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

[A Necessary Evil]

Blake was perfectly fine. So, disagree 110%.

 

[shauner111]

He was a huge highlight of the film for me.

I personally love the idea of Batman creating a symbol that lives on...through others, and Blake was definately a worthy successor. He has potential to become something 20 times greater since he's probably only in his mid-20's. Whatever he takes up the mantle as, imagine what he could be ten years later?

 

[Lasirius]

No. The massive amount of nitpick threads just makes it seem like TDKR gives a bad taste when it's not even a "massive disappointment".

Heck, take this for example:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=389033

Or this:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=389345

Yes, that's what I meant. The amount of ridiculous complaints on this movie makes it sound like it was a really bad movie, which is far from it.

 

[Fudgie]

I personally love the idea of Batman creating a symbol that lives on...through others, and Blake was definately a worthy successor. He has potential to become something 20 times greater since he's probably only in his mid-20's. Whatever he takes up the mantle as, imagine what he could be ten years later?

Someone else who makes a Batman 20 times greater than Bruce Wayne did?



It's bad enough he gives the mantle to a Cop he hardly knows. At least with Dent he proved himself when he locked up half of the city's criminals.

 

[JackWhite]

He was a huge highlight of the film for me.

I personally love the idea of Batman creating a symbol that lives on...through others, and Blake was definately a worthy successor. He has potential to become something 20 times greater since he's probably only in his mid-20's. Whatever he takes up the mantle as, imagine what he could be ten years later?

For someone who's not big on Batman having a side-kick, Bruce being able to inspire someone with his Batman persona, who is capable of being his rightful successor worked extremely well for me.

 

[Eggyman]

If Blake could be twenty times better they'd make films about him instead. Bruce is Batman. When he was finished, so was the story.

 

[JackWhite]

Someone else who makes a Batman 20 times greater than Bruce Wayne did?



It's bad enough he gives the mantle to a Cop he hardly knows. At least with Dent he proved himself when he locked up half of the city's criminals.

lol, well I don't agree that Blake would make a better or more capable Batman than Bruce. But for Nolan to be able to end Bruce's journey, having him able to find some sort of peace through realizing that public officials with a "face" was never the solution to Gotham, but his symbol being able to transcend even himself is what was the key all along.

The symbol of Batman being passed down to Blake/Robin works extremely well with the way Nolan told it, IMO.

 

[JackWhite]

If Blake could be twenty times better they'd make films about him instead. Bruce is Batman. When he was finished, so was the story.

Exactly. I'm not sure where everyone is getting this idea that Blake was suppose to be the ultimate Batman. It was Bruce Wayne's story, he is The Batman. Them not showing Blake suiting up or anything shows that it's not about seeing what he will become or how he will fight crime, but Bruce's realization of what he set out to do - inspire.

 

[Polaris23]

He beat huge looking LOS member. That's a good sign.

That always bugged me.

 

[shauner111]

You guys should read, i never said Blake would be 20 times better than Bruce as Batman. He has the potential to be way better than what he is at the moment (being a 25 year old or whatever). Wasn't comparing him to Bruce. Since he has no training now but he has the will to do good. "Training is nothing, will is everything". But with training and experience, say 10 years later, he could be 20 times better yes.

 

[shauner111]

That always bugged me.

Why?

 

[jmc]

I understand that Blake taking up the mantle is a way for the Batman legend to continue on just like it does in the comics. The problem I have is that the goal Bruce set up for himself was about saving Gotham and having it stand on it's own feet. Blake taking over the mantle, whether it be as Batman or some other persona of his choosing, means Gotham isn't standing on it's own.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Well, they didn't. This film highlighted the apathy of Gothamites to do anything during this great crisis. Everyone was home, watching their favorite movies.

 

[jmc]

Gothamites were there.......somewhere.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Being apathetic.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Disagree 100%, I loved him in the film and he is an integral part to the whole theme of the story.

 

[The Joker]

Gothamites were there.......somewhere.

Gotham had no voice or personality in this movie.

 

[JackWhite]

Gotham had no voice or personality in this movie.

Besides the orphans, no.

 

[The Joker]

Besides the orphans, no.

What orphans? The one that asked if Batman was coming back?

 

[JackWhite]

What orphans? The one that asked if Batman was coming back?

Yeah. I looked at them as an extension of Blake's past. They were the only thing you can really consider as a "voice" of Gotham. Obviously they pale in comparison to TDK's - Reece, Ferry boat people, Sons of Batman, Engel, etc.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Obviously they pale in comparison to TDK's - Reece, Ferry boat people, Sons of Batman, Engel, etc.

They might've acted badly,
but they weren't ignored madly.

 

[Baramos]

I disagree. The root of the problem with TDKR is the same root of the problem many films have: too broad a scope. The Dark Knight already had a little of this problem, but Rises had it even worse.

By too broad a scope, I mean in almost every aspect: too many plot devices and points, too many ancillary characters (not necessarily Blake, but if anybody can tell me the purpose of the annoying Deputy Commissioner character, or say, Roland Dagget's right-hand man, please, fill me in), too many themes. Everything ends up a bit muddled.

On the other hand, still enjoyed the heck out of the movie, so what do I know?

EDIT: As for how Blake was different from the vigilantes in TDK, it's more of a philosophical mindset--they wanted to just shoot up the Chechen and his men with guns, he actively throws away his gun at one point, rejecting it and it's "executioner" mindset. He also is an actual police officer, so he's had more training than the vigilantes. I agree he lacks the training to equal Batman, which is something of a plot hole, but there's an obvious difference between him and the vigilantes just on a basic mindset level.

 

[JackWhite]

They might've acted badly,
but they weren't ignored madly.

I felt they acted just fine, personally.

 

[JackWhite]

I disagree. The root of the problem with TDKR is the same root of the problem many films have: too broad a scope. The Dark Knight already had a little of this problem, but Rises had it even worse.

By too broad a scope, I mean in almost every aspect: too many plot devices and points, too many ancillary characters (not necessarily Blake, but if anybody can tell me the purpose of the annoying Deputy Commissioner character, or say, Roland Dagget's right-hand man, please, fill me in), too many themes. Everything ends up a bit muddled.

On the other hand, still enjoyed the heck out of the movie, so what do I know?

This is why this film needed to be at least three hours. I first felt 2h45minutes would be perfect, because I didn't think Blake was going to be anything more than just John Blake, and that would have allowed for other plot devices/characters to flesh out accordingly.

It just baffles me that either WB wouldn't allow a three hour film, or Nolan foolishly felt he could get away with cramming everything into a little over two and a half hour film. I really hope it's not the latter.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Well, it was Nolan himself who invested so much in Imax. So he must play within its restrictions.