Where Is Rachel In Batman Comics ?

I literally spent my entire savings ($10,000) buying every single batman comic I can get my hands on. From the rare old ones to the most recent but I am yet to find Rachel in them. How can Nolan screw up like this. The Nolan series was not true to the comics hence it was a pile of ****. I have half the mind to sue the studio for messing up such a great franchise they could have easily used Katey or Barbra or Vicky but they instead opted to twist and manipulate the story

2 Answers

  • Anonymous
    9 months ago

    This is a bit lengthy, but I can type fast, and I enjoy talking about this subject... so if you collect a lot of Batman comics, I assume you like the subject to....

    Different writers and authors create their own characters. That's nothing new. Whether or not you liked her character's creation is your personal preference to have, and you definitely don't have to like any character. I personally don't like Damian. Most people are more bothered by the extreme alterations of established characters and not so much by the creation of new ones. 

    The character Rachel Dawes wasn't my favorite character by any means, but didn't bother me as much as Batman retiring at a young age. He went through all of the training...etc... to only operate for a few years?They made his Batman only really necessary to fight the big villains that rose up, but these villains didn't even exist when Batman decided to fight crime. He decided to become Batman not because of one particular villain, but because of the Joe Chills of the world... the common criminal that made society (Gotham) and unsafe place to be. 

    Therefore his mission was criminals of Gotham itself, not just the criminal masterminds that rose up from time to time. Despite the narrative of him being out for vengeance, this is not the case at all. Vengeance means he would require death and blood. Batman is not about vengeance, he is about helping to fight against corruption, and though he is a vigilante, he doesn't work in opposition to the police, but helps the justice system to be more effective. If he murdered or used guns, he would be bypassing the justice system, depriving people of a right to trial by jury, and making himself the judge. 

    The only reason he is tolerated as a vigilante, is because he understands that he needs to keep a rapport with men like Commissioner Gordon, so they don't see him as an enemy or a threat, but as an ally. Christian Bale's on again, off again style of being the Batman is a bit different from the character who takes it up as a full-time mission. The established character is so dedicated to the mission, that he keeps putting relationships on the back burner. 

    That's why I think the old Batman in Batman Beyond is perhaps the best portrayal of him in his old age. He's obsessed with the mission, and this mission he has taken on is one that is never truly accomplished. While you can fight crime outwardly, you cannot destroy the evil that's within the hearts of man. Evil will not only continue on, it will grow in its wickedness, becoming darker and more desensitized. Batman is not an anti-hero, as an anti-hero operates with a code of ethics. 

    Batman has personal boundaries and ethical rules that he places on himself to keep his own self in check, to make distinction between himself and the villains he is fighting against. If he is a villain, then that makes his efforts hypocrisy, and turns him into the element that he is fighting against. That is the established character. He's also the greatest detective, but some writers have made his character more and more uncompassionate and less perceptive about human behavior. In order to try to make him more edgy, they compromised the character. 

    Batman in Season 1 of the animated series was probably the best portrayal. It showed him having compassion and being the kind of person who is not stupid, but seeks to understand people, human nature, and their ways. While Batman has the no-killing rule to protect the integrity of his own soul, other vigilantes may operate by some different philosophies making them anti-heroes. The wrong view of the hero is that he cannot kill at all, and any hero that kills is thought of as automatically an anti-hero. 

    But the true anti-hero is the guy who isn't really trying to be a good guy, he just happens to fight against the bad guys. It could even be like a corrupt cop fighting against criminals, or one gang or thug fighting against another gang or thug. It's just circumstantial that this person happens to help out the good people by doing them a service. One example of an anti-hero is Clint Eastwood in the Spaghetti western movies of director Sergio Leone. 

    The man wasn't a good guy, he just wasn't a pansy, and got caught up in fighting a battle against bad guys for the sake of other people powerless or to afraid to stand up for themselves. Batman is not a man without faith in humanity. If he had no faith that a person could change, then he certainly wouldn't be open to throwing them into Arkham Asylum, knowing that when they were released or escaped, they would just do what they always do, because they are who they are. 

    He's not naive, but you'd have to reason that he would have to have some belief that certain people were salvageable - otherwise throwing them in Arkham Asylum is kind of a foolish notion (at least how I see it). The interesting thing about different characters is their different philosophies. While one person may think that a person is salvageable (and Batman does have this belief), another person like Jason Todd (while being aligned with Batman's goals in upholding righteousness) sees that a different method is needed to accomplish this. Jason Todd understands that certain people like the Joker are beyond conversion. 

    There's no amount of therapy and psychiatric experiments that will change such a person. Giving good a fighting chance, may require more than simply making the criminals fearful, and holding them accountable by putting them in prison. Plenty of bad guys are not afraid of consequences such as imprisonment. Jason Todd may see that a higher level of fear is required... the fear of death. 

    Death may be the only way to truly stop certain perpetually unrepentant criminals, who show that they have no element of desiring goodness within them. But philosophies or views is what distinguishes Jason Todd from Bruce Wayne, making Jason Todd an anti-hero, and Bruce Wayne the hero. Even Ledger's Joker understood how immovable Batman was on his no killing rule, and tempted him to break it.. knowing that if he could get Batman to break his own rules, then he could overcome the man.

     Regardless if killing a bad guy is good or evil, Batman has labeled it as evil to himself, so breaking this rule would be an act of evil to him. So the Joker wanted Batman to see himself as corrupted, because this is how he saw the ultimate defeat of the hero.  I don't think that directors and writers who don't grasp that Batman is not an antihero and isn't just out for vengeance, really understand the full scope of the nature of the character. He's not out for vengeance, but for justice... as he helps the justice system, and doesn't go around killing people. 

    He wants to correct a problem in his society, in his part of the world, and that is.. evil reigning over righteousnessness and righteousness not given a fighting chance. Gotham corrupts the majority of its inhabitants, and only the remnant are able to overcome. Gotham breeds corruption, and the simple fact is that most people won't side with good, when good doesn't show itself to be strong. Even in in the movie the Joker, this aspect and nature of Gotham is expressed. 

    When reality gets to the point of wickedness being the norm, then trying to remain good becomes a battle, a battle that most people cannot win. While many people lack the means and ability and are quite powerless to fight against corruption - like Arthur Fleck, Bruce Wayne has time, resources, and the drive to do so. One man was overcome, and the other one was able to overcome. But also, one man had resources, and a bit of a refuge from the evil, while the other man lacked resources and was subjected to the evil, and couldn't escape it, using his fantasy life to make himself something good when the world couldn't provide it.  

  • 9 months ago

    Assuming this is all true, you could have just went to the various Batman and DC wikis to confirm if Rachel was a character from the comics or not (she's not), instead of wasting so much money.

    Plus, Warner Bros and DC owns the Batman property, so they may do as they please with the IP. 

    It has been noted many times that the Dark Knight trilogy is not a exact faithful adaptation of the comics (same goes with every single Batman film and show), and that the origins in the comics are everchanging.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.