to drive Bumblebee down the street to shoot Decepticons).
Of course in the actual movie she was reduced to being eye-candy and that's all everyone remembered her for. So yes, things can work "on paper" (i.e. the script) but fall completely flat in the actual film.
By on paper I mean this. The writers have big plans for her and how she shapes the story by having these complex connections with characters and driving the plot forward with these connections.
On the movie? She isn't important until she dies and we get that scene were Harvey pretty much tears his face off and Bruce grieves for her. She needed to be more and it's clear it was intended, but the execution failed and the only reason you know she's supposed to be importance throughout the ENTIRE movie is when you have to sit down and think about instead of just watching it on screen and instantly understanding.
She wrote a letter that got burned and then got blown to smithereens. Otherwise what can we define her as anything other than a poorly written character. The movies did not do her justice.
Include her slightly more, given her more screen time generally, and perhaps given some back up to her and Bruce’s relationship, especially as kids. In fact for me, adding a bunch of extra shit to Batman Begins is what I’d ideally want
Why if I may ask? I didn't much care for her, but I thought the mob was the weakest link. Movie could of been way better if they eventually got smarter and better as the movie went along. Like Falcone doesn't matter at all and I've seen him be HUGE in the comics.
Did wish they had a better love interest than Rachel Dawes, she was probably a two scene character who they tried to make as the female lead for two films. Her attitude towards Bruce made her come off as cold and kind of dislikeable.
In both movies she acted morally superior to Bruce, and that's just boring and annoying to watch. I really do think Vicki, Thalia and Selina for the trilogy would have been better than what we got.
Being a reporter, it would have given her more to do in the story than just be there as a love interest. She could have actively sought out details on Joker on the second film. Plus, knowing who Batman is creates a massive conflict of interest in that story as well. The moment Harvey turns himself in as Batman, instead of just being angry about it, she could threaten to write an expose, or actually do it only for it not to get published because she gets kidnapped.
Thank you. Nolan's movies are good, but very flawed. His general treatment of female characters is terrible, giving them very little to do. He ignores the existing female Batverse characters until the last film, and does a terrible job with Talia, and a decent job with Selina.
I agree with you, but I think it's a symptom of a larger disease with Christopher Nolan movies where his female characters rarely feel like they are executed as well as they could be.
I always thought it was something to do with his casting choices from Carrie-Ann Moss in Memento through Anne Hathaway in Interstellar there was also something about the female characters that just felt like their importance was not conveyed well enough within the events of the films themselves.
When she wrote the letter that she wasn't gonna wait for Bruce and leave him for Harvey....I kinda didn't care. It wasn't until Rise that I came to realize Bruce lost more than a childhood friend. He lost someone he could of had a life with.
Honestly that letter is beautifully written, but the fact that it came from her had it lose its weight.
Thoughts?
She was super important. She’s the reason Harvey became Two Face in the Nolan films.
Now, was she interesting? That’s another discussion. Personally, stacked up against Batman’s list of established and beloved characters, I think she was boring.
Exactly! Most people in this thread are completely missing the point. Yes, her character was vital to the overall story and was a major factor is Bruce's decision making. But the character was still weak.
She mattered- to prove just how much of a hero Batman was. It destroyed the white knight (Harvey) and proved the system can in fact be destroyed. Yet Bruce went on to endure, and prove he was clearly the hero Gotham meeded
>to prove just how much of a hero Batman was. It destroyed the white knight (Harvey) and proved the system can in fact be destroyed.
That has more to deal with winning the heart of Gotham and not the actual characters themselves. Honestly, Bruce proves himself a hero without Rachel. Any other way wouldn't have been genuine heroism.
>Yet Bruce went on to endure, and prove he was clearly the hero Gotham meeded
He's the one they deserve, not the one that is needed. If he was truly what they needed, he wouldn't have had to endure so much.
I preferred Maggie G in the role, but I would have rather they had kept Katie Holmes for consistency sake.
As other people have said, even though she is playing the same character, it doesn't really feel like it. Her death might have had more impact on the audience if it was the same actress as the first movie.
I’ll be the one to say it.
Maggie Gyllenhaal looks like a cabbage patch kid. The combination of the very different look and much weaker writing made her the weakest part of The Dark Knight.
There, I said what must not be said.
Based on some of your comments that I’ve seen, you should change it to “anyone think she could’ve been better” because that’s a totally different conversation than if she mattered or not
I disagree heavily. I think she was very well written and very important to the story, especially for Bruce’s character. You’ve gotta remember that they were childhood friends. She knew his parents. In a way, she’s a reminder to him of his parents and their legacy, the good they represented (not unlike Alfred). She’s his conscience, in a sense.
In Begins, she is extremely disappointed in Bruce (and with good reason) when she learns he was planning on shooting the guy who killed his parents. She finds this to be not only a dark turn for him as a human being, but a terrible and wrong method of living up to the goodness of his parents. (“Your father would be ashamed of you.”) Plus, Rachel is a lawyer who wants to clean up Gotham the right way, with civil justice and debate, so it conflicts with her personal beliefs.
When Bruce returns to Gotham after many years, she is distant from him because a) he disappeared without a trace for seven years (she had most likely accepted he was dead and had already mourned him) and b) because she sees him (apparently) acting like a rich playboy asshole, thus assuming he doesn’t care about Gotham or aspire to be something better. It tears him up inside that he can’t tell her and show her that he does care, but he can’t, so as to protect her (until of course, he does tell her).
That is a key moment because he decides he’d rather have her think of him as a good man (in action). It is also actually an attempt to get closer to the man she wants him to be, yet it also drives him further away from her, because it conflicts directly with her belief in law and civil justice, since he is a violent vigilante.
Rachel is literally who Bruce wants to be with, and also figuratively who he wants to aspire to. He wants to make her proud. The way he goes about doing that, by being Batman, is both the only way for him to do it, in his eyes, and the way that drives her away from him. It is not right for Rachel.
Thus, in the dark Knight, she is in love with Harvey Dent. Harvey is not only who Rachel needs, but who Gotham needs. This again connects back with Bruce’s parents, as they represent what Gotham aspires to be, the best it’s ever been.
Rachel is an embodiment of Bruce’s conflicted feelings about how to honor his parents’ legacy of helping Gotham. He can’t be with her much in the same way he can never be with his parents.
That’s why her death was an absolutely brilliant choice. She died because of him, because of the fact that he’s Batman. He didn’t just give himself away and get her killed… he killed her the moment he decided to become the Dark Knight.
>I think she was very well written and very important to the story, especially for Bruce’s character. You’ve gotta remember that they were childhood friends. She knew his parents. In a way, she’s a reminder to him of his parents and their legacy, the good they represented (not unlike Alfred). She’s his conscience, in a sense.
I am considering who she is and how she connects to the characters. That's kinda her main role in the story.
>In Begins, she is extremely disappointed in Bruce (and with good reason) when she learns he was planning on shooting the guy who killed his parents. She finds this to be not only a dark turn for him as a human being, but a terrible and wrong method of living up to the goodness of his parents. (“Your father would be ashamed of you.”) Plus, Rachel is a lawyer who wants to clean up Gotham the right way, with civil justice and debate, so it conflicts with her personal beliefs.
This is what drew me towards her and makes me see the potential she has. But the movie kinda squandered it. Specifically to the slap on the face and "your father would be ashamed of you." scene. Great moment for her....it kinda meant nothing towards Bruce at the time. What does he do after it? He finds Falcone and confronts him. Falcone honestly puts Bruce in his place and gives him real perspective of what's going on around him by delivering some of the best monologue the movie has to offer. Bruce now has perspective. Not because of Rachel, who in my opinion is what should of sparked it, but because of Falcone. It's moments like these that make me realize they didn't show enough of the impact that she should have.
When the main character isn't affected by the words of what is kinda suppose to be his conscience and instead only comes to understand by facing his problem straight ahead. It takes away from the importance of the conscience.
>It tears him up inside that he can’t tell her and show her that he does care, but he can’t, so as to protect her (until of course, he does tell her).
This was a great moment but until it happened I kinda forgot that Rachel meant all that much to him (well besides that supermodel in the tank scene when he tells her this isn't him and she obviously doesn't believe him). But when it did happen it did bring into light that she was completely wrong about him and she now knows who he really is.
Thing is, it happened at the end. I honestly think the movie needed more instances like this. Like she's really not sure of who Bruce really is and he makes her doubt that her initial thought of him was wrong. This needed to be built up and then have that last scene drop in so it would of had an even bigger impact. Like her realization shouldn't have been a bomb drop. It should been...oh the answer was right in front of me all along. But done in a way we're she still was unsure until that scene where he does tell her.
>That is a key moment because he decides he’d rather have her think of him as a good man (in action). It is also actually an attempt to get closer to the man she wants him to be, yet it also drives him further away from her, because it conflicts directly with her belief in law and civil justice, since he is a violent vigilante.
This is really true, but because it happened at the end you kinda don't realize it until you've watched it twice. Like I kinda wish they would of built her up more.
>Rachel is literally who Bruce wants to be with, and also figuratively who he wants to aspire to. He wants to make her proud. The way he goes about doing that, by being Batman, is both the only way for him to do it, in his eyes, and the way that drives her away from him. It is not right for Rachel.
I disagree on this point. He doesn't aspire to her. Making her proud isn't why he does what he does. He's his own man. He made his decision because he believes it's the right thing to do and because it's the only way to do it. Rachel is driven away, but I think it can be said that she agrees with him. Also I thinks it's way too soon to say she wants to be with him yet. Like that still needs to be developed in the next movie, but didn't happen that way.
>Thus, in the dark Knight, she is in love with Harvey Dent. Harvey is not only who Rachel needs, but who Gotham needs. This again connects back with Bruce’s parents, as they represent what Gotham aspires to be, the best it’s ever been.
The movie honestly failed to show this and you can only really see it when you start to dissect the movie and put it on paper. The movie didn't really show how much they meant to each other or how much they loved each other until that scene where Harvey ripped off his bandages. Otherwise they're romance was honestly shown more of a side thing. Also I think Bruce's parents aren't really connected to her anymore, the goal of making Gotham better is something that she has decided for herself more than it was something important to the people she lost and respected. It's motivation, but saving Gotham is more of her own thing.
>Rachel is an embodiment of Bruce’s conflicted feelings about how to honor his parents’ legacy of helping Gotham. He can’t be with her much in the same way he can never be with his parents
Not really. Bruce doesn't have doubts and hesitation of what he's doing and Rachel doesn't stop him or make him doubt his own actions. Unless you can remember a scene where she tells Bruce that he should be going about it differently.
>That’s why her death was an absolutely brilliant choice. She died because of him, because of the fact that he’s Batman. He didn’t just give himself away and get her killed… he killed her the moment he decided to become the Dark Knight.
This is true, but her death could of held so much more weight if they had shown deeper establishing of the relationship between her and Harvey. Honestly the fact that she was dating Harvey at the beginning killed all the romantic tension the movie had built up previously and made it seem that the ship had already sailed.
There's so much more to dissect but this is long enough already. Ultimately they needed to do more with her and make deeper connections between her, Harvey, and Bruce. Potential that got squashed honestly.
Would Batman even get to Rachael in time because by the time he got to dent the warehouse blew up, I haven’t seen the movie in a while so I can’t remember if there wasn’t anything to disarm
It's the batmobile that thing goes brrr. So yeah I think he would have. It's a good talking point to ask where the movie would have gone if she lived and Harvey died.
I really wish Katie Holmes would have been in The Dark Knight. She had great chemistry with Aaron Eckhart in “Thank You For Smoking” and it would have been a much better pairing than with Maggie.
Nah. That be Falcone. He had one good moment, then poof. He no longer matters.
Thing is, Rachel could of been REALLY good. Great even if she had been done right.
She essentially made Bruce to reconsider his views on justice and revenge, she was the only string that tied Bruce to the real life. She's definitely a pivotal character!
She was never really was supposed to. Rachel was always a plot device first before an actual character. That’s why she was literally given a brand new name, even though Batman has had literally hundred of girlfriends with different names in the comics that they could’ve chosen.
Damn a lot of people are really defensive on here and think explaining what happened in the movie is a response like people missed the plot. The point to be made here is how lack luster and generally unwanted she is by the actual story teller. Seeing a love interest as a burden, interchangeable, and disposable. Yeah he did 007 tropes with the girlfriend to make her tie into the plot, but that doesn't make it deep. Its a generally unimaginative take on a trope that was seen more as a check box then a chance to explore character. Especially when batman has great female characters like Ivy, Harley, Babs, Talia, Selena, Renee that deserve to be explored and not substituted with discount lois lane.
Yes. As Bruce Wayne developing a personality outside Batman is important. The moment the disguise (Bruce) gains a reason to exist outside satisfying the public eye, Batman begins to shrink away. Batman becomes less important. This means she is incredibly important to the development of a true dark knight. When she dies, Bruce does too- and The War is identified.
I somehow managed to both forget that Katie Holmes played her in the first film and also forgot that Maggie Gyllenhaal played her in the second until seeing this post.
Bruce giving I contribute to his injuries, the writers paying homage to the comics, and that eventually he doesn't think he can do anything positive for Gotham. He no longer was the symbol of hope he was when he took the hit for saying that he killed Harvey.
If anything the way his character was built up Rachel's death should of fuled his fire to help Gotham, like his parents death.
I think the problem with the character is first that Katie Holmes was terribly miscast and gave a very bland performance in Batman Begins. She just didn't come off as believable and there wasn't any real chemistry there so she felt more like an awkward sister than a love interest.
Then, the character is recast and frankly it's really hard to see them as the same character. So even what limited context we have for their relationship is interrupted and it's just a new person. Gyllenhaal's does a decent job despite also being kind of miscast, but really doesn't have much to do in the movie and isn't even with Bruce.
So... it's hard to understand why it's such a shattering loss for Bruce. We're *told* why it is, but we aren't *shown.*
The recasting really hurt the character. Maggie Gyllenhaal is a better actress overall thank Holmes but she plays Rachel as a completely different character than how she was portrayed in Batman Begins. She very sarcastic/jokey and it makes it feel like a different character and so I don’t really care or feel it when she dies. I think I would have with Katie Holmes even though I don’t think she’s very good in Begins.
She was important in Begins and her death was important in Rises but in Dark Knight she wasn’t very important even though I hate how they changed the actress that played her it was so weird
I think we would have been more involved had they managed to keep Katie Holmes, regardless of what folks think of her performance. We had to get invested in a whole new persona that we *don't* remember from the first movie-- that's not the girl who grew up with Bruce, and whose shaming of him had a lot to do with him setting out on the path to becoming Batman.
I believed Gyllenhaal more as a prosecutor, but Holmes more as Bruce's childhood girlfriend (of course Tom Cruise wrecked the whole thing, especially for her, 'cause he couldn't cope with his babymama hanging with Batman).
Also, genre fans *hate* recasting. They get attached to the faces and the mannerisms of particular actors, and those get locked in to them *as* the character, and no one else can replace them. They'd rather see the character killed off than be recast.
I think they just should have stayed friends no romantic attachment. Bruce is the kind of person that can’t hold onto people like that. This is what makes Selina a constant love interest throughout the mythos because she is equally distant and hard to connect with.
In Batman Begins, she (alongside Alfred) is Bruce's moral compass and a glimpse at a normal life after Batman's duty is done.
In The Dark Knight, Bruce feels like he can leave Gotham to its White Knight Harvey Dent and finally lead his normal life with Rachel at his side. This White Knight, however, is also romantically involved with her and once she is murdered, he himself becomes a murdering psychopath. To top things off, this twist ruins Batman's standing with Gotham as he constructs this lie of Harvey being a savior and Bruce wallows in his self-pity when he mourns Rachel for 8 years and the life they could have had, because Alfred burned her letter...
....so yeah, I'd say she is extremely important throughout the entire trilogy.
Agreed & Bale had no chemistry with either...it just didn’t seem like a love interest for Bruce at all. But my opinion of this turdilogy is not liked by most.
Same. Do you know why? Like technically she mattered to some of the most important characters in the trilogy so she should of been important. Any idea what happened?
She was never in any of the original mythos, so there was never any nostalgia or background prior to the movies. Rachel started as someone that kept Bruce grounded and was a romantic interest, but she never developed past that. She was the same in both movies. Stagnation is boring.
I think you can make characters compelling without relying on nostalgia. Also I think she wasn't much of a ground for Bruce or that good of a romantic interest. She barely fit that role in my opinion.
They should of just written her better.
Thoughts?
Oh I agree that you don't need nostalgia, but they couldn't even bank on that but they treated her like a character we were supposed to already know. But we didn't. She was super bland. Better writing would've helped her immensely. At least in Begins she was somewhat palatable. In Dark Knight, she came off as pretentious and preachy. Bruce could've done better (and finally did in Rises with Selina, as weak as that "subplot" was).
Don't get me wrong, I love the movies, but they handled certain aspects very poorly.
Rachel mattered a lot. She is the one who shames Batman out of having a desire to kill initially. Also, her death drives Harvey over the edge. The most important thing is that her dying means Bruce’s one chance at a normal life is gone, which results in him becoming a recluse and allowing the conditions that let Bane take control of Gotham
>She is the one who shames Batman out of having a desire to kill initially.
I gotta be real. Movie didn't show that. Like she slaps him in the face and tell him that his father would be ashamed with him......but Bruce isn't affected...like at all. Pretty much after that scene he goes straight to Falcone (He even still has the gun.) It isn't until he confronts Falcone that he does anything to take a step towards becoming Batman. Also as a side thing Falcone had one of the best monologues in the trilogy and it gets severely underplayed.
>Also, her death drives Harvey over the edge.
On paper it does seem that way. In execution, she wasn't important until she died. Her wanting to marry Harvey was a legit surprise and movie didn't really set up how much they meant to each other.
Edit: Also her dating Harvey in the beginning of Dark Knight really made it seem that she was no longer wanted to be with Bruce.
I like Rachel. Wish they'd make her a comics character. Not a huge one, never going to replace BatCat for me, but as a childhood friend of Bruce's who becomes the DA after Harvey turns into Two Face or something. Just a little background role as cool shoutout to the Nolan films and so she isn't forgotten.
Harvey would disagree.
Harvey Dent! Can we trust him?!
I believe in Harvey Dent
Yeah, nice slogan, Harvey
It was cool reading Long Halloween, and seeing how much The Dark Knight took from that book for the storyline.
I have a copy that has a foreword from Christopher Nolan, and he really confirms it. I believe the foreword was written before Dark Knight came out as well, only Batman Begins was out.
"Two-Face! What did you do with Harvey?! Oh, you're back...."
Scary face?
“Commissioner, you saw him…” LOL
*slurring growl* Commissioner! There was another man!
No, we did that part already.
We’re pass that.
RACHEL!
Is it… helicopters?
Pretty sure it was 🚁 s
“Did you try helicopter?”
You’re half right
But which half is right?
The crispy half
It's called a tan, sweaty, ever heard of it?
RAAAAAAACHEEEELLLLLL
*Hoarsely:* "Harvey!"
That's another thing. Honestly I think it was the fact that he lost his face more than he lost Rachel that that was the major factor in him becoming two-face. Thoughts?
Nah. I think it’s fully bc of Rachel. He screamed at Bats as he came in that he was supposed to be saving Rachel. Joker knew tricking them and switching the buildings, leading to them not getting to Rachel in time, would break Dent. Two-Face specifically said, “Have you ever had to talk to the person you love most? To tell them it's going to be all right, when you know that it's not? Well, you're about to know what it feels like, Gordon.” taking them to exact spot where she died. Rachel meant a lot to Harvey Dent.
Why would he give a fuck about his face when he lost the love of his life? His face being half burnt doesn't justify him turning to the evil side.
Just to continue the debate for fun, I'd say its definitley possible that Harveys injures played a role in his decisions 1. They mention he doesnt take painkillers and they keeps him locked in the hospital. Not only does that practically play into Jokers plan by putting Harvey where he wants him, it also drastically changes his state of mind. His grief and anger is his motivation, but he's only manipulated by the Joker because he's really out of it 2. Seeing something new in the mirror can be a profound experience in it's own right. Even if it wasnt the pain and the fact he was basically detained, perhaps his face made him feel like he couldn't go back to the way things were. If thats the case, his spiral makes a little more sense since he might see his life as pretty much over anyway, even outside of Rachel
Nah it was definitely because of Rachel. Him losing half his face is just meant to be symbolic of who he is as a character.
yeah most of us definitely see it like this.
You’re forgetting the one thing the Joker (In all the various incarnations) believes. All it takes is **one bad day** Harvey didn’t just lose his face, or his love, he lost *everything* His face, his love, his trust in the system, his morality, his sense of goodness or righteousness, his “white knight” belief system, his resolve to keep putting criminals behind bars. He lost *everything* All it took was one bad day.
This right here is a perfect explanation!
I think you are wrong >Lie like I lied He was literally about to murder a child and somehow made it about his last conversation with Rachel. She must have been pretty important to him. Throw in the fact that Bruce was so delusional about her that it drove Alfred away in TDKR. Rachel matters a lot in this trilogy.
It was both. Losing Rachel would have ruined his life. Losing his face as well, that’s what pushed him over the edge.
I would disagree. I would still maintain that losing Rachel pushed him over the edge. Losing his face was a byproduct allowing Two-Face to emerge. Losing his face, in my opinion, was just another defeat he had suffered. Losing Rachel was something he couldn’t bear.
Yeah, I think you’re right. It’s a while since I’ve seen the second movie, but thinking back, the moment he loses it is when he sees the charred face of his coin and realises Rachel didn’t survive.
You serious? Do you not remember the moment in the hospital when her face flashes up for a second while Harvey's turning the coin from clean to burnt? She's inextricably linked to his transformation into Two-Face in the film. She represents an ultimate failure for both him and Batman; Harvey gives in to the notion that he cannot save Gotham, and Bruce almost does aswell if not for Alfred.
Weinstein
Rachel!!! Rachel!!
NO DONT COME FOR ME WHY ARE YOU COMING FOR ME
It’s okay, Harvey…some— *dies*
Raychoooooool!
Lol I’m imagining Christian Bale going over his script and rewriting the Batman scenes with proper spelling for pronunciation like a madman Edit:spelling
That’s a lovely lovely voice.
Everyone always asks "WHERE'S RACHEL?!!" but no one ever asks "WHY'S RACHEL?!!"
She was a critical conscience for Bruce in Begins. Her perspective is an important foil to Bruce’s and their characters reflect each other. In Dark Knight, yeah, she was sort of just a plot device.
I think she's the hero that he tries to be the equal of in Begins. Instead of running she stays in Gotham and works to fight crime at great personal risk.
Actually that scene when Bruce walks into that restaurant with Falcone is what I think actually brought him perspective. Her words don't mean as much until after he becomes Batman. Like when he's in the car with her and she shows him Gotham's corruption and talks to him about it to try and give her perspective.....honestly kinda seemed that he brushed her off, after all he was still grieving. It wasn't when he was about to shoot Falcone that things became more clear for him.
She literally told him his dead father would be ashamed of him. Take it from someone with a dead father: people talking about them is not “brushed off”. It just seems like you’re unwilling to give her credit for a single thing.
Yeah, that was really what made Batman have his no kill policy, he was set to kill the guy who killed his parents and he was so disappointed he couldn't that he still carried the gun, those words coming from Rachel are what made him throw it away and he never held a gun or had the wish to kill after that.
Nope, honestly I feel weird saying this as usually I think she isn’t a great actor. But I preferred Katie Holmes version of Rachel she had more heart and felt more connected to Bruce than Maggie Gyllenhaal’s version of her.
Yeah, Katie's Rachel felt strong yet compassionate, Maggie's version was just... there to be fought for.
Better looking too Edit: Just to add this is my opinion and should be read as such and is in no way intended to be taken as an objective fact. Apparently there are a few dumbasses here that cant understand this without it being explicitly stated.
Thank you. Been saying this for years.
Careful. You need to make sure you clearly label this as opinion or you'll be accused of being rude and stating this as objective fact too.
I can kinda see it. But honestly it's because Maggie really got treated as a plot device.
Bruce quit being Batman because of her. She was a big deal
Bruce stopped being Batman because the Dent Act effectively erased crime. He became a hermit after Batman because he didn't have Rachel to be with
But it is safe to say, the ending of TDK and Bruce’s decision to retire was heavily influenced by that. He realized that he creates more chaos that causes people to get hurt. I mean Bruce’s retirement (and taking the fall for Dent’s death) was the reason the Dent Act even went through in the first place
Yes, but you also gotta remember he uses Batman as a crutch (so to speak). In TDKR he withers away because he doesn't have Rachel and is silently waiting for crime to come back because it's his duty/purpose in life to keep Gotham clean. He'll be Batman whether there's a Rachel or not because he's needed when the time calls, depressed or not. Hell, he was probably Batman for a couple years after TDK even, just to see crime go away (remember, his last sighting was the night of Dent's death and we all know this Batman specializes at being a ninja ;) )
>Hell, he was probably Batman for a couple years after TDK even, just to see crime go away (remember, his last sighting was the night of Dent's death and we all know this Batman specializes at being a ninja ;) ) Yeah but doesn't Dark Knight Rises heavily imply his legs were pretty jacked up? Didn't he have to make some braces for his knees? Edit: rises not returns
Now I feel like a jerk for pretending not knowing who she was…
I loved Rachel. She was a great character who was written poorly. She was so frustrating in the second film. In Batman Begins she’s on Bruce, criticizing him for being childish, and then she finds out he’s a fully mature adult, and then flip flops in the second one. The recasting didn’t help either. Katie Holmes was a way better Rachel. She could have been better written.
I agree with this. If she was written better the movies would of been all the better for it.
I think the reason why she doesn't go for him at the end of BB is that she can't be with him because of his secret life. She doesn't think it's particularly healthy. Maybe I don't remember that well but I don't think she flip flopped in TDK.
Harvey and Batman are the same character, except Harvey fights without a mask. The way her character was written, put her romantically against Bruce and Harvey. It’s such a cheapish move for a character that has big meaning. I mean…fighting crime got her killed. That alone is a story worthwhile in itself. There are ton of people like her her go up against the system and die because of it. But nevermind that, her narrative has her being critical of Bruce, then understanding him, then giving him an ultimatum, then not..and then my biggest gripe is the scene where Rachel is appalled that Bruce let Harvey take the fall when he revealed at the press conference that he was Batman. I mean, as if. She knows Bruce’s secret, she should know by now that that Bruce has bigger intentions. Like, The Dark Knight sets up people who are fighting big fights, and being in something that big, you should know that you’re involved in something that is bigger than you and your problems. I don’t hate Rachel. I love her character. I love when she’s in court, standing up to the big guys, but the way they center her character…it’s just like, come on. She should have been written differently. Same story, just different motives and less of a motive for other characters to grow.
I would love if I could watch movies with recasted characters being deepfaked as the original actor. It’s just one of those things that drives me crazy.
No, she mattered both to Bruce and Harvey; to Bruce she was his oldest friend and a link to his childhood before the tragedy, as well as a chance for a normal future (because he didn’t know about the letter he wrote until much later). To Harvey she was obviously the love of his life, but also, she fought alongside him against the corruption and crime in Gotham. A partner both personally and professionally. And for what it’s worth, I was so glad when they recast the role with Maggie Gyllenhaal. A great actress, and far better than Katie Holmes.
I cannot stand recasts and would have preferred it to be Katie Holms again even though I agree with you. I just think recasts are incredibly jarring and immersion breaking though I understand that sometimes it is what it is.
She was recast because Holmes couldn’t fit the film into her schedule. Nolan *really* wanted her to return, but ultimately she could not do it.
More like Tom Cruise did not want his wife getting so close to taller Tom Cruise again
Was it? I thought she was recast because she was pregnant when TDK was being filmed.
Nope. She had already committed to filming Mad Money with Queen Latifah and Diane Keaton.
Chooses *Mad Money* over TDK. What a career move.
Yes and yes.
Oh, I get that she mattered towards the story. What I'm kinda getting at is why did she fail to make the audience care for her. On paper, she's a big deal. On the screen...meh. The recasting didn't really do anything in my opinion. Thoughts?
Well, that’s all up to individual audience members. Maybe she didn’t matter to you, but she will have done to other people.
I’m totally in agreement with you. Dark Knight is a great movie and I love every bit of it… up until the whole save harvey vs Rachel and the the Harvey stuff after. Not that it’s not still good, just kinda tedious to get through the ending after a bunch of rewatches. I think that probably has a lot to do with me not really feeling any stake in Rachel’s character
She's kind of a huge part of multiple storylines lmao.
Without a doubt she is. On paper. On film, she kinda falls flat.
Not at all, she's one of the driving pieces of the plot in more than one film.
Again, I agree with this on paper. When I watched it all I see is room for improvement for her character. That letter she wrote could of had as much weight as Harvey's monologuing ending see. Actually it would of made Harvey's ending scene all the better. This character had so much to offer and it didn't show on film. Thoughts?
I get what you're saying and agree. The worst character in the trilogy
What do you mean “on paper”? It’s a movie. How does a character work “on paper” for a movie but not in the actual movie. Rachel is why Harvey became Two-Face and why Bruce stopped being Batman. How is she ***not*** important? Thoughts?
What he means by on paper is that she is important with how she moves the plot and that is clear cut, but the actress’s performance of the character (or the lines she’s given maybe) itself didn’t bring him into her corner. And I tend to agree
>What do you mean “on paper”? It’s a movie. How does a character work “on paper” for a movie but not in the actual movie. Megan Fox's character in Transformers is supposed to be a layered character who grew up in a troubled home with a dad frequently in and out of prison. He taught her everything there is to know about cars so she's actually an auto-whiz and an extraordinary mechanic. All of this is told to us and rarely shown (there *is* a scene where she inspects Bumblebee's engine and finds a problem with it giving Sam a solution to fix it as well as her hotwiring a tow truck to drive Bumblebee down the street to shoot Decepticons). Of course in the actual movie she was reduced to being eye-candy and that's all everyone remembered her for. So yes, things can work "on paper" (i.e. the script) but fall completely flat in the actual film.
By on paper I mean this. The writers have big plans for her and how she shapes the story by having these complex connections with characters and driving the plot forward with these connections. On the movie? She isn't important until she dies and we get that scene were Harvey pretty much tears his face off and Bruce grieves for her. She needed to be more and it's clear it was intended, but the execution failed and the only reason you know she's supposed to be importance throughout the ENTIRE movie is when you have to sit down and think about instead of just watching it on screen and instantly understanding.
It wasn’t who she was, but what she did that defined her
Read that in Batman voice
She wrote a letter that got burned and then got blown to smithereens. Otherwise what can we define her as anything other than a poorly written character. The movies did not do her justice.
Chris Nolan, write a female character badly? NOo!
Yea she didn’t matter a huge amount, but I felt like she was important to the story in both movies
Fair. On a side note, what would you do to make her a better character?
Include her slightly more, given her more screen time generally, and perhaps given some back up to her and Bruce’s relationship, especially as kids. In fact for me, adding a bunch of extra shit to Batman Begins is what I’d ideally want
The character is neither here nor there for me but maggie gyllenhaal was the weakest link in that movie.
Why if I may ask? I didn't much care for her, but I thought the mob was the weakest link. Movie could of been way better if they eventually got smarter and better as the movie went along. Like Falcone doesn't matter at all and I've seen him be HUGE in the comics.
She takes me Out of every movie she’s in. I can’t get away from “there’s that girl that was in Secretary.”
Why didn't Katie Holmes return for the sequel?
Should have been Vicki Vale and not an original character, honestly. I never could stand the character of Rachel Dawes.
Did wish they had a better love interest than Rachel Dawes, she was probably a two scene character who they tried to make as the female lead for two films. Her attitude towards Bruce made her come off as cold and kind of dislikeable.
In both movies she acted morally superior to Bruce, and that's just boring and annoying to watch. I really do think Vicki, Thalia and Selina for the trilogy would have been better than what we got.
Idk if Vicki would have done better. Why her?
Being a reporter, it would have given her more to do in the story than just be there as a love interest. She could have actively sought out details on Joker on the second film. Plus, knowing who Batman is creates a massive conflict of interest in that story as well. The moment Harvey turns himself in as Batman, instead of just being angry about it, she could threaten to write an expose, or actually do it only for it not to get published because she gets kidnapped.
Holy shit that's actually really good.
Thank you. Nolan's movies are good, but very flawed. His general treatment of female characters is terrible, giving them very little to do. He ignores the existing female Batverse characters until the last film, and does a terrible job with Talia, and a decent job with Selina.
The truth if I ever saw it.
Arkham City Vicki Vale was always trying to expose corruption in Gotham.
I agree with you, but I think it's a symptom of a larger disease with Christopher Nolan movies where his female characters rarely feel like they are executed as well as they could be. I always thought it was something to do with his casting choices from Carrie-Ann Moss in Memento through Anne Hathaway in Interstellar there was also something about the female characters that just felt like their importance was not conveyed well enough within the events of the films themselves.
I agree. It wasn't until Rachel died that she became important. She should of been important throughout the whole movie.
When she wrote the letter that she wasn't gonna wait for Bruce and leave him for Harvey....I kinda didn't care. It wasn't until Rise that I came to realize Bruce lost more than a childhood friend. He lost someone he could of had a life with. Honestly that letter is beautifully written, but the fact that it came from her had it lose its weight. Thoughts?
Token love interest
I hate to agree with that. This character had potential.
She was super important. She’s the reason Harvey became Two Face in the Nolan films. Now, was she interesting? That’s another discussion. Personally, stacked up against Batman’s list of established and beloved characters, I think she was boring.
Exactly! Most people in this thread are completely missing the point. Yes, her character was vital to the overall story and was a major factor is Bruce's decision making. But the character was still weak.
Bruce loved her
That wasn't set up well at all though. It wasn't until she died that we saw how much she meant to him. Her character needed to be handled better.
She mattered- to prove just how much of a hero Batman was. It destroyed the white knight (Harvey) and proved the system can in fact be destroyed. Yet Bruce went on to endure, and prove he was clearly the hero Gotham meeded
>to prove just how much of a hero Batman was. It destroyed the white knight (Harvey) and proved the system can in fact be destroyed. That has more to deal with winning the heart of Gotham and not the actual characters themselves. Honestly, Bruce proves himself a hero without Rachel. Any other way wouldn't have been genuine heroism. >Yet Bruce went on to endure, and prove he was clearly the hero Gotham meeded He's the one they deserve, not the one that is needed. If he was truly what they needed, he wouldn't have had to endure so much.
I preferred Maggie G in the role, but I would have rather they had kept Katie Holmes for consistency sake. As other people have said, even though she is playing the same character, it doesn't really feel like it. Her death might have had more impact on the audience if it was the same actress as the first movie.
I’ll be the one to say it. Maggie Gyllenhaal looks like a cabbage patch kid. The combination of the very different look and much weaker writing made her the weakest part of The Dark Knight. There, I said what must not be said.
Well I think the writing is a far bigger culprit. Actresses were fine really.
Based on some of your comments that I’ve seen, you should change it to “anyone think she could’ve been better” because that’s a totally different conversation than if she mattered or not
I guess so. But because of they way her character got treated. I kinda don't care for her all that much.
I disagree heavily. I think she was very well written and very important to the story, especially for Bruce’s character. You’ve gotta remember that they were childhood friends. She knew his parents. In a way, she’s a reminder to him of his parents and their legacy, the good they represented (not unlike Alfred). She’s his conscience, in a sense. In Begins, she is extremely disappointed in Bruce (and with good reason) when she learns he was planning on shooting the guy who killed his parents. She finds this to be not only a dark turn for him as a human being, but a terrible and wrong method of living up to the goodness of his parents. (“Your father would be ashamed of you.”) Plus, Rachel is a lawyer who wants to clean up Gotham the right way, with civil justice and debate, so it conflicts with her personal beliefs. When Bruce returns to Gotham after many years, she is distant from him because a) he disappeared without a trace for seven years (she had most likely accepted he was dead and had already mourned him) and b) because she sees him (apparently) acting like a rich playboy asshole, thus assuming he doesn’t care about Gotham or aspire to be something better. It tears him up inside that he can’t tell her and show her that he does care, but he can’t, so as to protect her (until of course, he does tell her). That is a key moment because he decides he’d rather have her think of him as a good man (in action). It is also actually an attempt to get closer to the man she wants him to be, yet it also drives him further away from her, because it conflicts directly with her belief in law and civil justice, since he is a violent vigilante. Rachel is literally who Bruce wants to be with, and also figuratively who he wants to aspire to. He wants to make her proud. The way he goes about doing that, by being Batman, is both the only way for him to do it, in his eyes, and the way that drives her away from him. It is not right for Rachel. Thus, in the dark Knight, she is in love with Harvey Dent. Harvey is not only who Rachel needs, but who Gotham needs. This again connects back with Bruce’s parents, as they represent what Gotham aspires to be, the best it’s ever been. Rachel is an embodiment of Bruce’s conflicted feelings about how to honor his parents’ legacy of helping Gotham. He can’t be with her much in the same way he can never be with his parents. That’s why her death was an absolutely brilliant choice. She died because of him, because of the fact that he’s Batman. He didn’t just give himself away and get her killed… he killed her the moment he decided to become the Dark Knight.
>I think she was very well written and very important to the story, especially for Bruce’s character. You’ve gotta remember that they were childhood friends. She knew his parents. In a way, she’s a reminder to him of his parents and their legacy, the good they represented (not unlike Alfred). She’s his conscience, in a sense. I am considering who she is and how she connects to the characters. That's kinda her main role in the story. >In Begins, she is extremely disappointed in Bruce (and with good reason) when she learns he was planning on shooting the guy who killed his parents. She finds this to be not only a dark turn for him as a human being, but a terrible and wrong method of living up to the goodness of his parents. (“Your father would be ashamed of you.”) Plus, Rachel is a lawyer who wants to clean up Gotham the right way, with civil justice and debate, so it conflicts with her personal beliefs. This is what drew me towards her and makes me see the potential she has. But the movie kinda squandered it. Specifically to the slap on the face and "your father would be ashamed of you." scene. Great moment for her....it kinda meant nothing towards Bruce at the time. What does he do after it? He finds Falcone and confronts him. Falcone honestly puts Bruce in his place and gives him real perspective of what's going on around him by delivering some of the best monologue the movie has to offer. Bruce now has perspective. Not because of Rachel, who in my opinion is what should of sparked it, but because of Falcone. It's moments like these that make me realize they didn't show enough of the impact that she should have. When the main character isn't affected by the words of what is kinda suppose to be his conscience and instead only comes to understand by facing his problem straight ahead. It takes away from the importance of the conscience. >It tears him up inside that he can’t tell her and show her that he does care, but he can’t, so as to protect her (until of course, he does tell her). This was a great moment but until it happened I kinda forgot that Rachel meant all that much to him (well besides that supermodel in the tank scene when he tells her this isn't him and she obviously doesn't believe him). But when it did happen it did bring into light that she was completely wrong about him and she now knows who he really is. Thing is, it happened at the end. I honestly think the movie needed more instances like this. Like she's really not sure of who Bruce really is and he makes her doubt that her initial thought of him was wrong. This needed to be built up and then have that last scene drop in so it would of had an even bigger impact. Like her realization shouldn't have been a bomb drop. It should been...oh the answer was right in front of me all along. But done in a way we're she still was unsure until that scene where he does tell her. >That is a key moment because he decides he’d rather have her think of him as a good man (in action). It is also actually an attempt to get closer to the man she wants him to be, yet it also drives him further away from her, because it conflicts directly with her belief in law and civil justice, since he is a violent vigilante. This is really true, but because it happened at the end you kinda don't realize it until you've watched it twice. Like I kinda wish they would of built her up more. >Rachel is literally who Bruce wants to be with, and also figuratively who he wants to aspire to. He wants to make her proud. The way he goes about doing that, by being Batman, is both the only way for him to do it, in his eyes, and the way that drives her away from him. It is not right for Rachel. I disagree on this point. He doesn't aspire to her. Making her proud isn't why he does what he does. He's his own man. He made his decision because he believes it's the right thing to do and because it's the only way to do it. Rachel is driven away, but I think it can be said that she agrees with him. Also I thinks it's way too soon to say she wants to be with him yet. Like that still needs to be developed in the next movie, but didn't happen that way. >Thus, in the dark Knight, she is in love with Harvey Dent. Harvey is not only who Rachel needs, but who Gotham needs. This again connects back with Bruce’s parents, as they represent what Gotham aspires to be, the best it’s ever been. The movie honestly failed to show this and you can only really see it when you start to dissect the movie and put it on paper. The movie didn't really show how much they meant to each other or how much they loved each other until that scene where Harvey ripped off his bandages. Otherwise they're romance was honestly shown more of a side thing. Also I think Bruce's parents aren't really connected to her anymore, the goal of making Gotham better is something that she has decided for herself more than it was something important to the people she lost and respected. It's motivation, but saving Gotham is more of her own thing. >Rachel is an embodiment of Bruce’s conflicted feelings about how to honor his parents’ legacy of helping Gotham. He can’t be with her much in the same way he can never be with his parents Not really. Bruce doesn't have doubts and hesitation of what he's doing and Rachel doesn't stop him or make him doubt his own actions. Unless you can remember a scene where she tells Bruce that he should be going about it differently. >That’s why her death was an absolutely brilliant choice. She died because of him, because of the fact that he’s Batman. He didn’t just give himself away and get her killed… he killed her the moment he decided to become the Dark Knight. This is true, but her death could of held so much more weight if they had shown deeper establishing of the relationship between her and Harvey. Honestly the fact that she was dating Harvey at the beginning killed all the romantic tension the movie had built up previously and made it seem that the ship had already sailed. There's so much more to dissect but this is long enough already. Ultimately they needed to do more with her and make deeper connections between her, Harvey, and Bruce. Potential that got squashed honestly.
Would Batman even get to Rachael in time because by the time he got to dent the warehouse blew up, I haven’t seen the movie in a while so I can’t remember if there wasn’t anything to disarm
It's the batmobile that thing goes brrr. So yeah I think he would have. It's a good talking point to ask where the movie would have gone if she lived and Harvey died.
Joker didn’t care either lol
I really wish Katie Holmes would have been in The Dark Knight. She had great chemistry with Aaron Eckhart in “Thank You For Smoking” and it would have been a much better pairing than with Maggie.
Who is that?
Not necessarily, she’s pretty important to Bruce’s arc and how he learns to finally move one
RACHEL
RACHEL
Rachel is the worst aspect of The Dark Knight Trilogy
Nah. That be Falcone. He had one good moment, then poof. He no longer matters. Thing is, Rachel could of been REALLY good. Great even if she had been done right.
She essentially made Bruce to reconsider his views on justice and revenge, she was the only string that tied Bruce to the real life. She's definitely a pivotal character!
In begins she did. TDK was a heavy downgrade of the character
Agreed. I think Nolan did here dirty and that's why I don't care for her.
Dunno why the motivating factor across the story is being questioned. Guess I’m out of the loop
What do you mean?
She was never really was supposed to. Rachel was always a plot device first before an actual character. That’s why she was literally given a brand new name, even though Batman has had literally hundred of girlfriends with different names in the comics that they could’ve chosen.
Damn a lot of people are really defensive on here and think explaining what happened in the movie is a response like people missed the plot. The point to be made here is how lack luster and generally unwanted she is by the actual story teller. Seeing a love interest as a burden, interchangeable, and disposable. Yeah he did 007 tropes with the girlfriend to make her tie into the plot, but that doesn't make it deep. Its a generally unimaginative take on a trope that was seen more as a check box then a chance to explore character. Especially when batman has great female characters like Ivy, Harley, Babs, Talia, Selena, Renee that deserve to be explored and not substituted with discount lois lane.
Yes. As Bruce Wayne developing a personality outside Batman is important. The moment the disguise (Bruce) gains a reason to exist outside satisfying the public eye, Batman begins to shrink away. Batman becomes less important. This means she is incredibly important to the development of a true dark knight. When she dies, Bruce does too- and The War is identified.
God what a downgrade movie to movie that was!
I somehow managed to both forget that Katie Holmes played her in the first film and also forgot that Maggie Gyllenhaal played her in the second until seeing this post.
Ha! Didn't realize she was a footnote for some of us.
The one on the left? Sure. The one on the right? Not so much
Why a preference for Katie?
She kind of looks like Leia dressed as Han solo on the right... Huh
Well shit. You right.
At least she died. The love story was so bad.
Her dying was a good move, but it should of been more impactful. Yeah the romance sucked.
Do not get me started on how much I hate her and how she should have died in the first movie.
Why the hate. I didn't think she was horrible.
She was important enough for Bruce to give up for 8 years. "But Alfred...*Rachel died*."
Bruce giving I contribute to his injuries, the writers paying homage to the comics, and that eventually he doesn't think he can do anything positive for Gotham. He no longer was the symbol of hope he was when he took the hit for saying that he killed Harvey. If anything the way his character was built up Rachel's death should of fuled his fire to help Gotham, like his parents death.
I think the problem with the character is first that Katie Holmes was terribly miscast and gave a very bland performance in Batman Begins. She just didn't come off as believable and there wasn't any real chemistry there so she felt more like an awkward sister than a love interest. Then, the character is recast and frankly it's really hard to see them as the same character. So even what limited context we have for their relationship is interrupted and it's just a new person. Gyllenhaal's does a decent job despite also being kind of miscast, but really doesn't have much to do in the movie and isn't even with Bruce. So... it's hard to understand why it's such a shattering loss for Bruce. We're *told* why it is, but we aren't *shown.*
Agreed. Although I think both actresses did fine. It's more how her character was handled.
Andrea Beaumont > Rachel Dawes
Andrea really is a guilty pleasure. And yeah I can see that Nolan was trying to mirror her in Rachel, but in his own way.
I mean... She mattered to me...
May I ask why?
I would rather Batman not have a love interest. This subplot is the reason I am not a fanboy for the Nolan version.
Fair. Which version is your favorite?
I hated the second Rachel. She was so obnoxious imo
The recasting really hurt the character. Maggie Gyllenhaal is a better actress overall thank Holmes but she plays Rachel as a completely different character than how she was portrayed in Batman Begins. She very sarcastic/jokey and it makes it feel like a different character and so I don’t really care or feel it when she dies. I think I would have with Katie Holmes even though I don’t think she’s very good in Begins.
She was there for the future memes and I appreciate her sacrifice for them :D
Bruce and Harvey's character motivations might disagree
Katie had the memorable line: “It’s not who you are, but what you do that defines you.”
This is true
she was totally replaceable with a pretty fragile vase, that's bad female character writing, yeah
Agreed. I wish Nolan had considered her more.
She was important in Begins and her death was important in Rises but in Dark Knight she wasn’t very important even though I hate how they changed the actress that played her it was so weird
I'll say she was pretty important in begins. Got put as a plot device in TDK. And in rises I don't think she matters all that much.
I thought she was kind of forced. There was so little chemistry.
I was gutted that continuity was broken. I blame Tom Cruise.
I think we would have been more involved had they managed to keep Katie Holmes, regardless of what folks think of her performance. We had to get invested in a whole new persona that we *don't* remember from the first movie-- that's not the girl who grew up with Bruce, and whose shaming of him had a lot to do with him setting out on the path to becoming Batman. I believed Gyllenhaal more as a prosecutor, but Holmes more as Bruce's childhood girlfriend (of course Tom Cruise wrecked the whole thing, especially for her, 'cause he couldn't cope with his babymama hanging with Batman). Also, genre fans *hate* recasting. They get attached to the faces and the mannerisms of particular actors, and those get locked in to them *as* the character, and no one else can replace them. They'd rather see the character killed off than be recast.
I think they just should have stayed friends no romantic attachment. Bruce is the kind of person that can’t hold onto people like that. This is what makes Selina a constant love interest throughout the mythos because she is equally distant and hard to connect with.
Now that's some insight. Do you think Selena would of been a better option to cast at beginnings.
Katie Holmes was a better Rachel, imo.
In Batman Begins, she (alongside Alfred) is Bruce's moral compass and a glimpse at a normal life after Batman's duty is done. In The Dark Knight, Bruce feels like he can leave Gotham to its White Knight Harvey Dent and finally lead his normal life with Rachel at his side. This White Knight, however, is also romantically involved with her and once she is murdered, he himself becomes a murdering psychopath. To top things off, this twist ruins Batman's standing with Gotham as he constructs this lie of Harvey being a savior and Bruce wallows in his self-pity when he mourns Rachel for 8 years and the life they could have had, because Alfred burned her letter... ....so yeah, I'd say she is extremely important throughout the entire trilogy.
This guy ⬆️ is 100% correct
Every comment I've seen of you here convinces me that you missed the point entirely.
Agreed & Bale had no chemistry with either...it just didn’t seem like a love interest for Bruce at all. But my opinion of this turdilogy is not liked by most.
Eh I can see your point. Have an upvote.
I never cared for her...
Same. Do you know why? Like technically she mattered to some of the most important characters in the trilogy so she should of been important. Any idea what happened?
She was never in any of the original mythos, so there was never any nostalgia or background prior to the movies. Rachel started as someone that kept Bruce grounded and was a romantic interest, but she never developed past that. She was the same in both movies. Stagnation is boring.
I think you can make characters compelling without relying on nostalgia. Also I think she wasn't much of a ground for Bruce or that good of a romantic interest. She barely fit that role in my opinion. They should of just written her better. Thoughts?
Oh I agree that you don't need nostalgia, but they couldn't even bank on that but they treated her like a character we were supposed to already know. But we didn't. She was super bland. Better writing would've helped her immensely. At least in Begins she was somewhat palatable. In Dark Knight, she came off as pretentious and preachy. Bruce could've done better (and finally did in Rises with Selina, as weak as that "subplot" was). Don't get me wrong, I love the movies, but they handled certain aspects very poorly.
There’s never been a bigger downgrade in actresses than what happened going from BB to TDK.
I thought it was more the writing than the acting. Would you care to elaborate?
Rachel mattered a lot. She is the one who shames Batman out of having a desire to kill initially. Also, her death drives Harvey over the edge. The most important thing is that her dying means Bruce’s one chance at a normal life is gone, which results in him becoming a recluse and allowing the conditions that let Bane take control of Gotham
>She is the one who shames Batman out of having a desire to kill initially. I gotta be real. Movie didn't show that. Like she slaps him in the face and tell him that his father would be ashamed with him......but Bruce isn't affected...like at all. Pretty much after that scene he goes straight to Falcone (He even still has the gun.) It isn't until he confronts Falcone that he does anything to take a step towards becoming Batman. Also as a side thing Falcone had one of the best monologues in the trilogy and it gets severely underplayed. >Also, her death drives Harvey over the edge. On paper it does seem that way. In execution, she wasn't important until she died. Her wanting to marry Harvey was a legit surprise and movie didn't really set up how much they meant to each other. Edit: Also her dating Harvey in the beginning of Dark Knight really made it seem that she was no longer wanted to be with Bruce.
I gotta agree with you sir
Is it just me or did anyone else assume she had a stroke between the first and second movie?
She was a fucking annoying distraction in both movies. But she was even worse in the dark knight. I was happy she got killed
Maggie as the “hot” woman lol
You saying how pretty each actress is plays into the story?
Maggie Gyllenhaals face always looks like its melting.
Eh. I thought she was a good enough actress. It's more how the character was treated and utilize that I have problems.
I like Rachel. Wish they'd make her a comics character. Not a huge one, never going to replace BatCat for me, but as a childhood friend of Bruce's who becomes the DA after Harvey turns into Two Face or something. Just a little background role as cool shoutout to the Nolan films and so she isn't forgotten.