The Dark Knight to have a female villain?

[Aragorn]

In one comic incarnation, Julie Madison is a law student, so just rename Rachel Dawes into Julie Madison and suddenly you'll have a lot of fanboys who like the character even though the only thing that changed was the name.

[Admiral_Young]

^ I think Rachel was created from a template based on several of Bruce Wayne's girlfriends.

I'll refrain from explaining Rachel's purpose in the films again since I already did so as elaborately as I could but suffice it to say that I agree to an extent that there just wasn't enough time plot wise dedicated for a substantial romance between Rachel and Bruce but this is why I like her so much as a grounding character for Batman. In the third movie the entire sub-plot can be a romance where there was no room for one in the first two. "Batman Begins" played around with it but ultimately Batman interfered with any kind of personal happiness for Bruce. This is why both Selena and Talia are an interesting pair because as we know from the comics they kind of combine both of his worlds together which create the inner conflict as well as the external. I'm going to be really curious as to the time setting of "The Dark Knight Rises"...how much time has passed since the second film? As I said before I think Bruce will be mourning Rachel, but then again if there is a significant period of time between the two films where he has been able to recover from her loss this might be a moot point and leave it open for a natural relationship with someone to occur. I just don't want the relationship to feel forced as some of you have suggested. I too am fond of "Batman Returns" for the way it introduced and handled Selena and Bruce's relationship.

[Kegg]

The Bechdel Test is a great concept, and a test that lots and lots of blockbusters fail.

the G-man wrote:

---

ELF has engaged in arson and bombings. The fact they haven't actually killed anyone, even accidentally, is simply a matter of luck.

Doesn't quite sound like they have much in common with a group that wants to kill nine tenths of the human race and is led by a sinister foreign sinister man to me.

Too Much Fun wrote:

---

I remember that when "Batman Begins" came out, I read a review saying that Rachel was the latest in a series of 'useless bat-girlfriends' who wasn't really necessary and was obviously put into the movie just so it wouldn't just be a sausage fest. I thought that was a bit of an exaggeration, but a fair point being made.

I don't. I mean I'll grant that Rachel Dawes in Batman Begins more useful then any non-Catwoman girlfriend of the previous four films, but they're predominably ciphers.

Catwoman is a worthwhile example here because she's the only one of the female leads to have a superhero/supervillain identity, which means she can be involved in stuff in the movie which does not directly have anything to do with Batman. The other female leads, well, pretty much take the classic damsel in distress cue of being relevant only as people for the hero to pine for and desire and people for the villain to threaten and menace.

Kinda why I want Catwoman in Batman 3. She's a fun character that could actually work, and she doesn't necessarily need to be a Batman love interest.

[Mutenroshi]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

Joker's paint was just war paint, similar to how Jack attempts to disguise himself to the leaders of the mob in "Batman". He is also shown without it at the bank robbery when he reveals himself to the bank manager. Theatrics, consider the paint be the Joker's "mask".

nope, it was not. The Joker's face was bleached by the chemicals. In the scene at the restaurant/museum, the Joker seems to appear without make-up but when Vicky Vale throws the spaghettis at the Joker's face (when he screams "I'm melting! I'm melting!") you can see his real skin color, white that is.

[Admiral_Young]

I'm talking about his human face pain in that scene in comparison to the Dark Knight Joker who wore war paint. It's a reversal.

[the G-man]

Trent Roman wrote:

---

Terrorism is designed to instill terror through acts of violence, attempted or successful--to instill a climate of fear.

Exactly. Just as ELF does with arsons and bombings.

E.L.F. are vandals. To call them terrorists is to define terrorism so broadly as to injure the use of the term.

So, when the KKK burns a cross in somebody's yard, it isn't terrorism, only vandalism...because, after all, didn't actually kill somebody?

Please don't try to tell that to their victims.

[Admiral_Young]

^ How about staying on topic.

[the G-man]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

^ How about staying on topic.

I'm perfect happy to stay on topic.

Can you get the poster[s] who flew off the handle when I made a legitimate (if off-hand) comparison between Ras and ELF to do so?

[exodus]

the G-man wrote:

---

I'm perfect happy to stay on topic.

Can you get the poster[s] who flew off the handle when I made a legitimate (if off-hand) comparison between Ras and ELF to do so?

Think Field of Dreams.

If you start, they will follow....

[Admiral_Young]

^This.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Well it's more like: if you build it, they will come.

[Admiral_Young]

Sigh. We need some news.

[Myasishchev]

The KKK also kind of, you know, killed people. Like hundreds or thousands of people.

Ha, I wonder how much the usual comic book army of henchmen is patterned, unconsciously, after the KKK. An entirely-male batch of dicks, who engage in violence while beneath a mask, for little to no apparent reason.

And of course our heroes themselves have been likened to the KKK, probably at least as far back as Wertham.

[Trent Roman]

the G-man wrote:

---

Exactly. Just as ELF does with arsons and bombings.

None of which instill a climate of fear, because they aren't targeted at people.

So, when the KKK burns a cross in somebody's yard, it isn't terrorism, only vandalism...because, after all, didn't actually kill somebody?

History not your forte? The K.K.K. have killed--in significant numbers. Their stated goal is genocide, and they've had the means and will to attempt it. To equate the K.K.K. with the E.L.F. demonstrates an astonishing inability to comprehend scale and ethics.

the G-man wrote:

---

I'm perfect happy to stay on topic.

Can you get the poster[s] who flew off the handle when I made a legitimate (if off-hand) comparison between Ras and ELF to do so?

I'm perfect[ly] happy to stay on topic.

Can you get the poster who casually tosses off accusations of terrorism, and parrots the right-wing discourse seeking to villify the environmental movement by perpetuating the myth of eco-terrorism, to do so?

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

[Too Much Fun]

Kegg wrote:

---

I don't. I mean I'll grant that Rachel Dawes in Batman Begins more useful then any non-Catwoman girlfriend of the previous four films, but they're predominably ciphers.

Just how did Rachel serve any purpose in "Batman Begins" besides giving background information on plot developments and characters and being a damsel in distress? At the beginning, she supposedly has important conversations with Bruce about himself, but basically she's just providing back story for him. Then she talks about Jonathan Crane throughout the movie. Then Batman has to save her from The Scarecrow. Seriously look at her dialog. How is she not a cipher?

"Deep down you may still be that same great kid you used to be. But it's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you."

"Your father would be ashamed of you."

"What chance does Gotham have when the good people do nothing?"

"Isn't it convenient for a fifty-two year-old man who has no history of mental illness to suddenly have a complete psychotic breakdown, just when he's about to be indicted?"

"Falcone floods our streets with crime and drugs creating new Joe Chills everyday. Falcone may've not killed your parents Bruce but he's destroying everything they stood for."

"In prison, he shared a cell with Carmine Falcone, he learned things and he will testify in exchange for early parole."

She barely has a single line that isn't exposition. She's practically the narrator.