"the dark knight"/maggie g. debate

Well said. Katie, too. They were both the worst part of their respective films.

 

You guys are out of your goddam minds. Love Maggie G.

 

dissenting opinion. secretary is exhibit a, stranger than fiction exhibit b

 

LIke I said. I do think she is sexy. But the kind of beautiful the character is set up to be in The Dark Knight? No, she really isn't.

 

Wasn't the idea to cast Maggie G. was to setup a sequel where she was Harley Quinn?
That the accident didn't kill her, just made her crazy and the producers didn't think that Holmes had the acting chops to pull it off and decided to go with someone who was attractive but could also act.
Or maybe I just dreamed all of that.

 

She doesn't look like the rest of them, and that's a good thing in my book.

 

Katie Holmes dropped out of "The Dark Knight" (perhaps prompted by hubby) after her performance was just about the only thing about "Batman Begins" which was roundly panned. (Although she might have been pregnant with/or just had Suri when shooting was taking place, I forget.)

In any case, the consensus of most reports seemed to be that her departure was indeed a "mutual decision" -- she wanted to leave, and the Nolan team didn't try very hard to get her to stay.

Now, about Maggie G. -- to me she's kind of comparable to Kirsten Dunst -- sometimes she can look very hot and very sexy, other times she looks pretty plain.

In some ways that makes her seem more "real" -- the vast majority of women I know look much better some times than others.

I thought Gyllenhaal worked much better in the part because she looks more intelligent, more mature than Holmes, who still looks and sounds like a high school sophomore.

It was established in "BB" that Bruce Wayne had been gone 7 years after graduating from college, which would make him 28-29 or so (and TDK is set a year later).

Rachel is supposed to be about the same age as Bruce. It's not inconceivable although certainly unlikely if she was a dynamite student in law school and a top grad from an Ivy school she could have become an assistant DA.

Anyway if you're talking about billionaire vigilantes swinging around the rooftops in bat-suits and driving rocket-assisted tumbler tanks, whether Rachel Dawes was 5 years or so ahead of where her career advancement curve should have been is pretty far down on the suspension-of-disbelief scale.


While we're on the subject of TDK and since I just mentioned Kirsten Dunst, it occurred to me tonight watching TDK on HBO (I hadn't seen it in a few months) that it's kind of ironic, or failing that, bordering on plagiarism, that the climactic fight scene of "TDK" and the climactic fight scene of "Spider-Man 3" take place in almost identical settings -- a partially-finished skyscraper with the main hero having lengthy expository exchanges with the main villain.

At least TDK didn't fall into the trap of "SM3" -- actually, ALL the Spidey movies -- of trying to explain/rationalize the villain's villainous behavior.

 

I'm going to disagree with you there. In that type of setting, with all this fantastic stuff going on, the ONE thing you HAVE to believe in is the characters. If someone doesn't fit a role, it's going to be awfully difficult to believe in their character. And if you can't going along with the character, you're not going to go along for the rest of the ride they try to take you on.

Getting someone to fit the role is VITALLY important to the film.

 

I'm with Sobchak. Big Maggie fan. Thought she suited the role fine, and infinitely better than Holmes did.

 

That would have made more sense, though I don't ever remember hearing it.

 

Great actress, but she was terrible in Dark Knight.

She was better than Holmes, but anybody would have been.

 

Will Ferrell would have been better suited to that role than Katie Holmes [/crossthreading]

And he would have been easier to look at than Sad Turtle, at least until he took his pants off [/morecrossthreading]