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

[kewlmatto]

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.

Well said. Yep, everything in this movie points towards Blake becoming Batman. What Bruce says to him, 'Batman can be anyone', etc. Which is why the 'Robin' seems like out-of-place fanservice. I think thematically it would be much better to get rid of that. The idea that 'anyone' can be Batman is better presented as an 'everyman' John Blake than a pseudo-Dick Grayson named 'Robin' who seems predestined for that life (based on the name and the 'reveal' of it).

Maybe I'm reading a little too much into it, but that line irks me quite a bit. I like the John Blake character and I feel like he was partially ruined by that line.

 

[Alex Logan]

Because I'm Batman

Sorry, but I don't think so. You couldn't hold his jock.

 

[Alex Logan]

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.

Alright, here goes...

1. Bane's motivation for coming to Gotham.

2. More focus on the final battle with Batman/Bane and the cops/criminals.

3. Foley leading the cops and his death.

4. Less screen time for Blake.

5. The Ra's al Ghul hallucination scene.

6. Taila's horrible death.

I wouldn't really call these flaws, just things I would have done differently.

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

True, the only problem is that many people confuse the two.

 

[Alex Logan]

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.

You hit the nail on head here. I think the reason that most people can't wrap their head around that scene is because they've never had put on a fake smile or pretend to be something they are not.

That scene made prefect scene to me... watching Dexter helped too.

 

[The Joker]

Alright, here goes...

1. Bane's motvation for coming to Gotham.

Yes. A thousand times yes.

2. More focus on the final battle with Batman/Bane and the cops/criminals.

Yes. I think we were a bit spoiled with the first fight between Batman and Bane. It set a standard that wasn't matched since. It reminded me of the final fight between Spidey and Doc Ock in Spider-Man 2. It was fun and enjoyable but after the epic train battle between them it paled in comparison.

3. Foley leading the cops and his death.

Yes. Foley in general was a negative for me.

4. Less screen time for Blake.

Definitely.

5. The Ra's al Ghul hallucination scene.

Did you feel it was pointless?

5. Taila's horrible death.

Almost a universal opinion that one. There are parodies of it all over the Net.

I wouldn't really call these flaws, just things I would have done differently

Thanks for listing them. My respect for you has gone up a few notches.

 

[The Shape]

Some of saying that Blake should never have been associated with the word 'Robin', and that he should just be a guy who takes up the mantle of the Batman. I completely disagree and think that would have been more of an insult to the Batman character.

John Blake in TDKR embodied the idea of a "Robin". No, he wasn't a circus acrobat, or a ward of Bruce, nor did we see him suit up as "Robin". But still, John Blake was a lost soul that found himself through his interactions with Batman. He believed in what Batman stood for. He believed in the mission, and ultimately came to the conclusion that he would have to step outside the boundaries of the law in order to help his city.

Just like in the comics, Bruce saw himself in Blake. They were kindred spirits, who had both shared similar life experiences. After the events of the film, Bruce trusted Blake enough with his secret and with his legacy. He recognized Blake as an ally, and eventually as a successor. We don't get to see the rest of Blake's path (or Bruce's), but we can imagine anything we choose to.

Sounds a lot like Robin to me.

 

[BatLobster]

I also saw a parallel to Dick Grayson being adopted by Bruce and raised in Wayne Manor with Wayne Manor becoming an orphanage home for the orphanage Blake was raised in. The general idea of Bruce taking care of fellow orphans and eventually passing the mantle are all covered with Blake.

Also, while the movie honored the core aspects of what Robin is all about and didn't touch any of the aesthetic qualities of Robin...it's worth noting that JGL just kind of looks the part. I have a much easier time picturing him suiting up as Robin or Nightwing than I do as Batman, because he straight up looks similar to the way Grayson is usually drawn.

It's all these little things that contribute to that feeling of, "Ohhh yeah, okay I can see that" when they finally reveal his legal name at the end. Even some of his little quips ("Not every cop!", "You got anything bigger in that belt?") all come off a bit differently when you truly think of him as Robin when you watch the film.

 

[Alex Logan]

Did you feel it was pointless?

Yeah, pretty much. It really wasn't needed.

I forgot one too...

7. Blake's full name really bugged me.

Now, having given you the few things that I would change I would also like to list the things that I loved, which I will do tomarrow.

Thanks for listing them. My respect for you has gone up a few notches.

You're welcome. Thanks.

 

[The Batman]

Sorry, but I don't think so. You couldn't hold his jock.

 

[The Batman]

Some of saying that Blake should never have been associated with the word 'Robin', and that he should just be a guy who takes up the mantle of the Batman. I completely disagree and think that would have been more of an insult to the Batman character.

John Blake in TDKR embodied the idea of a "Robin". No, he wasn't a circus acrobat, or a ward of Bruce, nor did we see him suit up as "Robin". But still, John Blake was a lost soul that found himself through his interactions with Batman. He believed in what Batman stood for. He believed in the mission, and ultimately came to the conclusion that he would have to step outside the boundaries of the law in order to help his city.

Just like in the comics, Bruce saw himself in Blake. They were kindred spirits, who had both shared similar life experiences. After the events of the film, Bruce trusted Blake enough with his secret and with his legacy. He recognized Blake as an ally, and eventually as a successor. We don't get to see the rest of Blake's path (or Bruce's), but we can imagine anything we choose to.

Sounds a lot like Robin to me.

I can agree with this, and as someone mentioned before, if Frank Miller could make up his own Robin in Dark Knight Returns, Nolan could do it here.

Still, I would've preferred his name be Dick Grayson

 

[DJ Kornphlake]

But then this topic would be full of people complaining how much Nolan changed the character.

 

[Baramos]

I don't think it was so much making him actually be Robin (he is clearly going to be another Batman), as being a dumb 4th-wall breaking metajoke that made me cringe with how corny it was.

Obviously there are parallels between him and the actual Robin but in the end I think it was mostly just a really, really dumb joke that I wish someone powerful could edit out.

 

[The Batman]

But then this topic would be full of people complaining how much Nolan changed the character.

Dick Grayson was a cop in the comics, and all they'd have to do is make a vague hint towards his circus background. In fact, they didnt have to make much reference to his past at all.

 

[TheBat812]

Alright, here goes...

1. Bane's motivation for coming to Gotham.

2. More focus on the final battle with Batman/Bane and the cops/criminals.

3. Foley leading the cops and his death.

4. Less screen time for Blake.

5. The Ra's al Ghul hallucination scene.

6. Taila's horrible death.

I wouldn't really call these flaws, just things I would have done differently.

Besides Bane's motivation, which to me is basically a need to prove oneself worthy, I definitely agree with this. None of these ruined the movie for me, but they all jumped out at me. Second time around, they didn't bother me much though. Foley (his death especially) still felt underwhelming and needless, but thematically, I can see why it's in there. Blake's screen time makes sense within the context of the movie for me, as they constantly are building him up worthy of being Bruce's successor. Also included for me are Bruce's return to Gotham after the pit, and the fixing of his back (which is more believable as a 'dislocated vertabrae,' but still feels impossible). Still an amazing film, with an incredible amount of depth within it.

Also, Blake couldn't be Dick Grayson, only a few would get it, and the scene would be meaningless. It only matters if people know who they're referencing.

 

[Alex Logan]

Besides Bane's motivation, which to me is basically a need to prove oneself worthy, I definitely agree with this. None of these ruined the movie for me, but they all jumped out at me. Second time around, they didn't bother me much though. Foley (his death especially) still felt underwhelming and needless, but thematically, I can see why it's in there. Blake's screen time makes sense within the context of the movie for me, as they constantly are building him up worthy of being Bruce's successor. Also included for me are Bruce's return to Gotham after the pit, and the fixing of his back (which is more believable as a 'dislocated vertabrae,' but still feels impossible). Still an amazing film, with an incredible amount of depth within it.

Also, Blake couldn't be Dick Grayson, only a few would get it, and the scene would be meaningless. It only matters if people know who they're referencing.

They don't really bother me now either, but I still think Blake didn't as much scene time as he got. The name thing is really what bothers me now. Robin John Blake is just a stupid name. I think more people would get it than you think. I wish his name would have been Timothy John Drake.

 

[shauner111]

People would not get the name thing if they said anything other than "Robin". General people who go see this movie as casual fans or people who dont even know anything, the amount is larger than the hardcore fanbase. It might not seem like it, but it's true.

My guess is Nolan and co felt like having a Dick Grayson or Tim Drake or Jason Todd would also make the fans think to Nightwing/Red Hood/Red Robin as the next step in their lives. And that's not the point of the ending. You have to admit that fans would be like "he's 100 percent going to be Nightwing" or "He's Grayson but he skips Nightwing?". Then you have the age issue. Grayson becoming Robin in his late 20s. You cant please everybody, there's always going to be a thread like this where they'll complain about something they didnt do with Robin.

To Jonathan and Chris Nolan, it's about paying homage to Batmans successors. Robin is the most worthy successor and there's a lot of them. Dark Knight Returns was a big influence on the movie, and it created it's own Robin. They did the exact same.

The backlash has more to do with the name combo "Robin John Blake". I dont mind it personally. Wasn't John the middle-name of Grayson? Since it was his fathers name in the comics? I still think we can change it around, for those who dont like the name you can easily add in (in a fanfic or something) that the name Robin Blake is his legal name but not his birth name. Orphans change their names, and he might have had to in his teens to protect himself from whoever shot his father.

The last part is speculation lol, but i feel there's so many options for storytelling with Blakes past and his future. It's pretty open.

 

[BlueLightning]

Dick Grayson was a cop in the comics, and all they'd have to do is make a vague hint towards his circus background. In fact, they didnt have to make much reference to his past at all.

I think it's better that he was a new character instead of Dick Grayson. To me, it goes beyond the fact that he was a circus performer whose parents were killed. It was that Bruce took care of him since he was young, he acted like a father figure to him. That takes a lot of development, and it was unnecessary for this story. With Blake you get a character that embodies the concept of Robin as a whole in a sensible manner. And in this way, touches the theme of a successor seen in the Dark Knight with Harvey Dent, but in a different fashion.

To Jonathan and Chris Nolan, it's about paying homage to Batmans successors. Robin is the most worthy successor and there's a lot of them. Dark Knight Returns was a big influence on the movie, and it created it's own Robin. They did the exact same.

That's right, I think it was great that Nolan found the way to acknowledged the importance of the character in his films. It is not as easy as it would look like, because to have an all suited up Robin in film, first you'll have to take Dick Grayson, that's a given. But not only that, you have to make justice to the character. In a world of comic books it can be done, it is a medium that lends itself to expand to the infinite, and this story can be done without missing a detail. In films it is more difficult, because Dick Grayson has his own big story arc. Omitting that would not feel right.

At the core of the character, Robin is a character who is meant to be a successor for Batman. Someone who can take that responsibility when Bruce Wayne can't. But in comics it doesn't happen often, and never permanently.

It's all these little things that contribute to that feeling of, "Ohhh yeah, okay I can see that" when they finally reveal his legal name at the end. Even some of his little quips ("Not every cop!", "You got anything bigger in that belt?") all come off a bit differently when you truly think of him as Robin when you watch the film.

That's also true. When you see the film again, if at first feels like something familiar, the next time feels like a validation of the concept.

 

[The Batman]

As for the "Frank Miller created his own Robin, so Nolan could do it" argument...

In DKR Dick Grayson and Jason Todd exist, its just that Dick is no longer talking to Bruce and JAson is dead. Miller created a new Robin because the position needed to be filled. Instead of introducing a known Robin, Nolan creates his own out of thin air. Its not exactly the same situation.

 

[shauner111]

It's still the same thing. The details are a little different, but the essence is there. In TDKReturns Miller creates his version of Robin, and it was very different to what everyone was used to. A female teenager who aids an aged Batman as Robin was a bold move.

Sure more Robins existed before Carrie and none before Blake. But it's still a new version created for the one project. Carrie was because the role needed to be filled. Blake was because there needed to be a successor to Batmans symbol. It's influenced by TDKReturns, being influenced doesnt mean it must be exactly the same.

I think it's better that he was a new character instead of Dick Grayson. To me, it goes beyond the fact that he was a circus performer whose parents were killed. It was that Bruce took care of him since he was young, he acted like a father figure to him. That takes a lot of development, and it was unnecessary for this story. With Blake you get a character that embodies the concept of Robin as a whole in a sensible manner. And in this way, touches the theme of a successor seen in the Dark Knight with Harvey Dent, but in a different fashion.

That's exactly right. In this version the circus was unnecessary because they got the point across without telling that story. It wasn't about paying homage to the original Robin of the comics, Dick Grayson. It's an homage to "Robin: the successor" which 70 years into the history, goes beyond just Richard Grayson. It goes beyond Jason Todd and his backstory, etc.

At the core of the character, Robin is a character who is meant to be a successor for Batman. Someone who can take that responsibility when Bruce Wayne can't. But in comics it doesn't happen often, and never permanently.

Robin is for sure meant to be Bruces successor to his symbol but they never completely get there because the comic issues must keep coming out. Bruce Waynes Batman must be active through each decade & the stories where he either fights on his own or has a sidekick by his side are always in demand. They dont have to follow that with a film. They can but they can end it whenever they want. Nolan actually went with Bruce retiring and having a permanent successor. Something the comics are ALWAYS threatening and building up, but never get there.

 

[BatLobster]

Well of course Grayson and Todd exist in Miller's DKR, because that's how it goes in the comics- you're playing in a sandbox with decades of continuity behind you. Films don't have such luxuries.

For me it goes like this...

Would I have wanted a full Grayson origin story in TDKR? No.
Would I have been okay with a GINO where he's a cop but the circus background is completely omitted? Probably not.
Would I have wanted them to introduce Todd or Drake without doing Grayson? Nah.
Did I enjoy seeing the concept of Robin paid homage to while fitting organically into the tone and themes of the trilogy? Absolutely.

 

[Denver]

What happened here was Nolan heard how much everyone hated the 90's take on Robin... a 20 something yr old playing a teen who actually was comic accurate for the most part in Batman Forever at least... and actually did a fair job a earning the right to be Batman's team mate... and gave us a 30 yr old "Robin" who did nothing whatsoever to earn the right to be Batman... and people forget he only shared one scene really with Bruce Wayne after announcing he knew he was Batman all along... I fail to see how it makes sense in a "realistic" setting that one would all of a sudden hand over the reigns of something he dedicated his life towards to someone he doesn't even know - even though they set up the first act showing that Bruce had a tough time trusting people - and this was after his only friend broke what ever trust he still had when he admitted he lied about Rachel.
The addition of John Blake was pathetic - There were indeed flashes of brilliance in TDKR but the plot holes and downright disrespect Nolan showed to the characters he built up in the first 2 movies was telling enough that this franchise needs a reboot right away.

 

[BlueLightning]

The addition of John Blake was pathetic - There were indeed flashes of brilliance in TDKR but the plot holes and downright disrespect Nolan showed to the characters he built up in the first 2 movies was telling enough that this franchise needs a reboot right away.

I know its your opinion, but saying that Nolan disrespected the characters is just not true.

 

[Human Torch]

I have to admit it irks me when people use the whole "Robin was 30 in Batman Forever!" line.He was supposed to be in his late teens.

Andrew Garfield is pushing 30 and he's playing a high schooler.Does that mean Spidey's 30 in TASM?

 

[kewlmatto]

I don't think it was so much making him actually be Robin (he is clearly going to be another Batman), as being a dumb 4th-wall breaking metajoke that made me cringe with how corny it was.

Obviously there are parallels between him and the actual Robin but in the end I think it was mostly just a really, really dumb joke that I wish someone powerful could edit out.

My thoughts exactly - that's how it played out. As an obvious meta-hip wink to all the knowing. It was really derivative and below Nolan's usual level of style.

Had he been called Dick Grayson from the beginning, I would have been all on board. But making it a cheap wink was really lacking in subtlety. The moment where his full name is said has made me cringe every time I've seen the film so far (4 times).

I like the John Blake character, I like the idea of passing the mantle for this series, I just hate that clunky reveal.

It irks me that Nolan wouldn't even let Selina be called Catwoman (which makes absolutely perfect sense and isn't at all cheesy to the story), yet he would stoop to this for Robin.

 

[shauner111]

and gave us a 30 yr old "Robin" who did nothing whatsoever to earn the right to be Batman...
There were indeed flashes of brilliance in TDKR but the plot holes and downright disrespect Nolan showed to the characters he built up in the first 2 movies was telling enough that this franchise needs a reboot right away.

I beg to differ and believe that he earned his spot. He earned his trust, showed that he is a good person who knows the sacrifices Batman makes. Bruce trusted him.

That this franchise needs a reboot right away? Really? Right away? It's your opinion but i completely disagree.

I have to admit it irks me when people use the whole "Robin was 30 in Batman Forever!" line.He was supposed to be in his late teens.

Andrew Garfield is pushing 30 and he's playing a high schooler.Does that mean Spidey's 30 in TASM?

30 is a bit of a stretch but there's a difference. Garfield LOOKS 17 in spidey, O'Donnell didnt look like a teenager at all. He looked like he was in his mid-20s maybe even late 20s.