The Dark Knight Rises Agree or Disagree: John Blake is the root of the problems in TDKR

[Alex Logan]

Ironically, I would've liked Blake better if he wasn't revealed to be "Robin". To me, it was a cheap ploy and a cop out (yes, pun intended.)

I agree totally.

I was referring to Detective Comics #33.

Ahhhh, okay then.

 

[BatLobster]

I don't see how it was a cop out if it merely confirmed what a lot of us felt "in our bones" the whole time

 

[Viper81]

I don't see how it was a cop out if it merely confirmed what a lot of us felt "in our bones" the whole time

Exactly. I remember throughout most of the movie I was sitting there thinking "Man, Nolan should have made this guy Robin because he would make one hell of a Robin."

But I remembered Nolan saying he would never use Robin in his films.

So, when the lady called him Robin, I thought it was a very pleasant surprise. Made the whole movie change for me, and the second time I watched it it added a whole new layer.

 

[shauner111]

Yeah same for me.

 

[The Batman]

I find it ironic that the same people who keep repeating the phrase, "you can dislike it all you want" are the ones getting the most bent out of shape by other peoples opinions.

That's because those posters are lying to themselves. They're clearly biased and they clearly can't stand that people are criticizing "their" film. But at the same time, they want to look superior to whoever disagrees with them, hence trying to sound more objective than they actually are.

 

[BatLobster]

That's because those posters are lying to themselves. They're clearly biased and they clearly can't stand that people are criticizing "their" film. But at the same time, they want to look superior to whoever disagrees with them, hence trying to sound more objective than they actually are.

The exact same can be said for the other side of the argument that can't stand seeing people "overrate" something they think isn't worthy. Everyone's hands are dirty here.

 

[The Batman]

^ some are dirtier than others, but ok.

As for Blake....honestly, I feel he should've been named Dick Grayson, with his past merely hinted at. I understand why they named him Robin, but still...

 

[TheHeatKitchen]

Totally disagree. In fact, in my humble opinion, Blake personified the philosophical basis of Nolan's saga... Batman is a symbol, not a man.

 

[Alex Logan]

That's because those posters are lying to themselves. They're clearly biased and they clearly can't stand that people are criticizing "their" film. But at the same time, they want to look superior to whoever disagrees with them, hence trying to sound more objective than they actually are.

So we are biased and lying to ourselves? And you KNOW this how?

Do I need to list "my" flaws with film to prove that I'm not what you say I am?

 

[The Batman]

So we are biased and lying to ourselves? And you KNOW this how?

Because I'm Batman

 

[The Joker]

So we are biased and lying to ourselves? And you KNOW this how?

Do I need to list "my" flaws with film to prove that I'm not what you say I am?

I wouldn't mind hearing your flaws with it. I don't think I caught your review in the rate and review thread, assuming you posted a review there.

 

[shauner111]

Totally disagree. In fact, in my humble opinion, Blake personified the philosophical basis of Nolan's saga... Batman is a symbol, not a man.

Yeah, that's the theme of Nolans trilogy in a nutshell. The ending with Blake concluded what Ducard/Ra's was speaking of to Bruce in that cell. Which goes back to the very first teaser for TDKR..

"If you make yourself MORE than just a man..."

It almost makes me slap myself for being so stupid. All the months of speculating how the movie would end, and if i/we just took that first teaser literally (and that scene from Begins, or should i say the prison scene AND the shot in the trailer that follows, which is Bruce discovering the cave as a young man) instead of over-thinking it? It would have been right in front of my face. OF COURSE it's going to end with the symbol passed on to another young & motivated young man.

I think the disagreements that usually happen around here has more to do with fans either believing in Nolans theme or not seeing it that way because they're really attached to the comics. Which is fine, but to some Batman is NOT more than just a man. Batman IS the man: Bruce Wayne only. And maybe it's more of an episodic thing like the comics/TAS where he goes on forever, never quits. Prepares Robin to be his successor but never really hands it off to him so he can retire. He's constantly training young Robins so they can become something when they're older but he just keeps them coming while he stays as the Batman. It's the comic way of doing things so they can keep the stories going non-stop but i guess Nolans trilogy was just a different interpretation.

 

[BatLobster]

I actually think the ending where Robin is implied to take the mantle seemed fitting considering a lot of this trilogy was of an era in which Dick Grayson was in the cape and cowl in the comics. I'm not saying the ending was a nod to Morrison, but it's possible Morrison's run might have emboldened them a bit to trust the fans to accept the ending. It always made sense for Robin to take over the mantle if Batman is dead/retired/out of the game, which is why Azrael was such an annoying character.

 

[Slushy]

I find it ironic that the same people who keep repeating the phrase, "you can dislike it all you want" are the ones getting the most bent out of shape by other peoples opinions.

Nothing with having a difference of opinion. I just don't like the "Nolan can do no wrong" attitude.

 

[shauner111]

Im that way with Tarantino not Nolan. Hey, Insomnia was solid but nothing i would watch more than once. Following isn't the most exciting thing out there. The rest are fantastic. So i wouldnt put myself in that category of Nolan fans, but so what if ppl adore everything the guy does?

 

[BlueLightning]

I'm in the mood of throwing my two cents here and there. So here I go.

Frankly, I feel very fortunate that I maintained myself away from spoilers, possible spoilers, previews, even trailers and commercials for TDKR. When I went to see the movie I was almost the same as I went to see TDK, in blank about the film. And I enjoyed it thoroughly. I was genuinely surprised by all the twist in the story, even the Miranda/Talia betrayal. And at the end, when the lady names Blake first name as Robin, I felt happy. Why? In another time, I felt that the use of Robin would not felt right with the tone of the films. For the concept to work right, it would need a lot of development and to work within this Gotham City. As I watched the film, I had no idea whatsoever who John Blake would be. Hero? Villian? Someone in between?. But as I have been doing with these films, I gave it a leap of faith. And it was rewarded.

As the film progressed, I initially saw Blake as a partner for Gordon, someone he could trust. And then came the scene where Blake confronts Wayne about his true colors. It reminded me of Dick Grayson and Tim Drake. His past had a similiar feeling as the past of Dick Grayson, and he deduced Bruce Wayne identity, though more like a shot in the dark that ultimately was recognized by both men tacitly. As Dick Grayson, Blake was a reflection for Bruce Wayne, and as Dick Grayson, Blake grew up with Batman as an inspiration that make him a better man. By enrolling himself in the GCPD to help people. Then we see that sometimes he has a temper. He doesn't like to be unheard when he thinks he is right. He is a little impulsive and as Foley puts it, he is a hot head. It reminded me a little of Jason Todd. Then as the film progresses, we see how he struggles to survive in this new state of living in Gotham, working with Gordon for a plan. And when Batman arrives, he takes his orders without questioning them, along with some witty banter, that again felt very Robin-y to me.

But I was reminded that Nolan wouldn't use Robin, but no one said that he wouldn't use the concept of Robin. So I made peace with myself and thought: "Well, John Blake is Nolan's Robin" at least for me. At the end, naming him explicitly as Robin, I felt validated somehow. Having him inherit the Batcave, reminded me of Terry McGinnis. And it was great because in the end, he was not Dick Grayson, nor Jason Todd, nor Tim Drake, nor Terry McGinnis. He was a character that embodied the same spirit as these characters. Someone who is inspired by Batman, and made his live better. Someone who could succeed him if he is needed in the future. He was Robin.

And well, it is not like he would put in the cape and the cowl instantly after that and started to fight supervillians at the same Bat-Time, same Bat-Channel every week. He is a capable man, one could asume a well trained cop, and most importantly, he has a heart. It wouldn't be farfetched to say that he would prepare himself so one day, if the Batman is needed, he could fill that place. I liked that he served as a point of view character too. The audience could relate to him. I liked the scene in the police chase, where Foley is trying to capture the Batman, and he belittles and insults him, with Blake silently hearing, obviously annoyed. It works in a meta level for me.

Joseph Gordon Levitt did a very good job at making Blake likeable, and its one of the reasons this works so well. I entered the cinema knowing nothing of him, and I was invested in his character, so I say it works. In my opinion, it serves the story, and is respectful to the spirit of the character.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

John Blake to me definitely reminded me of a worse version of Holmes' Dawes. First, he was certainly supposed to be Robin, which makes you wonder why they just didn't call him Dick Grayson. The character was such a radical departure to begin with, the reveal at the end is like "huh?". Had they named him Dick Grayson or even Tim Drake the reveal at the end would've made more sense.

Secondly he took away from characters I honestly gave a crap about in a very negative way. Bane's motives never really got the grounding they needed (although I hear he gets extra scenes to this effect in the DVD), and his backstory hit with a thud. Selina Kyle is completely shortchanged on character development, especially in regards to her relationship with Bruce. Gordon is criminally underused. Foley was useless and annoying. All these problems, upon seeing it a second time, really reared their ugly heads when we cut away to John Blake. The movie comes to a grinding halt every time he walked on screen. His story almost seemed like a completely tangent story that was completely incidental to the film.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

It wasn't a proper version of Robin. It was a Cop who helped Batman who happened to inherit the Batman stuff because he feels stuff in his bones when he sees a millionaire looking depressed and angry

I hated that.

I stayed away from spoilers this go around, so I had no idea John Blake would be anything other than a cop, or even know Bruce was Batman. So when that scene came up in the movie I was thinking Blake would say "I saw you changing out of a costume" or whatever, then he started that smile bullsh**.

Sounded like that lame pick up line about 'U shaped smiles and C shaped smiles'.

Here's my problem with that scene in a nutshell: First Blake is a new character, so he can have any backstory. For example, he could've been like Tim Drake, a cop who decided to follow the story of Bruce's parents and in the process discovers he is Batman. Would've made sense for an orphan to have a fascination with a successful orphan.

Instead they pull that smile BS.

It's never even referenced again the whole film. Don't other people smile? Why does being an orphan and having inner pain automatically mean you're Batman? Batman could be some bored socialite, a fired police officer, a former military man with PTSD. The fact is his character made a giant leap in logic that if Batman were interested in keeping his ID secret, he would've just laughed off.

The whole scene was trash.

 

[shauner111]

Well, that's how you see it. I thought the scene was brilliant. I had goosebumps when i saw it. Blake had a hunch and he went with it. He saw the phony smile that Bruce had, he recognized that forced smile because he does it himself. He knew he was hiding something. Yeah they could have went into detail with Blake talking about how it was just a hunch at first or that he started thinking about all the money the Batman must have and thought it was a probably one of Gothams rich men, then when Batman dissapears, Wayne is barely seen for 8 years as well. Blake could have explained all of this, but what's the point??

I dont think it's as simple as "Blake knew he was Batman because he was helping orphans but his rich-boy look seemed like a persona". I think it goes deeper than that and im willing to fill in the blanks because it IS just a movie and because he didnt just come to this conclusion around the era of TDK. You have to think that he's had those 8 years to think about who the Batman is, to think about Harvey Dents death and the investigation & then like any good detective would do. To remember that one memory from the orphanage and match it up with the whole thing.

Also i dont take his line in the same way as you do...when Blake says "right then i knew who you were". I dont see that as I KNEW RIGHT THEN AS A 16 YEAR OLD THAT YOU WERE THE BATMAN. No, i see that as, I knew who you were, pretending to be a shallow billionaire-playboy who doesnt care about anything when you probably have this darkness inside of you because of what happened to ur parents.

There's nothing on the nose that says he knew as a young kid that he was the Batman. He may have figured all of this out a few years prior to TDKR by investigating and trying to match up certain stories.

I have also heard from orphans themselves who saw this movie and said "that was accurate because us orphans would be able to tell better than others if there's something extremely off about a person". They always felt Batman was a hero to orphans or damaged people in general.

Also he's not Dick Grayson because this has been known since 2005, it's not a comic accurate take. It's Nolans version. It's a new character, but at the same time it isn't because he's paying homage to all of Batmans successors. "Robin" because most of Batmans successors have been various Robins.

 

[The Joker]

I hated that.

I stayed away from spoilers this go around, so I had no idea John Blake would be anything other than a cop, or even know Bruce was Batman. So when that scene came up in the movie I was thinking Blake would say "I saw you changing out of a costume" or whatever, then he started that smile bullsh**.

Sounded like that lame pick up line about 'U shaped smiles and C shaped smiles'.

Here's my problem with that scene in a nutshell: First Blake is a new character, so he can have any backstory. For example, he could've been like Tim Drake, a cop who decided to follow the story of Bruce's parents and in the process discovers he is Batman. Would've made sense for an orphan to have a fascination with a successful orphan.

Instead they pull that smile BS.

It's never even referenced again the whole film. Don't other people smile? Why does being an orphan and having inner pain automatically mean you're Batman? Batman could be some bored socialite, a fired police officer, a former military man with PTSD. The fact is his character made a giant leap in logic that if Batman were interested in keeping his ID secret, he would've just laughed off.

The whole scene was trash.

Well said

 

[Zatanna]

That's because those posters are lying to themselves. They're clearly biased and they clearly can't stand that people are criticizing "their" film. But at the same time, they want to look superior to whoever disagrees with them, hence trying to sound more objective than they actually are.

 

[Human Torch]

I didn't mind too much about the "Blake tells Bruce he knows" scene.It worked for me in this context:Given the nature of the story (and Nolan's aversion to a suited up Robin.) Bruce wasn't going to get much screen time with Blake.There needed to be some kind of emotional bond between them.(Like Bruce & Dick in the comic) There had to be a "I know what you've been through" moment between them to truly have Blake as Bruce's successor mean anything.

Ironically,Bruce is usually in the position to give the "I know what it's like.." speech,but Nolan flipped it in this case.

 

[The Guard]

I don't have a huge issue with John Blake as a concept, but the whole "John Blake is just Nolan's version of Robin" thing...it's more like he's Nolan's nod/homage to Robin...but the concept of Robin as a character is more or less nonexistent in TDKR. Robin, in the comics, is not just a guy who helps Batman and the police and who then takes over Batman's mantle who happens to be named "Robin"...he's an actual persona, like Batman. We never see that.

The concept we saw in the film was that of Batman's mission being passed on, but we never really saw anything resembling a new version of Robin. We saw a character named Robin who might have taken over Bruce's mission, and who MIGHT have called himself Robin in the process, but we've really got no concrete reason to believe this when everything else in the film points to the concept of BATMAN going on, not a new persona rising.

 

[shauner111]

One of my fav scenes in the trilogy. There, i said it.

 

[shauner111]

The whole "John Blake is just Nolan's version of Robin" thing...it's more like he's Nolan's nod/homage to Robin...but the concept of Robin as a character is more or less nonexistent in TDKR. Robin is not just a guy who helps Batman and the police and who takes over Batman's mantle who happens to be named "Robin"...he's an actual persona, like Batman.

The concept we saw in the film was that of Batman's mission being passed on, but we never really saw anything resembling a new version of Robin. We saw a character named Robin who might have taken over Bruce's mission, and who MIGHT have called himself Robin in the process, but we've really got no reason to believe this when everything else in the film points to the concept of BATMAN going on, not a new persona rising.

You're right. Even though JGL states that Robin John Blake is Nolans version of Robin and that he's helping Batman but not in tights and a cape. It's mainly a nod because Robin is a title in the comics not a name of a person. All 6 people (i lost count) who have taken up the Robin title, are all different from each other. John Blake is more of a mixture of Dick, Tim, Jason & even Terry. He probably would have just been John Blake if he was a new version & then Bruce would have called him Robin or something. But no. He's supposed to be a nod to Batmans successors.