Batman’s Next Villain
The cat’s out of the bag: the villain of the next Batman film is none other than…
PUMPKINHEAD!!
Ok, so here’s the story:
After dying a horrible, fiery death in this summer’s smash hit, The Dark Knight, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) returns as the horribly disfigured Pumpkinhead to exact her revenge on the caped crusader who failed to save her from her explosive demise.
Ok, ok, so here’s the real story:
This guy I work with liked the movie except for Maggie Gyllenhaal, who he argued is the ugliest girl ever, and who looks like a “rotten old pumpkin.” Determined to validate his assessment, he got online and found a picture of an old pumpkin and then set about finding a photo of Ms. Gyllenhaal that matched. Sadly for her, it actually didn’t take more than about a minute.
Behold the results.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Wow, that’s creepy. But isn’t this about the time where they ruin the series by replacing one Batman with another and adding more villains than you can count and bringing in the latest lame young actor who’s currently popular for no logical reason whatsoever to play the annoying and generally useless sidekick?
August 6th, 2008 at 7:53 am
I submit Sarah Jessica Parker as the ugliest person alive.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Dane Cook as Robin?
And Maggie Gyllenhall does have at least partial claim to the “Ugliest Girl That We’re Supposed to Believe is Hot” title. But she’ll have to fight off Drew Barrymore and Tori Spelling first.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Sarah Jessica Parker is a pretty good argument. It would be hard to debate that one.
And if you add the “…That We’re Supposed to Believe is Hot” qualifier, as Atticusser did, I definitely agree.
I guess an argument can be made that Chris Nolan isn’t actually looking for “hot” in the character of Rachel Dawes, but rather the “girl next door” kind of quality. Because if he’s going for hot, he’s had two unjustifiable misses in Katie Holmes and Maggie Gyllenhaal, both of whom have a kind of “girl next door” appeal, but neither of whom could be considered “hot” by any stretch. “Appeal” is probably even too strong a word.
Anyway, at the risk of over-analyzing the issue and sounding like a comic geek, which I totally am NOT, suffice it to say that, while I don’t consider her “hot” at all, I think Maggie is a much better fit for the role than Katie Holmes was.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Woah, woah, woah. Back the ugly train up. I need to get on back at the “Drew Barrymore” station, because whoever thought she could pass as one of the supposedly hot Charlie’s Angels was smoking some very strong stuff. And Sarah Jessica Horseface Parker I will also grant is not remotely as attractive as we are supposed to believe, not by a longshot. Tori Spelling looks like she was fashioned out of oily play-dough.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
In defense of Maggie…3 words:
Stranger Than Fiction
She was hawt in that movie (and she could bake!)
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1090623488/tt0420223
August 6th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I can concede that Maggie G. does indeed have a certain girl-next-door quality, if the girl next door to you suffers from a condition in which her face appears to be in a constant state of melting off her skull.
But you’re right, Maggie is at least a much better actor than Katie.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I agree with donjuanica in that Maggie can look really cute and normal (a la Stranger Than Fiction). It just depends on the day, hair-do, and camera angle. And l have to tell you that I loved her in Batman 10 times over Katie Holmes, who is more overtly “cute”, but a crappy actress.
My “Ugly Vote” goes to Sarah Jessica Parker. I can’t say Drew Barrymore because people have told me that I look like her, and admitting that she’s ugly would make me want to shoot myself….and I’m already prego, chubby, and fragile.