The Dark Knight to have a female villain?

[Admiral_Young]

^ I already gave an overview of Rachel's importance.

[Samurai8472]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

Batman needs a love interest to keep him anchored. As I stated a few pages ago the purpose of Rachel Dawes was to humanize and anchor Bruce Wayne, to give him a reason to think that maybe there was a chance that his mission could end and he could actually get to be happy like everyone else. "The Dark Knight" proved though that while this notion was well meaning simply isn't possible for someone as driven and committed to the course of action that Bruce is. The casting of female characters continues to provide that sense of humanism for Bruce and to create conflict and drama. Female characters are almost a necessity for a character like Batman in my opinion. Especially if you're not planning on introducing Robin yet, jokes aside, Dick Grayson is another concept of the humanizing plot device.

I wouldn't be surprised to see in the opening bits of the film that not only is Bruce still mourning the loss of Rachel, but without that person keeping him grounded he's become violent and reckless. I suspect that the characters that Nolan plans on using will refocus Batman and in the end ultimately provide Bruce Wayne with a sense of balance, a literal Rising of his acceptance...both for him and for Gotham Cit.

And Selena will likely represent the thrill of being Batman/Bruce Wayne.

[the G-man]

Trent Roman wrote:

---

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

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.

With all due respect, you need to put aside your obvious bias ("right-wing discourse seeking to villify the environmental movement by perpetuating the myth of eco-terrorism") for a second?

First off, this isn't an "all environmentalists are terrorists" argument so there's no attempt to "villify" the entire movement being made here. If you think a single bad character in a movie who happens to be an eco terrorist, or the recognition of the existence of actual eco-terrorists, somehow villifies everyone who believes in the environment then you seem to have a real lack of faith in the ability of honest and peaceful environmentalists to defend and/or distinguish themselves from the handful of bad guys out there....or a lack of faith in people to understand: (a) a few bad apples don't taint the whole barrell; (b) most people can understand IT IS JUST A MOVIE.

Second, you have attempted to argue that property damage, without anyone dying, can't be terrorism, apparently because, as you put it, targeting a person's PROPERTY can't instill terror in the victim. The KKK example proves that this is patently absurd. Even if the KKK doesn't kill somebody, the act of having a cross burned in someone's yard is going to be, any reasonable measure, terrifying. Furthermore, the use of arson and explosives, even against someone's property is, as a matter of common sense, an inherently dangerous and, to the victim (and probably the public), frightening activity.

Now, getting back to Batman.

As I noted before, the idea of Ras making "all environmentalists" look bad, especially given the fact that actual eco-terrorists in real life haven't done so, is about as likely as the idea of Harvey making "all district attorneys" look bad, especially given that crooked real life DA who maliciously prosecuted the Duke lacrosse players.

Does anyone watch SMALLVILLE? Clark/The Blur burns an \S/ into a building or whatever after a save...that is vandalism. Wait...no one is watching SMALLVILLE.

[Kegg]

As I've said, Ras's aims of annihilating nine-tenths of the human population seem to be a little more extreme compared to the ELF.

And I think frankly having the villain being opposed to moral decay and decadence made him more interesting; environmental terrorism is usually a non-starter dramatically (I'm not a fan of Poison Ivy, by and large).

Too Much Fun wrote:

---

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?

My point was that I'd concede Rachel in that film was more useful then her predecessors... which really isn't saying much. At all.

[the G-man]

Kegg wrote:

---

As I've said, Ras's aims of annihilating nine-tenths of the human population seem to be a little more extreme compared to the ELF.

Of course. That's why I find it so mystifying that anyone here would get all hurt and whiny about Ras being an eco-terrorist. His schemes are so over the top and beyond what even real eco-terrorists would attempt that no sane person is going to think he somehow represents the entire environmental movement. It's about as sensible as trying to argue that Doctor Doom makes the medical profession look bad.

[Lapis Exilis]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

^ 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.

Just curious - how did we get from "The Dark Knight to have a female villain" to "so the female villain will obviously also be a love interest"?

If they're smart - she won't be. Contrived romance between enemies is a very tired plot cliche. Especially in Batman.

[Kegg]

^
Female character, Lapis, and the Batman films take severely failing grades on Bechdel, so it's almost a given that female character = love interest for Batman.

That said, I've never felt Catwoman has to be a romantic interest for Batman. In a Nolan film she can work as a counterpoint to his viewpoint in much the way the male villains Ra's and the Joker did for the last two films, and they did that without any noticeable sexual frission (alternative readings aside.)

the G-man wrote:

---

Of course. That's why I find it so mystifying that anyone here would get all hurt and whiny about Ras being an eco-terrorist.

I wouldn't characterise my stance as whiny. It was just an apt quip.

[Too Much Fun]

I've been hoping and half-expecting that the movie will have both a female villain (Catwoman) and a female love interest (Talia) and neither of them will be both. If they were both villains and love interests, I think that would just be too complicated. On the other hand, if Talia is just interested in Bruce Wayne and Selena is just interested in Batman, you could have a rather interesting Clark Kent-Lois Lane-Superman sort of love triangle going on.

I'm not sure which way they'll go, though, since doesn't Talia usually know that Bruce Wayne is Batman? This means she would be interested in both the man and his alter ego. I can't help but anticipate some romance between Catwoman and Batman too, even if I think two love interests is too many. In every interpretation of the character I've seen, she's been romantically attracted to Batman. I was surprised to recently discover that even in the '60s series she's enamoured with him!

[the G-man]

Kegg wrote:

---

I wouldn't characterise my stance as whiny. It was just an apt quip.

My apologies for the imprecision. My comment about whiny posters was directed at earlier, more serious, commentators who seemed quite put out about it.

[Lapis Exilis]

Kegg wrote:

---

^
Female character, Lapis, and the Batman films take severely failing grades on Bechdel, so it's almost a given that female character = love interest for Batman.

Heh - true, but a girl can hope that Nolan, who has done so well by the franchise, might actually overcome this as well.

That said, I've never felt Catwoman has to be a romantic interest for Batman. In a Nolan film she can work as a counterpoint to his viewpoint in much the way the male villains Ra's and the Joker did for the last two films, and they did that without any noticeable sexual frission (alternative readings aside.)

Her stories are ever so much more interesting when she's not interested in Batman romantically. A truly interesting twist would be to have him enamoured of her, and her completely uninterested in him. Not that they'd ever do such a thing.

[Myasishchev]

Hell, whining is my most valued skill.

[Admiral_Young]

I never stated anywhere in my post that a female villain had to be a love interest, I was explaining the purpose of Rachel Dawes in the first two films and proposed my own theory of how a new love interest could be introduced and used. I was responding to a poster who stated their confusion over what Racehel's purpose was in the films.

Sigh. This is why we need news.

[Myasishchev]

Also, before I forget: if they do have Talia--and I guess it's a moot point now since Ra's was played by an Irishman--I'd prefer if they cast someone who wasn't lily white.

But I'm conflicted over whether Ashkenazi* counts.

*P.S.: the spellcheck is an anti-semite.

[Lapis Exilis]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

I never stated anywhere in my post that a female villain had to be a love interest, I was explaining the purpose of Rachel Dawes in the first two films and proposed my own theory of how a new love interest could be introduced and used. I was responding to a poster who stated their confusion over what Racehel's purpose was in the films.

Sigh. This is why we need news.

My bad, hon - I wasn't really busting your chops specifically on that score, just pointing out that all of us were making the assumption that female villain=love interest.