Katie Holmes chose to be in Mad Money over TDK - The Dark Knight (2008) Discussion

[–] Hormel_Mel 8 years ago

Yes, it is amazing how a working actress and beautiful woman who could not possibly give a *beep* about Batman would want to choose a co-starring role in a film where she actually gets to play a character instead of having three scenes as "woman whose death advances plot"

What a stupid bitch.

reply

[–] Galaxy_Nova 8 years ago

Looks like I struck a nerve. I'm glad I did. You must be a big fan of Mad Money. And you're right. She definitely portrayed a much deeper, more complex and multi-faceted character in that than she would have in TDK.

If you choose to reply to this, please take a few deep breaths first. We're all here for you.

reply

[–] Hormel_Mel 8 years ago

If she did anything more than look severe while repeating terrible dialogue, then yes, she portrayed a much deeper, more complex and multi-faceted character, I don't see how that's even up for debate.

Mostly I just thought it was odd that you were so amazed by her choosing a role that she was better suited to and had a bigger part in. Of course you being a f-cking retard, you're probably amazed by a lot things I wouldn't think twice about. Kind of makes me envious.

Looking forward to you fumbling for something clever to say but never quite getting there. But please, don't exhaust yourself on my account. Feel free to have a parent or trusted adult help you out.

reply

[–] Galaxy_Nova 8 years ago

Haha why are you so mad that I think Mad Money sucks?

Or, better yet, why are you so mad, period? You're a damn lunatic. Go pop a Xanax.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

and some lithium too.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Damn... you did not strike a nerve but the whole nervous system. LOL. What a pathetic attempt to bring someone down. Her falling straight into personal insults is a straight up admission that she can't manage her emotions.

I wish her a good therapist.

reply

[–] Harold_of_Whoa 8 years ago

Looks like I struck a nerve.

Yes, it's a very raw nerve. Some would say it's just too soon to discuss second-tier casting issues with an eight year old movie.

Too soon.

But you just don't care, do you?

reply

[–] Galaxy_Nova 8 years ago

I'm kinda known to be a rebel round these parts.

reply

[–] Jyri_Krr 8 years ago

"I'm kinda known to be a rebel round these parts."

Wait, who are you again?

- - -

Dan Aykroyd is a genius...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IMdPYEaod0

reply

[–] flashbobjones 8 years ago

Lol yeah like dude said go pop a xanex, or go cry about it.

reply

[–] Hormel_Mel 8 years ago

Move on, fag. Although this board does attract a younger male audience, I assure you, everyone is of age here. You'll simply have to look elsewhere for little boys to f_ck.

reply

[–] BooBooCat (652) 5 years ago

.... oO All right... someone clearly needs an anger management course.

reply

[–] TMC-4 (20489) 6 years ago

Why did Katie Holmes actually get replaced in the Dark Knight films?

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Katie-Holmes-actually-get-replaced-in-the-Dark-Knight-films/answer/Jon-Mixon-1

reply

[–] The_Drunk_Knight_Rises 8 years ago

Actually, that's false. She was miscast in Batman Begins and everyone knows it. That is why Nolan had her replaced. Obviously they couldnt say that to embarrass her. She didnt chose Mad Money over TDK. The Dark Knight was a huge project, a lot of actors/actresses would give an arm or leg to star in the film. Also, Mad Money is directed by someone no one knows, and the film itself flopped.

reply

[–] Galaxy_Nova 8 years ago

Is this your theory or is this based on any kind of facts at all?

reply

[–] TMC-4 8 years ago

Wasn't Katie Holmes also in effect fired due to breach of contract? In other words, when she was supposed to promote Batman Begins, she seemingly spend more time promoting her then-boyfriend, Tom Cruise's movie War of the Worlds.

reply

[–] TMC-4 (20489) 8 years ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/66rrpp/what_casting_choice_still_annoys_you/dgkts89/

I actually thought her casting was an improvement. One, Katie Holmes is not a good actress, sorry, but also Bruce Wayne flies helicopters and hangs out with a dozen sexy models and thats part of a carefully crafted persona, sure, but it illustrates how fake his 'real life' is for him. His scenes with Gyllenhaal's Rachel end up with more weight because they feel like two real people in the world and you know there's a genuine connection there, she isn't just a hot babe with whom Bruce has a bit of history. (And for the record, while Maggie Gyllenhaal is no Megan Fox, she's not ugly. Hollywood standards are ridiculous. Let the billionaire like the moderately attractive lady please.)

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/66rrpp/what_casting_choice_still_annoys_you/dgkz3ow/

Maggie looked less frail, which is something I can see Bruce being attracted to. I think her not-model looks made her stand out, which is something that I feel the usual superhero love interest should be allowed to do more often.

reply

[–] catsidhe (1649) 7 years ago

Am I the only one who thinks Maggie Gyllenhaal is more beautiful than Katie Holmes?

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6515) 5 years ago

yes, yes you are

reply

[–] LiquidOcelot (2452) 5 years ago

Lmao, yes you are. Not only that, Maggie's performance was no better. At least it was believable that Bruce Wayne would be smitten over Katie.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

In what parallel universe is Maggie Gyllenhaal more beautiful than Katie Holmes??

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 5 years ago

Talented people become more attractive and vice-versa. To a lot of people, they might be "regular" in the looks department, but then they open their mouths and out comes a beautiful aria and suddenly they go from "regular" to "lovely". So, when Maggie Gyllenhaal displays a high calibre of performance, it bumps her up on the attractiveness scale.

Contrariwise, when Katie Holmes delivers lines like "I'm a Gotham City District Attorney" and you don't believe her so hard that you laugh because she sounds like a teenager in Mean Girls talking down to a freshman nerd, she bumps down the scale.

Thus, for anybody who's libido responds to talent, they will find Gyllenhaal more lovely than Holmes. They actually talked about this on Howard Stern once...

Either that or somebody watched "Secretary" when they were thirteen and it cemented a very, *very* particular type of woman as the "number one it girl" in their brain.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

What can I say... Maybe I am blind to talent. When I compare them, I still prefer Katie Holmes.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 5 years ago

100% your preference, and it's just that "how well is she doing at this job" isn't factoring for you. For a lot of people it does.

reply

[–] ZakkWyldeMyLittlePony 8 years ago

I know I would've chosen to do Batman if I were her.

RIP
Freddie Mercury
1946-1991

reply

[–] Rey_Kahuka 8 years ago

I would've chosen to be in Katie Holmes over Maggie Gyllenhaal.

The future is in the hands of a man who has none.(As in no future, as opposed to no hands.)

reply

[–] Galaxy_Nova 8 years ago

Thanks, man.

reply

[–] fiero-49251 8 years ago

ITA! Maggie for some reason just seemed a lot less virtuous! She had obviously been around the block a few times! Not that I'm a Holmes fan, but she fit the part better IMO! 

- - http://scifiblogs3.blogspot.com/2012/12/batman-forever.html - -

- http://www.childrenofrassilon.com/batman-forever.html - Batman Homage

reply

[–] Darwinskid 8 years ago

If memory serves me right she was pregnant when production really began on TDK and had to drop out, Mad Money's production did not go anywhere as long and wouldn't have been that harder to make.

Some might say that if she had been in TDK her career would've stayed afloat, but I don't think so - Maggie Gyllenhaal didn't exactly boom to amazing heights in her career, neither has Aaron Eckhart.

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

Because Maggie Gyllenhaal was miscast in this movie. Aaron Eckhart's character was unecessary.

reply

[–] DracTarashV2 (4497) 8 years ago

So she thought Mad Money had potential and, unlike TDK, she was going to be front and center. Can ya really blame her? Lol.

I personally would have preferred if she had returned as Rachel. Yes, I kinda get why she's seen as the weakest link in the first movie, but even so I thought she was well-casted in Batman Begins. I also don't think Maggie... and all around far better actress... completely owned the role of Rachel herself (though to be fair, Rachel wasn’t a compelling character to begin with). Although Maggie certainly did a fine job in the role and, admittedly, it’s hard to imagine Katie be as effective as Maggie was in those final moments. Or not maybe not - Katie was very convincing when her character got poisoned in the first film.

reply

[–] TimMC (9143) 5 years ago

She's not very bright is she.

reply

[–] TMC-4 (20489) 5 years ago

http://www.agcwebpages.com/BLINDITEMS/2014/MARCH.html

238. ENTERTAINMENT LAWYER 03/20 **#7**

http://tinyurl.com/mufzryb

She is talking. The former B+ list mostly movie actress who got one big starring role and then was relegated to smaller roles because she had to be there to satisfy the whims of the man. Well, she is tired of him and tired of everything and she is talking. She knows absolutely everything. More than anyone else knows. When they make this a movie, and they will, I wonder if she will be alive to watch it.
Actress: Katie Holmes
Big Role: "Batman Begins"
Him: Tom Cruise and Scientology

reply

[–] jakemon45 (1192) 5 years ago

We suffered having to watch Gyllenhaal ham it up more than Holmes did missing out on the movie.

reply