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

[JackWhite]

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

There is that too.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

What still puzzles me is that he identified what he thought was the single biggest problem most prequels make for themselves: "blowing up the balloon", as he put it. He vowed to not fall into the same pit; yet, here we are. There is a dissonance between his interviews and the bloated script and film. What the heck happened?

 

[kewlmatto]

I find John Blake's character to be serviceable. But not really all that much more. I do wish they didn't say 'Robin' though - that kind of killed it for me. It was just too on-the-nose. Still, if we look at him as a police officer aiding Batman he's a pretty good character. Almost fills in the Harvey Dent role from the first half of TDK.

I think TDKR's problems come from the 8-year-hiatus more than anything. It is overdone, it prevents the story from gaining traction at first and it prevents us from seeing much of Batman himself. The reasoning for such a long hiatus isn't justified properly.

 

[Baneis8feettall]

What still puzzles me is that he identified what he thought was the single biggest problem most prequels make for themselves: "blowing up the balloon", as he put it. He vowed to not fall into the same pit; yet, here we are. There is a dissonance between his interviews and the bloated script and film. What the heck happened?

That's more like your opinion, you know. Movie is another big success, like TDK. (minus Joker mania)

 

[Tacit Ronin]

That's more like your opinion, you know. Movie is another big success, like TDK. (minus Joker mania)

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Movie is another big success, like TDK.

Obviously I was talking about its Box Office earnings, obviously.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

It's not an opinion, it's true. Bruce Wayne's story is over, but the series didn't come to what most of us thought would be the natural conclusion, the people of Gotham would pull themselves out of decadence and no longer need their protector.

But at the end of the film, we see Robin "inheriting" the Batcave. That implies just as much, if not more storytelling potential than leaving Bruce as Batman.

 

[mjbull23]

I find John Blake's character to be serviceable. But not really all that much more. I do wish they didn't say 'Robin' though - that kind of killed it for me. It was just too on-the-nose. Still, if we look at him as a police officer aiding Batman he's a pretty good character. Almost fills in the Harvey Dent role from the first half of TDK.

I think TDKR's problems come from the 8-year-hiatus more than anything. It is overdone, it prevents the story from gaining traction at first and it prevents us from seeing much of Batman himself. The reasoning for such a long hiatus isn't justified properly.

I Think this is right on point. The biggest obstacle the narrative faces is Bruce's 8 year hiatus, and not the character of John Blake himself. Although it may be argued that the Blake character is superfluous and inconsequential to the meat of the story, aside from the poignant ending, to me, the bigger disservice is having us presume that Batman would actually be capable of sitting around for 8 years. Eight years??? really? that's an incredibly long time.

It makes little sense to me, that someone with Bruce's penchant for crime fighting combined his ravenous surveillance and protection hunger pangs, would subjegate themselves to an extensive self-imposed exile without actively taking to the streets at least a few times a year during that timespan.

Isn't a partial reason for the existence of Batman to heal Bruce's inner wounds? Isn't the experience itself supposed to be cathartic? We know he's looking for someone to replace him, to assume his mantle. But that hope died with Harvey Dent at the end of TDK. He has yet to find a suitable replacement. So why the extended hiatus?

 

[Baneis8feettall]

Thank you, Captain Obvious.



Obviously I was talking about its Box Office earnings, obviously.

Don't thank me yet, Sergeant Sarcasm.

I'm not talking about box office. It's has been major success for audience and critics.I would share even more info but your signature makes it useless. Even hardcore Spider-man fans would have difficult time to explain why they think ASM is better than TDKR. That's a sign of awful taste alone.

 

[shauner111]

Anyone who thinks Amazing Spider-Man and Avengers was better than TDKR probably wont see eye to eye with me on many things, on this forum lol. But there's no reason to say "it's awful taste", its just different taste.

I don't think Nolan lied. He said this trilogy was about Bruce Waynes journey and that it would have a conclusion with TDKR. Now, he blew up the balloon once again with Gothams story and with the symbol of Batman and with Robin, but Wayne was finished as the Batman. And the Batman as we know it was completed.

 

[Baneis8feettall]

It's not an opinion, it's true. Bruce Wayne's story is over, but the series didn't come to what most of us thought would be the natural conclusion, the people of Gotham would pull themselves out of decadence and no longer need their protector.

But at the end of the film, we see Robin "inheriting" the Batcave. That implies just as much, if not more storytelling potential than leaving Bruce as Batman.

Nolan's story was about Batman fighting with crime & corruption, making system work well, becoming a symbol for good people and leave it to good hands. This why he found Gordon & Rachel in BB, Harvey Dent was so heart of TDK, Johnny Blake is heart of TKDR. (so he is not a problem)

Batman saved the city from corruption in previous movies,system is working quite good (There is no organized crime in TDKR),he saved the city for the last time,became a symbol at last, accepted as a hero by public,found a worthy heir, retired, finally he doesn't need to Batman enjoying life like everyone.

If Batman stayed active, there would be many stories left...Retiring him and finding an heir was ending story quite realistic & optimistic same time.Bruce Wayne/Batman's story ended and closed the door for future. Why would anyone would like to go with Blake's story? He isn't even from comics and he wouldn't be accepted as Batman by GA probably.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Don't thank me yet, Sergeant Sarcasm.

I'm not talking about box office. It's has been major success for audience and critics.I would share even more info but your signature makes it useless. Even hardcore Spider-man fans would have difficult time to explain why they think ASM is better than TDKR. That's a sign of awful taste alone.

I am crushed.

 

[JackWhite]

What still puzzles me is that he identified what he thought was the single biggest problem most prequels make for themselves: "blowing up the balloon", as he put it. He vowed to not fall into the same pit; yet, here we are. There is a dissonance between his interviews and the bloated script and film. What the heck happened?

That's why I'm scratching my head! Had this been the 3 hour epic that it should have been; I really don't think we would be having these kind of conversations.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

I think TDKR's problems come from the 8-year-hiatus more than anything. It is overdone

Wat

 

[georgec]

This thread is like the last gasps of the nitpicking movement after the movie's release.

Not a perfect movie, but it's like each week the board moves to another character/scene/etc. on which to blame and rationalize their disappointment.

Pretty soon it's going to the be the makeup artist's fault for the movie being so terrible.

 

[jmc]

Anyone who thinks Amazing Spider-Man and Avengers was better than TDKR probably wont see eye to eye with me on many things, on this forum lol. But there's no reason to say ''it's awful taste'', its just different taste.

Depends on how you classify it all. Avengers wasn't trying to be anything other than a superhero spectacle, and it did that wonderfully. Amazing Spider-Man was trying to tell a more in depth superhero story, albeit one that we've seen before, and more or less succeeded. TDKR was trying to be so much more than a superhero movie like its predecessors yet was mishandled to a large degree. Do I think either of those two are better movies? Execution wise I think Avengers is, it is a simple film with not much story but it is done well and doesn't apologize for being what it is. Rises was ambitious, I'll give it that, but execution is what matters and the film lacks the typical polish you get with a Chris Nolan story.

 

[Blue_Scholar]

I agree that John Blake is the root of YOUR problems with the film.

 

[Baneis8feettall]

Pretty soon it's going to the be the makeup artist's fault for the movie being so terrible.

 

[RIPCOVictims]

This thread is like the last gasps of the nitpicking movement after the movie's release.

Not a perfect movie, but it's like each week the board moves to another character/scene/etc. on which to blame and rationalize their disappointment.

Pretty soon it's going to the be the makeup artist's fault for the movie being so terrible.

As opposed to the movement of fans that attempt to dismiss any and all criticism of the movie as "nitpicking"? Seems like it's only fair to say there's plenty of rationalizing going on with that group as well.

 

[mbnasir6]

I disagree, he's definetly not the root of all problems. I can see why people dislike his character but he's certainly not to blame for the problems in this film. I liked his character way more than Selina Kyle so I'm happy with the screentime he was given.
Though I have to agree the orphan sub-plot was poor and could have been removed.
Imo, Blake represents a side of the people of Gotham who we didn't really see in the film; the people who still had hope and believed in the Batman.
I do feel sorry for those who hated John Blake's character/JGL, some of his scenes were the most powerful and made the movie even better for me; the bridge seen had my heart pumping and my emotions on edge-if you didn't like him then I can see why this movie was 'Meh' to you.

 

[shauner111]

Depends on how you classify it all. Avengers wasn't trying to be anything other than a superhero spectacle, and it did that wonderfully. Amazing Spider-Man was trying to tell a more in depth superhero story, albeit one that we've seen before, and more or less succeeded. TDKR was trying to be so much more than a superhero movie like its predecessors yet was mishandled to a large degree. Do I think either of those two are better movies? Execution wise I think Avengers is, it is a simple film with not much story but it is done well and doesn't apologize for being what it is. Rises was ambitious, I'll give it that, but execution is what matters and the film lacks the typical polish you get with a Chris Nolan story.

Again, that's just ones opinion. I don't see it this way. Rises was ambitious but i didnt feel the execution was poor like a lot of you here. I can care less about comparing it to other Nolan films, and how it might stand up to those movies..i look at it for what it is and that's it. And i loved it for what it was.

Would i be happy if they did an extended cut or threw some deleted scenes on the blu-ray? Sure. Maybe it would feel a little more complete, or maybe just like a bonus for me as a fan. But i doubt it'll change how i feel about the film. I love the movie for what it is, and i dont see all the "problems" you guys like to point out all the time. Blake as a problem? I just dont see it.

 

[Ultimatehero]

John Blake worked. He symbolized and summed up everything about who Batman is under the mask. He's an angry orphan who never grew up and is still angry and decides to act upon it and help others. Most who have something traumatic in their formative years go good or bad. I know another guy who went through hell as well in childhood- he now spends his life knocking people down to feel better about himself. I aim to help people to feel better and important.

Basically John Blake is a very realistic character. And as an orphan, I look up to batman as the orphaned superhero. More than I do many incarnations of superman because he carries around the angst of it. And more expansive, I think John Blake represents non orphans too who despite the past look up to him as a symbol and role model. It was the essence of us looking up to him basically.

All the children entering Wayne manor? Still get emotional over that scene because he is the orphan hero to me. Who a lot of us are inside and why he is so inspirational- despite his anguish, he makes a difference. That means a lot. To other kids, it's as said still the role model thing (although I don't know how the orphan and non orphaned views on these characters compare...)

In short, John Blake is a perfect symbol of Batman's legacy in its world and in ours. As an orphan we don't really have the same kinds of role models others do, we have mentors and literature inspiration who we can look up to as being similar and having made it. So as that being what Batman represents to me, it made the series even that more powerful to end on that kind of note. On film it's the first hero series to really dive into that psyche and nod saying they know. Batman is real. He's inside of every child who's gone through some trauma and has despite all odds comes out stronger in the end. Basically, Nolan got it right.

 

[TheWatcher]

I disagree big time. JGL gave a wonderful performance.

I didn't really find any major flaws in TDKR to be honest.

 

[shauner111]

John Blake worked. He symbolized and summed up everything about who Batman is under the mask. He's an angry orphan who never grew up and is still angry and decides to act upon it and help others. Most who have something traumatic in their formative years go good or bad. I know another guy who went through hell as well in childhood- he now spends his life knocking people down to feel better about himself. I aim to help people to feel better and important.

Basically John Blake is a very realistic character. And as an orphan, I look up to batman as the orphaned superhero. More than I do many incarnations of superman because he carries around the angst of it. And more expansive, I think John Blake represents non orphans too who despite the past look up to him as a symbol and role model. It was the essence of us looking up to him basically.

All the children entering Wayne manor? Still get emotional over that scene because he is the orphan hero to me. Who a lot of us are inside and why he is so inspirational- despite his anguish, he makes a difference. That means a lot. To other kids, it's as said still the role model thing (although I don't know how the orphan and non orphaned views on these characters compare...)

In short, John Blake is a perfect symbol of Batman's legacy in its world and in ours. As an orphan we don't really have the same kinds of role models others do, we have mentors and literature inspiration who we can look up to as being similar and having made it. So as that being what Batman represents to me, it made the series even that more powerful to end on that kind of note. On film it's the first hero series to really dive into that psyche and nod saying they know. Batman is real. He's inside of every child who's gone through some trauma and has despite all odds comes out stronger in the end. Basically, Nolan got it right.

I seriously love this post.

 

[lililatigresse]

As opposed to the movement of fans that attempt to dismiss any and all criticism of the movie as "nitpicking"? Seems like it's only fair to say there's plenty of rationalizing going on with that group as well.

This.

And no, John Blake is not the root of the problems in TDKR. Even despite the cringe-worthy ending, I think Blake is the best written character of the damn film. Unfortunately.

 

[Travesty]

I pretty much hated the character. If he was that integral to the story, he should have been brought up in the other movies. Just like a lot of characters in TDKR, I felt like he was there mainly so Nolan could end the movie with more "twists", and in the end, it made me feel like Batman wasn't nearly as special of a character like what we saw in BB and TDK. So now any Joe Schmo can be Batman, cause he's just a symbol? Eh...

I also loved the whole "I can't believe I shot someone with a gun! Guns are bad! I shall never use a gun, so I'll throw this one away" to moments later with "hey Gordon is in trouble. I better get my shotgun out".