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

[TheBat812]

The complete and utter lack of a voice for the citizens of Gotham and by extension the lack of scenes elucidating the siege on Gotham is a bigger problem for one. As are the bungling of Selina, Foley, and Bruce's arcs (including his romantic subplot with Talia) and the lack of resolution for Gordon. We are allowed bits and pieces of his supposed guilt over the Harvey Dent issue yet we never see it resolved properly. I suppose he will be guilty for life now. Washing over his sorrow with alcohol in the corner of his apartment.

Modine's character is directly acting as the voice of the people. It is the clumsiest part of the film for me, but at least Nolan DID get that in the film. He acts as the hope of Gotham, willing to sacrifice despite certain defeat.

Gordon does have resolution, as they get rid of the Dent act, and with this fresh start for Gotham, Batman is now a symbol of hope (having been absolved of the burden that had made him go into exile). That along with the fixed Batsign, letting him know that Batman would continue on. Gotham is back to where he needs to be, he is absolved of his guilt.

I think this movie suffers from Nolan pushing the audience maybe a bit too far in filling in information. Every movie he's done has pushed the limits more and more, and I think he may have found it with this film, and in some places it's noticeable.

 

[Fudgie]

Didn't like Blake one little bit. I wasn't watching Robin. I was watching a Cop who believed in Batman. That's not Robin. All the Blake stuff was dullsville. Especially all that boys home crap. It's really bad that he got more screen story than the great comic book characters such as Catwoman and Gordon.

 

[JackWhite]

He was great, simply put. Bruce and Blake had a real connection akin to Bruce and every other Robin in the comics, most notably Grayson and Drake. However I do feel Blake was in two too many scenes. But had the film been longer to accommodate the new characters, this wouldn't have been an issue.

The scene where Blake reveals how he knows Bruce was Batman was brilliant. Only qualm with it is it does happen fairly early in the film. Had this scene played out in say, the second act, I would not have batted an eye. But it works on so many levels, the most important ones being it's one of the many things that give Bruce a reason to dawn the cape and cowl again, and it shows that if Bruce had to have a successor, someone like Blake, who is very much like Bruce, would be a perfect fit.

The fake Batmen had there hearts in the right place, but obviously went about things all wrong. They were exactly what Ra's referred to in the beginning of BB - vigilantes lost in the scramble for there own gratification. Albeit, inspired by the symbol and greater good of Batman, still, they could easily be destroyed or locked up. Which is exactly what happened to them in TDK.

 

[Tequilla]

I dont need an average joe from gotham to be a character in these movies , much less sweeping shots of citizens looking to be frightened in cafes. We have the simpleton Foley for that (as a cop and a normal citizen) Nolan gives us every visual cue we need , to understand the total despair in the city , their total apathy to fight back. He gives us looting , shows a little scene with Cat regarding it , and we are shown a Gotham completely empty in the streets , and totally filled inside. The contrast give everything the story needs. Im glad it wasn't show more. The last thing these movie needed is some political mumbojumbo regarding the fake revolution lead by Bane , and how the city reacted. The social context of Gotham is used by him to fulfill his mission . There is nothing else to it. Rises is a very personal history of Bruce , and im glad Nolan went that route.

And of course i completely disagree with the question of the topic.. Blake is a manifestation of what this trilogy has built in the last three movies. We spend time with him , so that the transformation is personal.

He is actually the root of the qualities that put Rises in a place the others cant get there. If there's a reason this is a tremendous movie , and a great Bruce Wayne story , its because John Blake exists.

 

[The Joker]

Modine's character is directly acting as the voice of the people. It is the clumsiest part of the film for me, but at least Nolan DID get that in the film.

How is Modine the voice of Gotham? He's just a Cop. He doesn't represent the people of Gotham. One of the great things about Begins and TDK is that Nolan gave us taste of the various types of people in Gotham.

Flass, Earle, the Narrows kid, the Felafel guy, the rich people at the hotel with Bruce, Lau, Chechen, Maroni, Gambol, Wuertz, Ramirez, Gordon's family, Loeb, Coleman Reese, William Fichtner's bank manager, Anthony Michael Hall's newscaster Mike Engel character, the overconfident passenger on the ferry, the fat guy with the bomb in his stomach, Stephens the Cop who's Gordon's friend and cop 'guards' Joker, Tommy 'Tiny' Lister, Bruce's Russian ballerina date, the pudgy Batman impersonator, the nervous prisoners/passengers on the ferry, the crazy guy Batman stops Dent from killing, the old guy that stands up to the Joker, the nervous cops in the semi chase, and so on.

The first two movies were bursting with characters that gave Gotham a personality. Modine's idiotic Foley was not the voice and face of Gotham, IMO.

 

[shauner111]

Meh i disagree. Loved the character, loved the orphanage stuff, the ending. There's nothing i didnt like about this movie. Has nothing to do with trying to suck up, i just love Blake, the robin stuff, and the movie as a whole. I guess i feel connected to it for different reasons, while a lot of you..just..don't. Simple as that.

I didnt see any problems with Blake.

 

[TAK The Voyager]

I actually really liked Blake.

 

[TheBat812]

How is Modine the voice of Gotham? He's just a Cop. He doesn't represent the people of Gotham. One of the great things about Begins and TDK is that Nolan gave us taste of the various types of people in Gotham.

He's the everyman who wants to be a coward and be safe, but fights through it thanks to Gordon, who's been inspired by Batman. It's about the trickling down of hope, which can still inspire to those depths that he's willing to go into a nearly winless situation. Not amazingly well put-together, but still there.

 

[Lasirius]

Disagree.

Cool thread though, sounds like the movie was a massive disappointment for everyone.

 

[Baneis8feettall]

1. The ending would have been much more effective if Gotham didn't need another Batman at all. The city was already cleaned up before Bane arrived, I think the idea of Bruce ending his career would have ben much more powerful if he had done his job so well that Gotham would never need a masked hero again.

2. Screentime. I get why Blake needed so much screentime based on what Nolan was trying to do, but I really don't care about the character at all. All the time devoted to him could have helped develop Bane, Catwoman, and even Talia. I would venture to say the movie would have been better if he was taken out completely

3. What made Blake all that different from the fake Batmen in TDK? They were pretty good with guns for civilians, and were also good enough detectives to know when the deal with the Russians (or Czechnians) was going down. Bruce trained for 7 years to become Batman, how the heck is John Blake gonna be able ot take ovr

4. The orphanage subplot. By far one of the most boring parts of the movie. I guess they wanted to connect Blake with Dick Grayson somehow, but this again goes back to the screentime.

Note: This thread is in no way a reflection on JGL's performance. He is one of my favorite young actors, my gripe is with the character himself

1. Batman isn't that optimistic to leave his city without finding a worthy heir. Also Batman's all idea was inspiring people. Blake was example of it. Gotham is much better city compared to what it was in Batman Begins but one day evil might rise again.

2. You might not like it,matter of tase. But Catwoman,Bane had enough time in movie to do what they suppose to do. Bruce was out of the game. John Blake character was glue guy to keep everything together. From police to villains.

3.They were vigilantes with guns trying to kill bad guys. Blake was an honest idealist cop who tries to catch them. Basic difference between vigilantes and police force. Blake doesn't even need to half as good as Batman. Gotham is quite safe place. He can help police many ways with Wayne's technology.

4. It helped Blake & Wayne coming from same roots. Also it was nice to see Bruce Wayne won't known as he was just a jerk. He was just eccentric billionaire for many before his death. Leaving mansion to orphans was quite touching (we didn't know he was alive at that point) and honored his parents name. And it showed he has golden heart & did heroic thing without being a crime fighter.

 

[Frodo]

I would say Foley is the voice of Gotham. If anything I'd say Blake served that function a lot more.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Disagree.

Cool thread though, sounds like the movie was a massive disappointment for everyone.

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

 

[burns826]

Are Gordon, Blake, Selina, and Foley not ordinary citizens of gotham? What do you guys mean by ordinary citizens, no name extras like on the ferries because that is ridiculous. Bruce is in the pit, and Bane declares martial law, telling people to go to their homes. Gordon, Blake, Selina, and Foley could have retreated indoors and accepted the inevitable, but they put their differences aside and rallied around the batman to take back gotham. They absolutely were the voice of gotham city, that some of you seem to think was absent.

 

[jmc]

First thing, what bugged me most was not so much Blake but where his story goes at the end. My interpretation of things was that the goal of the entire trilogy was for Gotham to stand on its own, the ending indicates nothing has changed and that annoys the crap out of me.

Second, Foley does not represnt Gotham in this film because he is a cop, and clearly one who is looking to make a name for himself. Turning him into a coward in the third act doesn't make him the voice of Gotham, it makes him a guttless cop.

 

[jmc]

Are Gordon, Blake, Selina, and Foley not ordinary citizens of gotham? What do you guys mean by ordinary citizens, no name extras like on the ferries because that is ridiculous. Bruce is in the pit, and Bane declares martial law, telling people to go to their homes. Gordon, Blake, Selina, and Foley could have retreated indoors and accepted the inevitable, but they put their differences aside and rallied around the batman to take back gotham. They absolutely were the voice of gotham city, that some of you seem to think was absent.

They are main characters, ordinary people are what makes Gotham have a voice, we had moments in both films 1 and 2, but none here.

 

[Deserana]

I like JGL and I loved Blake so nope not for me. My main problem is that there was nothing from the citizens of Gotham for the story it was telling they should have been an vital part.

Blake was great and I didn't feel he was in it too much in fact any less and I doubt I would have felt like I knew him enough to feel worthy of the mantle.

 

[GoldCrest]

I don't think Blake is the root of the problems with TDKR; however, he is a part of the problem. He just have way too many screen times. If anyone should have that much screen times it should be Gordon or Selina. I don't like that he figures out Bruce Wayne is Batman very quickly while it takes Gordon three movies and Batman telling him his identity. The passage of the torch to Blake just rang false to me since he had only been introduced in this movie and have very basic history with Batman.

 

[Deserana]

Are Gordon, Blake, Selina, and Foley not ordinary citizens of gotham? What do you guys mean by ordinary citizens, no name extras like on the ferries because that is ridiculous. Bruce is in the pit, and Bane declares martial law, telling people to go to their homes. Gordon, Blake, Selina, and Foley could have retreated indoors and accepted the inevitable, but they put their differences aside and rallied around the batman to take back gotham. They absolutely were the voice of gotham city, that some of you seem to think was absent.

In TDKR the world never seems to exist outside of Bruce, Selina, Gordon and Blake. TDK built itself on the citizens. The chaos at the Dent press gathering, the chaos in the hospital, chaos outside the ferries, chaos outside the news station, the people on the ferries, Gordon's family, the fake Batmen.

Then in Batman Begins you have the scene with the commissioner Loeb and the police around them discussing whether Batman is good or bad, several reaction shots of ordinary members as the gas spread, the scene with people sat around the table at dinner (Bruce goes swimming). Even though BB is far more Bruce-centric so not as necassary its still there.

TDKR revolved around a plot about a city under siege yet I believe there is only one shot with people we don't know. As a result that makes Gotham feel very restricted.

I loved TDKR but this was its main issue for me.

 

[burns826]

Second, Foley does not represnt Gotham in this film because he is a cop, and clearly one who is looking to make a name for himself. Turning him into a coward in the third act doesn't make him the voice of Gotham, it makes him a guttless cop.

They are main characters, ordinary people are what makes Gotham have a voice, we had moments in both films 1 and 2, but none here.

This a viewpoint I will never understand. It seems the lack of speaking lines for non-main characters equals a lack of voice for the people of gotham. I mean the people in the first two films were not under threat of nuclear bomb or martial law. Batman Begins explored how a city reacted to a masked vigilante cleaning up the streets. The Dark Knight explored how a city reacts to chaos induced by the Joker. The Dark Knight Rises explores how a city reacts to a rather hopeless situation, who do they turn to when their hero is gone. I thought all three movies represented the city of Gotham as a whole rather well.

When Bane forces these people to their homes, it is Blake, Gordon, Selina, Foley, and Bruce, people from very different backgrounds, representing the upper, middle and lower classes, who put aside their different views of society to join forces and save the city. They are the voice of gotham. Being main characters does not make them non-ordinary nor non-citizens.

 

[Polaris23]

John Blake/JGL are the root of MY problems with The Dark Knight Rises.

 

[serb7]

I don't feel that JGL's character was all that well written but he's not the biggest problem with the movie. JGL acted really well. Nolan just ****ed up some characters in his script.

 

[Polaris23]

I do feel Blake was in two too many scenes. But had the film been longer to accommodate the new characters, this wouldn't have been an issue.

No. If the film was longer Blake would've had even MORE scenes

Didn't like Blake one little bit. .

Agreed.

Blake was the worst character in the series. Annoying down to the core. Nothing likeable about this character.

Agreed!

He was my least favorite new character, Blake's time would have been better spent on...anybody else, such as Batman.

YES.

Nolan fell in love too much with the character and went overboard with it which made the arc of the other characters that I prefer more like Gordon suffer.

This is the ONLY instance where I have felt disappointment with Nolan :/

I think its hilarious people are saying things like "he has no training!!!!" to attack the character. Frankly, who cares?

I think it's hilarious to think that John Blake's first night out as Batman will get him killed t: Especially since he's ''not afraid to be seen'' not wearing mask.

I think the biggest problem for most fans of this series is that TDKR was not enough of a "Batman" movie for them. TDK had nonstop action, nonstop Batman, The Joker, Two-Face, etc. Very much the epitome of a "Batman" flick. TDKR had major characters but Batman himself only appears in a few scenes.

Yes, and it's because John Blake stole Bruce Wayne's, Catwoman's, Bane & Gordon's screen time.

 

[jmc]

This a viewpoint I will never understand. It seems the lack of speaking lines for non-main characters equals a lack of voice for the people of gotham. I mean the people in the first two films were not under threat of nuclear bomb or martial law. Batman Begins explored how a city reacted to a masked vigilante cleaning up the streets. The Dark Knight explored how a city reacts to chaos induced by the Joker. The Dark Knight Rises explores how a city reacts to a rather hopeless situation, who do they turn to when their hero is gone. I thought all three movies represented the city of Gotham as a whole rather well.

When Bane forces these people to their homes, it is Blake, Gordon, Selina, Foley, and Bruce, people from very different backgrounds, representing the upper, middle and lower classes, who put aside their different views of society to join forces and save the city. They are the voice of gotham. Being main characters does not make them non-ordinary nor non-citizens.

Look at it this way, in films one and two we were given glimpses of what Gotham is like outside the perspectives of Bruce, Gordon, Dent, etc. They are only glimpses but they say so much about the people in the city, and in many cases leave a mark in our minds that at the end of the day the insanity that is happening is affecting real people. Gotham isn't these main characters who are more often than not the reason for the madness, they are the joe averages who have no idea what the **** is going on and are caught up in the madness. That is what is missing from Rises, the perspective and voice from those people looking on. Look at Inception with it's background characters - a bunch of nameless, faceless beings populating the dream sequences, that works for that film because everything about that film is meant to have some level of ambiguity to it. The problem is when that same technique is applied to a more realistic setting like TDKR you're lessening the impact of the story and consequences because suddenly real people don't seem to be affected anymore, and you can't just point to one character and say 'well he's the voice of the city' when it's a character that's in the thick of the action from the start, you need the view points of ordinary people for it truly to hit home. Films one and two had that, film 3 doesn't.

The biggest missed opportunity in Rises is the last battle sequence. If Gordon had no other option but to go door to door to recruit ordinary people to help take down Bane the emotional impact would have been 10 fold because it would mean people like you and me would be would be sacrificing themselves in order to 'take control of their city'.

 

[Deserana]

Look at it this way, in films one and two we were given glimpses of what Gotham is like outside the perspectives of Bruce, Gordon, Dent, etc. They are only glimpses but they say so much about the people in the city, and in many cases leave a mark in our minds that at the end of the day the insanity that is happening is affecting real people. Gotham isn't these main characters who are more often than not the reason for the madness, they are the joe averages who have no idea what the **** is going on and are caught up in the madness. That is what is missing from Rises, the perspective and voice from those people looking on. Look at Inception with it's background characters - a bunch of nameless, faceless beings populating the dream sequences, that works for that film because everything about that film is meant to have some level of ambiguity to it. The problem is when that same technique is applied to a more realistic setting like TDKR you're lessening the impact of the story and consequences because suddenly real people don't seem to be affected anymore, and you can't just point to one character and say 'well he's the voice of the city' when it's a character that's in the thick of the action from the start, you need the view points of ordinary people for it truly to hit home. Films one and two had that, film 3 doesn't.

The biggest missed opportunity in Rises is the last battle sequence. If Gordon had no other option but to go door to door to recruit ordinary people to help take down Bane the emotional impact would have been 10 fold because it would mean people like you and me would be would be sacrificing themselves in order to 'take control of their city'.

Though it didn't damage the film too much for like I think it did you I agree with this 100%. Though I won't explain why as I did that a few posts up

 

[ComicStalker]

John Blake is only one of the problems I have with this movie. My biggest gripe is about the choice of villains. Bane and Talia are just boring and one dimensional. Tom Hardy may be liked by fans of Nolan, but even he couldnt do anything exciting with Bane. Talia, well she was a total waste of a character. Ive said it before and Ill say it again. I REALLY wish Nolan would have gone with Riddler or Penguin. Penguin would have been great trying to claim what was left of the mob and organized crime. And before you say that there was no organized crime in Gotham... Thats only because thats the way Nolan and co. wrote the movie. It didnt have to be that way.
Also I would have felt much better about Batman retiring for good if he had been active at least a little bit for the 7-8 years. He could have still been tired and worn down. Heck it would have explained why he was so damaged physically.
I have more problems with this movie like the lack of screentime for Gordon and Blake figuring out the identity of Batman and not Gordon.
IMO this movie was easily the worst of the 3.