I agree, Rachel could have been more compelling with better writing and direction.

the unrequited love aspect is part of the whole victim narrative of Batman...

these movies need him to continue to be a loser, despite saving the day, in order for self-centred teen audiences to be able to relate, as it represents their own relationship and social angst...

current comicbook movies don't seem to be able to do actual heroism well and have that as a major theme in the movie... perhaps it's a defeceincy of the concept of these godlike "super" heros like superman, wonderwoman and thor... they are omnipotent and therefore arent taking risks, which makes them less heroic as there is no sacrifice involved... the filmmakers missed the opportunity with Batman as he is human and focused instead on making him a teen man-boy surrogate for the audience... a victim narrative... an adult orphan, who's primary motivation for his good deeds is to win the approval of a girl he cant have and only in aligning himself with the authorities is he able to get some recognition for his efforts, but he remains a loser...

they even changed actresses in the series and it didnt matter as batman continues to be a self-pitying victim...

the only recent (ish) mainstream movie i can think of that rejects this concept is Norbit... it's a great film about self reliance and not wallowing in self pity... a lot of fun, but was unfairly maligned by critics who didnt "get it"... Batman should take lessons from Norbit

@MirrorMask said:

I agree, Rachel could have been more compelling with better writing and direction.

All they did was alienate her from the audience, ultimately the unrequited love damaged the films in people's minds.

The female presence in TDKR was the highlight of the film because Catwoman is somebody just like him and accepts him for what he is.

@MickyMac said:

Me I wish it had a better trajectory thought out, it was a trilogy down played to two films but became three films again.

I think they undercooked the Harvey Dent / Two Face storyline - seemed it was used up too quickly and unnecessarily in TDK. The third film would have been much better had Two Face been played out in that instead...

@The Midi-chlorian Count said:

@MickyMac said:

Me I wish it had a better trajectory thought out, it was a trilogy down played to two films but became three films again.

I think they undercooked the Harvey Dent / Two Face storyline - seemed it was used up too quickly and unnecessarily in TDK. The third film would have been much better had Two Face been played out in that instead...

There was talk twelve years ago that Dent was gonna be Two Face in the third film, but Nolan just wanted to end the story so Two Face become a secondary villain for TDK. The whole revelation about Dent in TDKR was so downplayed and was so happy it happened rather than oh no the criminals are gonna come loose.

@MirrorMask said:

I agree, Rachel could have been more compelling with better writing and direction.

Never quite sure why she's there and this feels true of many of the characters of the trilogy, they could've been half the number but the filmmakers wanted to include as many characters and subplots as they could.

Frankly i would be happy if they kept the focus on Batman/Bruce Wayne and not did what all the other batman movies have done up to that point. Make the entire movie about his villains. I mean seriously Batman Begins and Mask of the Phantasm are the only Batman movies released in the theater that are actually about F###ing Batman. I think TDK is a overall good film. But its mostly Michael Mann's Heat 2 with people in eccentric outfits. And its not about Batman.

@MickyMac said:

@MirrorMask said:

I agree, Rachel could have been more compelling with better writing and direction.

Never quite sure why she's there and this feels true of many of the characters of the trilogy, they could've been half the number but the filmmakers wanted to include as many characters and subplots as they could.

And the extraneous subplots only muddle the film. There are some really good critiques in this thread. I feel compelled to draw a distinction now, in terms of criticism.

CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM-

This is intended to help. It is stated or directed to the person being criticized, where they can see or hear it.

DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM-

This is usually intended to hurt. It is generally stated "behind the back" of the criticized person(s), but not always.

Do you guys agree?

@Renovatio said:

Batman should take lessons from Norbit

Ok, be honest now. This line was your winning set in a game of Cards Against Humanity one day and the other players dared you into trying to fit it into a paragraph on a forum somewhere.