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

[Mysteryman]

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.

Overstuffed is the word that I would use.
There is a lot in there , but it doesnt come together as a cohsive whole.

 

[georgec]

I disagree big time. JGL gave a wonderful performance.

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

You're not going to fit in well in this thread...

 

[Fudgie]

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".

Agreed. Great post.

 

[The Batman]

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".

Lol, I didnt realize this until you mentioned it...wow, lol.

 

[The Joker]

Lol, I didnt realize this until you mentioned it...wow, lol.

Neither did I lol. Nice catch, Trav.

 

[DerTommissar]

Blake does not have the relationship with guns that Bruce does. He works for the Police Department, where firearms are carried everyday.

And as a detective, he is frustrated using a gun has killed valuable sources of information.

To me this does not contradict his use of the shotgun later. At all.

 

[shauner111]

Yeah what's there to catch? He obviously needs to use his gun because he's a cop. Even if he had training, this is obviously the first time he's used it on somebody and killed them. There's a big difference. Him running through the hospital with a gun is just a part of his job, second nature, to protect others/self defense...killing someone is a whole different thing that's why he threw the gun in the heat of the moment. Doesn't mean he's not going to continue doing his job after that when the Commissioner is in trouble and he has to save him. He might not like the feeling of killing a man but at that point in the story, he still had a job to do.

When Banes plans are over and he sees Batman "die" + the incident on the bridge...he's like F this! I dont need to do this anymore.

 

[TheBat812]

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".

This is the first time he ever meets Bruce, what would be the point of him being in the other movies?

He is not just any joeschmo, he's the perfect successor to Bruce's Batman, given his obvious keenness, and same drive for justice that led Bruce to create Batman, only without the traumatic moment that made that fight for justice also a quest for vengeance for Bruce. Blake will not have this flaw, making him an even better Batman. He has enough training as a policeman to not be a terrible Batman immediately, and most importantly, one of the main themes of the trilogy is that the training and technique is nothing, the will is everything.

He's also not just thrown in there for a twist, he's integral to allowing Bruce to move on and complete his mission of inspiring hope and giving Gotham a fresh start, while having a successor that can be what he couldn't. He was Batman because enjoyed doling out punishment, Blake will do it for the justice in itself.





Alot of the issues people have with the film are less problems with the films, but problems to them because it doesn't share their vision. Like the 8 years - people keep complaining that Batman would never do that. THIS Batman would, because he's sacrificing his enjoyment of being the Batman for the people. It's a choice, one that he clearly wants to remedy, but it would hurt his whole goal. Of course as soon as the occasion arises, he jumps immediately at the chance, as Bruce should. People complain that JGL's character was unnecessary or a bad version of Robin, when really the nod to Robin is just a nice touch for the fans, in that he's serving as the mentee role. He's not Robin, really, as he's meant to become Batman, and his name is not any of the names of the Robin from the comics.

However, none of those problems are really problems in filmmaking, just not what these people in particular wanted. The actual problems of the film were the giant leaps of faith Nolan expected from the audience (How does bruce get back from the middle east with no money or contacts? I guess cuz he's the goddman batman. Batman taking tons of time to burn a bat in a building? Logistically confusing, but metaphorically pretty awesome symbol of hope), which he barely gets away with at some points, and the Modine character, who HAD to be there to show Batman's trickle down effect of hope (he inspired Gordon to inspire Modine into standing up for justice in the face of certain death), but just felt out of place in the movie. JGL's 'intuitive' discovery that bruce was batman felt jarring when watching it, but can also be looked at like he really was meant to be his successor. And no, he doesn't have too much screen time, it serves the story very well, and really paints him as the perfect successor to Bruce.

All just my opinion, but it's a bit of a pain to see people calling things "problems with the film" when it's clear that they just don't share the same vision, despite Nolan making everything incredibly relevant and important to his characters, and still doing an amazing job bringing in elements from the comics and doing them justice. The way they used the pit to have Batman be reborn was a genius way of using the idea of Lazarus Pit, and also paralleling his fall as a child, where he now has to do it all himself without his father's help. Nolan was actually able to improve upon classic things from the comics and make them truly meaningful to Bruce. Still blows my mind.

 

[Alex Logan]

Alot of the issues people have with the film are less problems with the films, but problems to them because it doesn't share their vision. Like the 8 years - people keep complaining that Batman would never do that. THIS Batman would, because he's sacrificing his enjoyment of being the Batman for the people. It's a choice, one that he clearly wants to remedy, but it would hurt his whole goal. Of course as soon as the occasion arises, he jumps immediately at the chance, as Bruce should. People complain that JGL's character was unnecessary or a bad version of Robin, when really the nod to Robin is just a nice touch for the fans, in that he's serving as the mentee role. He's not Robin, really, as he's meant to become Batman, and his name is not any of the names of the Robin from the comics.

However, none of those problems are really problems in filmmaking, just not what these people in particular wanted. The actual problems of the film were the giant leaps of faith Nolan expected from the audience (How does bruce get back from the middle east with no money or contacts? I guess cuz he's the goddman batman. Batman taking tons of time to burn a bat in a building? Logistically confusing, but metaphorically pretty awesome symbol of hope), which he barely gets away with at some points, and the Modine character, who HAD to be there to show Batman's trickle down effect of hope (he inspired Gordon to inspire Modine into standing up for justice in the face of certain death), but just felt out of place in the movie. JGL's 'intuitive' discovery that bruce was batman felt jarring when watching it, but can also be looked at like he really was meant to be his successor. And no, he doesn't have too much screen time, it serves the story very well, and really paints him as the perfect successor to Bruce.

All just my opinion, but it's a bit of a pain to see people calling things "problems with the film" when it's clear that they just don't share the same vision, despite Nolan making everything incredibly relevant and important to his characters, and still doing an amazing job bringing in elements from the comics and doing them justice. The way they used the pit to have Batman be reborn was a genius way of using the idea of Lazarus Pit, and also paralleling his fall as a child, where he now has to do it all himself without his father's help. Nolan was actually able to improve upon classic things from the comics and make them truly meaningful to Bruce. Still blows my mind.

No one could have said it better. Ever. Best post on this whole website. And the giant leaps of faith really are not problems, if you've been paying atttention to last two films. The same questions could be asked about things he did in BB and TDK. Who does he appear and disappear at will? How was no part of his body burned after being set on fire by Scarecow? How is he able to fall a hundred stories with Rachel, land on a car and survive? How is it that Dent was killed from the fall, but Batman wasn't? The list could go on and on. The only reason these things are being questioned in TDKR is because the story was not what some people wanted.

 

[The Joker]

This is the first time he ever meets Bruce, what would be the point of him being in the other movies?

Actually he met him before when he was a kid. That's how he knew he was Batman. Because he recognized he was angry over losing his parents. Ergo that must mean he was Batman

He is not just any joeschmo, he's the perfect successor to Bruce's Batman, given his obvious keenness, and same drive for justice that led Bruce to create Batman, only without the traumatic moment that made that fight for justice also a quest for vengeance for Bruce.

So you have to have lost your parents to be Batman? That's the only way you can be trusted to have a serious keen quest for justice?

Baloney. Blake is an honest Cop who believes in Batman and wants to see Gotham saved. Just like Gordon. The only difference is he lost his parents. That doesn't make him Batman material any more than Gordon.

Blake will not have this flaw, making him an even better Batman. He has enough training as a policeman to not be a terrible Batman immediately, and most importantly, one of the main themes of the trilogy is that the training and technique is nothing, the will is everything.

What? Police training and a will for justice is what it takes to be a BETTER Batman than Bruce Wayne was?

No offense, man, but that is utter nonsense! Will Police training teach you how to take on a group of armed thugs without using a gun? Blake certainly never managed that at all in TDKR. Can he hide and leap from shadows? Does he know any martial arts?

What exactly is Cop training going to do that will make him better than Bruce?

He's also not just thrown in there for a twist, he's integral to allowing Bruce to move on and complete his mission of inspiring hope and giving Gotham a fresh start, while having a successor that can be what he couldn't.

He was written as an honest Cop who believes in Batman, same as Gordon. The only difference between him and Gordon is he magically figured out Bruce was Batman just because he recognized Bruce was angry and hurt over losing his parents and that means he must be Batman (I cannot roll my eyes enough at that). Oh yes he also knew Batman took the blame for Harvey Dent's death, too. He just knows all of these things. So he pops over to Wayne Manor to tell him that and also deliver the news Gordon was shot.

After this what does he do other than play one of the several helpful supporting characters who help Batman save Gotham? Gordon, Lucius, Selina, Foley, Blake....they all help Batman. He had a huge support network in this one.

He was Batman because enjoyed doling out punishment, Blake will do it for the justice in itself.

I am perplexed at your perceptions of this movie. Bruce was being Batman for enjoyment instead of justice? Please explain in the greatest of detail where you ever got that impression from.

 

[Baneis8feettall]

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".

1.) Anyone can be hero at some level. It's about will more than skills. However Blake has shown he has great courage,heart,detective skills,determination and some fighting skills. He isn't average joe. He is very talented cop. Even he won't be as good as Batman, he is the only one worthy as heir.

Batman can't keep it much longer.He become symbol. Saved city from organized crime and corruption. Left a good Gotham to Blake & police to protect.

2.) Most of people kill someone first time, has such over the top reactions. Some of them puke or lose their control for a while. It's natural for rookie cop. Especially with a good heart. It's natural to get his weapon back in a danger. He is not goddamn Batman, he has to use guns to protect someone's life even he doesn't like it.

That's why Nolan's movies are superior to other comic book movies or action movies. There are many realistic reactions from characters even there are larger than life characters.

 

[Eggyman]

I don't have a problem with people liking the character, but making out he would he a better Batman and all that sh** is terrible. Go and stop your Batman subscription at the comic shop, see if they've got any Blake ones. It's crazy.

 

[the last son]

I have a hard time honestly believing anyone actually likes Blake more than Batman. That is without question the most bizzare and unbelievable thing I've ever heard.

 

[Human Torch]

Agree or Disagree: John Blake is a hothead?

 

[TinkerTailor]

People can keep quoting Ra's with "The will is everything" but the fact is, in that moment he was trying to push Bruce's buttons so that he could defeat him in combat to prove a point. I find it amazing that people keep using this quote to discount the need for training when Ra's actually said the thing during a training montage.

 

[Mysteryman]

I don't have a problem with people liking the character, but making out he would he a better Batman and all that sh** is terrible. Go and stop your Batman subscription at the comic shop, see if they've got any Blake ones. It's crazy.

Actually, Dan Didio
Has said that DC might do some John Blake / Batman adventures , seperate from mainstream continuity of course

 

[jmc]

Alot of the issues people have with the film are less problems with the films, but problems to them because it doesn't share their vision. Like the 8 years - people keep complaining that Batman would never do that. THIS Batman would, because he's sacrificing his enjoyment of being the Batman for the people. It's a choice, one that he clearly wants to remedy, but it would hurt his whole goal. Of course as soon as the occasion arises, he jumps immediately at the chance, as Bruce should. People complain that JGL's character was unnecessary or a bad version of Robin, when really the nod to Robin is just a nice touch for the fans, in that he's serving as the mentee role. He's not Robin, really, as he's meant to become Batman, and his name is not any of the names of the Robin from the comics.

However, none of those problems are really problems in filmmaking, just not what these people in particular wanted. The actual problems of the film were the giant leaps of faith Nolan expected from the audience (How does bruce get back from the middle east with no money or contacts? I guess cuz he's the goddman batman. Batman taking tons of time to burn a bat in a building? Logistically confusing, but metaphorically pretty awesome symbol of hope), which he barely gets away with at some points, and the Modine character, who HAD to be there to show Batman's trickle down effect of hope (he inspired Gordon to inspire Modine into standing up for justice in the face of certain death), but just felt out of place in the movie. JGL's 'intuitive' discovery that bruce was batman felt jarring when watching it, but can also be looked at like he really was meant to be his successor. And no, he doesn't have too much screen time, it serves the story very well, and really paints him as the perfect successor to Bruce.

All just my opinion, but it's a bit of a pain to see people calling things ''problems with the film'' when it's clear that they just don't share the same vision, despite Nolan making everything incredibly relevant and important to his characters, and still doing an amazing job bringing in elements from the comics and doing them justice. The way they used the pit to have Batman be reborn was a genius way of using the idea of Lazarus Pit, and also paralleling his fall as a child, where he now has to do it all himself without his father's help. Nolan was actually able to improve upon classic things from the comics and make them truly meaningful to Bruce. Still blows my mind.

Some people just don't get it. It's about execution not 'sharing a vision'.

 

[TinkerTailor]

Some people just don't get it. It's about execution not 'sharing a vision'.

Nail squarely hit on head.

 

[TheBat812]

Some people just don't get it. It's about execution not 'sharing a vision'.

Yes, TDKR was the sloppiest of the batfilms. But please, I'd like to hear more about the mistakes in execution, because I have heard very few that are not merely nitpicks, that still work fantastically well as a whole to enhance the themes and characters.


Also, do you really think Blake would have fit into either of the films? Has nothing to do with Bruce Wayne's narrative until he confronts him in TDKR.

TinkerTailor, I think you're just not putting the proper value in things Nolan is purposefully providing us with. It is a recurring theme. Sure, Blake would ACTUALLY die week 1, and then Bruce and all of Gotham dies from radiation poisoning. That's not important to the story being told. Nolan's work is about everything connecting for a reason. It's brilliantly intellectual as far as developing and enhancing character, while providing great visceral entertainment. That's always been Nolan's genius. It's a story about a boy driven to obsession using his father's dream who's death he feels extreme guilt, and the story of TDKR does an amazing job of bringing him closure in every way. Having said that, I'm not saying some of these aren't valid from your own point of view, i just think it would be nice when could tell what was ACTUALLY something that made the film lesser, rather than something that just made them not like it as much.

 

[Travesty]

Yes, TDKR was the sloppiest of the batfilms. But please, I'd like to hear more about the mistakes in execution, because I have heard very few that are merely nitpicks, that still work fantastically well as a whole.

Why should we try to delve further into explaining anything, when you just sloppily label everything someone says as "whiny brats who didn't get their story they wanted"?

It's borderline useless to go any further with you.

 

[jmc]

I suggest you go back to the very first fan review threads coz I for one can't be bothered listing my issues with the film for the umpteenth time. It's not even about whether this is a Batman film or not, it's about the film making.

 

[TheBat812]

Lol, I am genuinely interested in them, to see if I agree or disagree. It's not like I know the film forwards and backwards. jmc, would certainly read them if you post em, but I'm not digging through it to find it, haha.

 

[TinkerTailor]

Yes, TDKR was the sloppiest of the batfilms. But please, I'd like to hear more about the mistakes in execution, because I have heard very few that are not merely nitpicks, that still work fantastically well as a whole to enhance the themes and characters.


Also, do you really think Blake would have fit into either of the films? Has nothing to do with Bruce Wayne's narrative until he confronts him in TDKR.

TinkerTailor, I think you're just not putting the proper value in things Nolan is purposefully providing us with. It is a recurring theme. Sure, Blake would ACTUALLY die week 1, and then Bruce and all of Gotham dies from radiation poisoning. That's not important to the story being told. Nolan's work is about everything connecting for a reason. It's brilliantly intellectual as far as developing and enhancing character, while providing great visceral entertainment. That's always been Nolan's genius. It's a story about a boy driven to obsession using his father's dream who's death he feels extreme guilt, and the story of TDKR does an amazing job of bringing him closure in every way. Having said that, I'm not saying some of these aren't valid from your own point of view, i just think it would be nice when could tell what was ACTUALLY something that made the film lesser, rather than something that just made them not like it as much.

I would love to write a long ranting diatribe on why I think the film failed, but it's late over here and I don't have the time. Anyway...

Yes I'm aware it's a recurring theme, and like most recurring themes which are reintroduced it is poorly addressed in the narrative. There's no depth or weight to Blake's story (and this is one of my favourite characters in TDKR) which is perfectly exhibited in the throwing a gun away in disgust before rushing to grab a shotgun in the next scene. This isn't a nitpick, it's endemic throughout the film as opportunities for thematic resonance that aren't followed through or that grasp at relevance in a way that is purely artificial.

The idea that Bruce Wayne's mission is going to outlive him is one of my favourite concepts from the comics, and Nolan dealing with that could have been wonderful. There's something hugely tragic yet inspiring about it. Yet what we're given here isn't tragic or inspiring in terms of how it's handled because it's done so in a way that it gives us a glossy Hollywood ending without considering any of the ramifications of how Bruce would feel in leaving his city while he's still alive, or how he would feel by the fact that he's now putting someone else's life in the same danger he put himself in. Again, an opportunity to develop something that is glossed over. I wanted to see how this Bruce Wayne would feel about that. The Bruce Wayne who came back to Gotham with one big intention, and saw every move he made put the lives of those around in him in more and more danger until he was crushed by the consequences of what happened... But we didn't get a single bit of it.

TDK was an incredible achievement because it was a great character piece shot through the prism of a crime blockbuster. TDKR has a simple story to tell, and it tells it poorly, missing opportunity after opportunity to give it real resonance.

A film doesn't succeed on the themes it aspires to alone. It has to develop those themes and have the courage in it's convictions to really investigate the consequences on the characters. TDKR doesn't.

 

[TheBat812]

I would love to write a long ranting diatribe on why I think the film failed, but it's late over here and I don't have the time. Anyway...

Yes I'm aware it's a recurring theme, and like most recurring themes which are reintroduced it is poorly addressed in the narrative. There's no depth or weight to Blake's story (and this is one of my favourite characters in TDKR) which is perfectly exhibited in the throwing a gun away in disgust before rushing to grab a shotgun in the next scene. This isn't a nitpick, it's endemic throughout the film as opportunities for thematic resonance that aren't followed through or that grasp at relevance in a way that is purely artificial.

The idea that Bruce Wayne's mission is going to outlive him is one of my favourite concepts from the comics, and Nolan dealing with that could have been wonderful. There's something hugely tragic yet inspiring about it. Yet what we're given here isn't tragic or inspiring in terms of how it's handled because it's done so in a way that it gives us a glossy Hollywood ending without considering any of the ramifications of how Bruce would feel in leaving his city while he's still alive, or how he would feel by the fact that he's now putting someone else's life in the same danger he put himself in. Again, an opportunity to develop something that is glossed over. I wanted to see how this Bruce Wayne would feel about that. The Bruce Wayne who came back to Gotham with one big intention, and saw every move he made put the lives of those around in him in more and more danger until he was crushed by the consequences of what happened... But we didn't get a single bit of it.

TDK was an incredible achievement because it was a great character piece shot through the prism of a crime blockbuster. TDKR has a simple story to tell, and it tells it poorly, missing opportunity after opportunity to give it real resonance.

A film doesn't succeed on the themes it aspires to alone. It has to develop those themes and have the courage in it's convictions to really investigate the consequences on the characters. TDKR doesn't.

I feel like it does address the themes you discuss, in a way that was less subtly done than in his other films, but are equally resonant and interesting in its own ways. It seems once again to come down to him not exploring what you wanted, but imo, it certainly explores themes that were part of the rest of the trilogy, evolves upon them and resolves them. Whether they were the ones you wanted or expected, I still feel it address the ones that were most pressing to Wayne's character himself and finding closure. To ask questions like how does Bruce feel about putting Blake in danger have no relevance to his story, and even was addressed in the way that he gives him clues to follow, and if he really desires it, he will do it of his own accord. No guilt there. As for the gun bit, maybe you're actually misinterpreting what Nolan means - he's disgusted by guns, but knows as a cop that it's better to be armed than not when your enemy is armed. If killing a terrorist to save a cop or some kids is what it takes, he has the willpower to do it. He is like Bruce, but with a slightly different moral code, one that might actually serve Gotham for the better.

I don't wanna go over every point, but they're definitely good points, although imo do not make the film any weaker. He's simply exploring something that you're not looking for. You want him to explore what it means to him? You get the answer IN the movie - he's fulfilled his goal of being a symbol of hope, and is finally able to move on. Being so attached to Gotham was a result of his guilt for his parents - that was his father's dream. And he is freed of that burden with his saving of the city and breeding hope amongst the people. Bruce Wayne's mission does live on in John Blake, so that is also upheld, and clearly was something important to Bruce to do before disappearing.

The execution is, once again, probably his most flawed, but still not really for the reasons you're listing. I'd also hardly call it a simple story. To call the film a failure seems very extreme given what they've pulled off here.

 

[TheBat812]

Actually he met him before when he was a kid. That's how he knew he was Batman. Because he recognized he was angry over losing his parents. Ergo that must mean he was Batman



So you have to have lost your parents to be Batman? That's the only way you can be trusted to have a serious keen quest for justice?

Baloney. Blake is an honest Cop who believes in Batman and wants to see Gotham saved. Just like Gordon. The only difference is he lost his parents. That doesn't make him Batman material any more than Gordon.

You are simplifying important connections between the characters. Blake clearly had the dedication and intuition to notice something and Bruce, and then done great detective work to figure it out, which WOULD make him worthy. Either way, the most important part is that obviously the character mirrors Bruce's childhood, which makes him important TO Bruce. That's why he's chosen. There is no has to, it's a story, they do things for meaningful character reasons, not always because it doesn't make sense that he expects a young cop to immediately fill the role it took him like 10 years to grow into.

What? Police training and a will for justice is what it takes to be a BETTER Batman than Bruce Wayne was?

No offense, man, but that is utter nonsense! Will Police training teach you how to take on a group of armed thugs without using a gun? Blake certainly never managed that at all in TDKR. Can he hide and leap from shadows? Does he know any martial arts?

What exactly is Cop training going to do that will make him better than Bruce?

It's not about what he can physically, it's that his mentality is more geared to actual justice, not just obliterating the scum of the street the Bruce had done.

I am perplexed at your perceptions of this movie. Bruce was being Batman for enjoyment instead of justice? Please explain in the greatest of detail where you ever got that impression from.

I'm not saying he did it out of the sole purpose to hurt people, but it's certainly a huge part of it and the character of batman. That rage that he brings is no coincidence. Yes it's intimidation, but it's an escape for Bruce. This has always been a part of the Batman character. Bruce does it for justice, but he takes advantage of it to beat out the guilt he feels for his parent's death. Alfred even calls him out on it in BB, and his excitement to don the suit again in TDKR is yet another example. It's pretty clear that it's not until the third film that he starts to relinquish this, and when he finally accepts it, he is reborn in the pit as a new man free of it, when he decides that he is not the man Gotham needs once Bane and the LOS are no longer a threat. that is when he begins making preparations for his final disappearance.