Yes I think ultimately she would have been signed had that film not been canceled, I'm glad it did, I read what looked to be a legit treatment for it and it read like fan fic. I had good sources who claimed it was real.
The Dark Knight to have a female villain?
- Thread starter Captaindemotion
- Start date
Think Goth chick like Faruza Balk and Harley fits perfectly in Nolan's universe.
I'm think more along the lines of Poison Ivy or Talia.
I can't think of a crime Catwoman could commit in Nolan's universe that would require Batman over Gotham PD. Catwoman is just a thief. Unless she's the love interest to Wayne but unknown secret partner to Batman in the film. The villain would have to do something that threatens the city and can redeem Batman in the eyes of the public after what happened at the end of "Dark Knight".
^ This is actually how I would see Harley fitting in. Someone like Lisbeth Salander from "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" books, goth and a psychiatrist who works at Arkham Aslyum who becomes corrupted by her fascination with the Joker. I think it would work.
Plus, seeing how the Joker killed off all of Gotham's mob bosses, knowing she's the Joker's girl could allow cronies left behind to rally to her side.
But, while most environmentalists are harmless, there are real eco-terrorists on earth, such as the Earth Liberation Front. Isn't Ras simply an extrapolation of those types?
And isn't worrying that Ras is going to make environmentalists look bad about as silly as thinking Two-Face is going to District Attorneys look bad?
Exactly. I mean, really, what opportunities have men actually had to star in action films? It's about time they got equal representation!
Perhaps, although unlike DAs, Ra's isn't counterbalanced with numerous examples of "environmental heroes," unless they make an Animal Man movie.
You know, I'd watch that. Especially if Buddy wound up walking off the set and throwing Grant Morrison out a window.
But that's sort of the problem: responsible environmentalism is rather boring, involving billions of people consciously not doing things.
So it stands a chance of passing the Bechdel Test?
Okay, okay, it's unlikely that a Batman movie will ever pass the Bechdel Test, but still...
Other than, for example:
- FernGully: The Last Rainforest (1992)
- Scientists and the Alaska Oil Spill (1992) [1]
- Once Upon a Forest (1993)
- On Deadly Ground (1994)
- Fire Down Below (1997)
- A Civil Action (1998)
- Butterfly (2000)
- Erin Brockovich (2000)
- The Return of Navajo Boy (2000)
- Silent Storm (2003)
- The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
- The Future of Food (2004)
- Children of the Tsunami: No More Tears
- An Inconvenient Truth (2006)
- Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash (2006)
- Happy Feet (2006)
- The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil (2006)
- Dust to Dust: The Health Effects of 9/11 (2006)
- The Toxic Clouds of 9/11: A Looming Disaster (2006)
- Toxic Legacy (2006)
- Ultimate Tornado (2006)
- Who Killed the Electric Car? (2006)
- The Great Warming (2006)
- Captain Planet, Ted Turner's animated television series
- The Chances of the World Changing (2007)
- Earth (2007)
- The 11th Hour (film) (2007)
- The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007)
- What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire (2007)
- Sharkwater (2007)
- Super Comet: After The Impact (2007)
- A Delicate Balance - The Truth (2008)
- An Inconvenient Penguin (2008)
- Burning the Future: Coal in America (2008)
- WALL-E (2008)
- Flow: For Love of Water (2008)
- Le Monde selon Monsanto (The World according to Monsanto) (2008)
- Renewal (2008)
- Sizzle (2009), about global warming
- The Age of Stupid (2009), about climate change
- The Cove (film) (2009)
- Dreamland (2009)
- Earth Days (2009)
- Food, Inc. (2009)
- "Avatar" (2009)
The E.L.F. are not terrorists. Who have they killed? Who have they tried to kill? No one; their policies specifically prohibit harm to living entities. They are, at worst, eco-vandals. Would that our legitimate institutions be nearly that conscientious. Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
I'm hoping that we'll get some casting news soon from "The Dark Knight Rises" other than just reports and rumors. Starting to get exciting.
There is neither a legal nor common sense requirement that a person have actually murdered someone-or even intended to murder someone-to be classified as a terrorist.
ELF has engaged in arson and bombings. The fact they haven't actually killed anyone, even accidentally, is simply a matter of luck.
To spite jokes of the contrary, Bruce Wayne isn't actually gay but rather a straight playboy socialite. Always having a woman or 3 on your arm and as a love interest is usually a large part of that image.
Fair enough. But I can't think of one that's entered the public consciousness like, say, Jack McCoy has for good DAs. Maybe the guy that Australian dude played in Avatar.
Also, in most of the highest profile examples--Fern Gully, Avatar--are the protagonists really fighting for environment? I'd argue they're not, certainly not first and foremost. They are fighting colonial oppression. There is an environmental dimension to their opposition, but the central conflict is not really about protecting a biosphere but protecting liberty and property rights. The philosophy of Avatar is fundamentally not much different than the philosophy of, say, Inglorious Basterds.
The Planeteers fought for environment, but the Planeteers is also a cartoon even children realize was kind of retarded, I mean sub-He-Man in its motivations and realism, and dangerously supposes that the solution to oil spills is to beat someone up. Although I guess that's not entirely incorrect, if you have a soulless blue golem beat enough oil men to death, you will eventually prevent oil spills.
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.
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.
Wow, that's an awesome post.
Cribbing from a plagiarist? Gotta love the irony.
Terrorism is designed to instill terror through acts of violence, attempted or successful--to instill a climate of fear. You can't be terrorized by a group which explicitely rejects violence against living entities, unless you're completely phobic. E.L.F. are vandals. To call them terrorists is to define terrorism so broadly as to injure the use of the term. There's a whole litany of organizations that ought to be considered terrorists before E.L.F. ever is.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
@exodus....thanks, just trying to keep things on topic and provide some insight.
For what it's worth, I think you did just that.
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.
Nolan also confirmed that pretty much the only studio interference in "Batman Begins" was insisting that it be PG-13 and 'romantic'. I think this goes a long way towards explaining why Rachel felt so shoehorned into that movie. It didn't help that Katie Holmes was also the weakest acting link in the cast.
I do think a lot of the love interests in Batman movies have been forced and that "Batman Begins" would have been just as good or better without a female character. Re-watching the movie, I realized that Rachel didn't do much for most of the movie besides recite thinly veiled exposition dialog, and a friend of mine who watched it with me suggested that maybe one of the reasons Katie Holmes didn't return for the sequel was because this is why she didn't find it a very enjoyable role to play. Rachel had a little more to do in "The Dark Knight", but in the end, she still felt like more of a plot device than a necessary character.
I don't think the fact that so many women in Batman movies have been unnecessary means a woman in a Batman movie will never fit, though. To me Michelle Pfieffer/Catwoman was the best character out of the first two Batman movies, and I can imagine the women in the next Batman movie being a lot more interesting and organic to the story than Rachel, especially if one takes centre stage as a villain.
Nolan also confirmed that pretty much the only studio interference in "Batman Begins" was insisting that it be PG-13 and 'romantic'. I think this goes a long way towards explaining why Rachel felt so shoehorned into that movie. It didn't help that Katie Holmes was also the weakest acting link in the cast.
I do think a lot of the love interests in Batman movies have been forced and that "Batman Begins" would have been just as good or better without a female character. Re-watching the movie, I realized that Rachel didn't do much for most of the movie besides recite thinly veiled exposition dialog, and a friend of mine who watched it with me suggested that maybe one of the reasons Katie Holmes didn't return for the sequel was because this is why she didn't find it a very enjoyable role to play. Rachel had a little more to do in "The Dark Knight", but in the end, she still felt like more of a plot device than a necessary character.
I don't think the fact that so many women in Batman movies have been unnecessary means a woman in a Batman movie will never fit, though. To me Michelle Pfieffer/Catwoman was the best character out of the first two Batman movies, and I can imagine the women in the next Batman movie being a lot more interesting and organic to the story than Rachel, especially if one takes centre stage as a villain.