The Dark Knight to have a female villain?
- Thread starter Captaindemotion
- Start date
^ 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.
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.
The Bechdel Test is a great concept, and a test that lots and lots of blockbusters fail.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly. Just as ELF does with arsons and bombings.
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.
^ How about staying on topic.
I'm perfect happy to stay on topic.
Can you get the poster
Think Field of Dreams.
If you start, they will follow....
^This.
Well it's more like: if you build it, they will come.
Sigh. We need some news.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
She barely has a single line that isn't exposition. She's practically the narrator.
^ I already gave an overview of Rachel's importance.
And Selena will likely represent the thrill of being Batman/Bruce Wayne.
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.
J
Jetfire
Guest
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.
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).
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.
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).
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.