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

[The Guard]

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?

He's a ninja.

How was no part of his body burned after being set on fire by Scarecow?

He was wearing body armor.

How is he able to fall a hundred stories with Rachel, land on a car and survive?

He slowed his fall with his glider cape, which the film showed.

How is it that Dent was killed from the fall, but Batman wasn't?

Because that's what happened. Batman's fall was clearly a more controlled one than Dent's, since Dent was tackled off the edge of the building, and Batman hung there for a moment, then fell straight down.

You were saying?

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.

This.

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.

And this.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES briefly touches on most of its main thematic elements but focuses on melodrama. It doesn't explore any of its thematic elements very well.

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.

Blake didn’t do any great detective wortk to figure out who Bruce was. It would have been nice if he was shown to have done some in order to deduce who Bruce was, but...nope.

 

[Travesty]

Blake doesn't have to do any great detective work to figure out who Bruce is. He sees faces, and can feel it in his bones and stuff...

 

[TheBat812]

I think where I disagree with your assessment is that you find it to be a failure, when I'd agree that more in depth characterization would be nice, I just don't know where they would have fit it in. And the rest of the story is so important to where Bruce ends up, I think they rightly sacrificed those questions for more pertinent ones to the series. I'd also disagree that the these are briefly touched upon, but instead are clearly woven throughout the entire film. Those examples are extraneous to the central arc of Bruce in this trilogy.


As for Blake, I've already said I found it to be was jarring, but I think it's also just meant to be a mirror of sorts of Bruce. They both understand each other simply from their upbringings and experiences, and truly feel linked to each other in that sense. This came from the acting. I would rather the intention be there, than not. Honestly it is a move that feels comic booky to me, and this movie was full of those things that felt much less realistic in that sense. It was one of the reasons I think I enjoyed this one the most.

Oh ya, and it felt pretty obvious to me that Blake had researched it, the way it was performed. Like Bruce, he seems to have an obsession with justice, and would be the same way about judicially researching things, at least from that scene alone.

 

[Hype_the_Hero]

Question

How is it that Dent was killed from the fall, but Batman wasn't?

Answer

Because that's what happened. Batman's fall was clearly a more controlled one than Dent's, since Dent was tackled off the edge of the building, and Batman hung there for a moment, then fell straight down.

This could have been answered better so I'll give it a shot.

Dent was literally tackled out of the building, falling at such a momentum that the fall killed him instantly. Batman was not only wearing body armor, but his cape and him hitting the wood beams helped soften his fall. It isn't like he walked away uninjured, he was scared for life due to the fall and the traumatic events that led to it.

 

[Alex Logan]

He's a ninja.

He was wearing body armor.

He slowed his fall with his glider cape, which the film showed.

Because that's what happened. Batman's fall was clearly a more controlled one than Dent's, since Dent was tackled off the edge of the building, and Batman hung there for a moment, then fell straight down.

Question
Answer
This could have been answered better so I'll give it a shot.

Dent was literally tackled out of the building, falling at such a momentum that the fall killed him instantly. Batman was not only wearing body armor, but his cape and him hitting the wood beams helped soften his fall. It isn't like he walked away uninjured, he was scared for life due to the fall and the traumatic events that led to it.

I think you guys missed my point. I wasn't asking these questions, I'm more than capable of coming up with the answers myself. My point was that these are the very same kinds of "problems" that apper in TDKR and yet people have found a way to explain them because they liked the direction of both BB and TDK.

In the case of TDKR they don't like direction the film took so therefore they have trouble explaining these "problems" away. They've taken Nolan's pseudo realism... a bit too literally and now they can't just accept that Bruce would be capable of this or that. In closing this is all in my opinion, because I have to put that or this might get deleted, and they are their own worst enemy.

 

[edmetalhands]

blake isnt the problem in tdkr,the problem is that he is the only character who seeks the truth and tells it,every other character lies and is found out in one way or another and its the huge accumulation of lies and reveals that drags the film down.

 

[TinkerTailor]

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.

It has nothing to do with him not exploring what I wanted. All I wanted was a coherent story told well that respected what had been established up until this point. I didn't feel that it did.

You say that Bruce questioning himself about leaving Gotham to Blake is irrelevant to wrapping up his story. Bruce Wayne as depicted in this trilogy is an incredibly focused man, an incredibly honourable man, and the most morally firm and incorruptible man we as an audience could ever imagine. Along with this the circumstances that set him on the path to becoming Batman were lightening in a bottle: parents death, Falcone's murder of Chill, travelling the world, imprisoned, trained by a secret organisation of master ninja assassins, huge resources given his wealth. To suggest that you can wrap up Bruce's story without exploring the weight of responsibility that he would be putting on the shoulders of someone unprepared for it is ridiculous.

Blake looking at the gun melodramatically and throwing it away is nothing but foreshadowing at it's clunkiest, although maybe I should have expected that given the lug headed portentousness in Alfred's speech about the cafe. If he's a cop who understands the importance of being armed while the city faces a terrorist threat why throw away the gun in the first place? It's a piecemeal measure to make us think "Oh wow! He's just like Bruce!"

 

[edmetalhands]

i saw the end as being similar to the dark knight returns,blake hasnt been left everything to become batman,he has been given tools to help fight crime and above him a house full of unfocused 16+ orphans..to me the implication was that an alternative police force or a responsible well trained vigilantie crew was to be formed from there...lets face it in a house full of teenagers the batcave aint going undiscovered for long.

 

[The Guard]

I think where I disagree with your assessment is that you find it to be a failure, when I'd agree that more in depth characterization would be nice, I just don't know where they would have fit it in.

Personally, I would have fit it in during the screentime where Blake is having a two minute drive through explosions or the silly "Have to rush through the hospital to save the Commissioner", maybe given Blake and Gordon some time to talk about things that matter...but then we'd have less explosions for Blake to drive through and less running and shooting.

Oh ya, and it felt pretty obvious to me that Blake had researched it, the way it was performed. Like Bruce, he seems to have an obsession with justice, and would be the same way about judicially researching things, at least from that scene alone.

If you're referring to Bruce's identity, there's absolutely no reason to believe that. Blake never references any reason to believe Bruce is Batman, other than "I felt your secret orphan pain and realized you were Batman".

I think you guys missed my point. I wasn't asking these questions, I'm more than capable of coming up with the answers myself. My point was that these are the very same kinds of "problems" that apper in TDKR and yet people have found a way to explain them because they liked the direction of both BB and TDK.

Here's the thing. Saying “The other two films had the same types of issues and flaws” is not a valid excuse for shoddy or lazy filmmaking. Its only a valid statement if you're comparing the quality of the filmmaking from film to film. Which, in context, people aren't doing when they discuss TDKR's flaws on its own.

In the case of TDKR they don't like direction the film took so therefore they have trouble explaining these "problems" away.

It depends on which problems you're referring to. I've only seen a few issues mentioned here in this particular thread, and they all have to do with extraneous characters like Foley, Dagget, and a lack of Gotham's "voice" and some muddled theme work, all of which are very real issues with the film. I don't really see that as people just not liking a direction the film took. Unless the direction the film took that they didn't like was "flawed".

They've taken Nolan's pseudo realism... a bit too literally and now they can't just accept that Bruce would be capable of this or that.

I think you really have to discuss each issue people have with the film separately. Not group all issues people have with the film together as “This is the issue people have”. Because its just not that simple.

There are certainly a few fans who have nitpicked to find "plot holes". But the majority of people who have problems with TDKR, and who continue to discuss them, have issues with the quality of the writing and structure of the film as a whole, not just with plot holes, minor plot holes, etc.

blake isnt the problem in tdkr,the problem is that he is the only character who seeks the truth and tells it,every other character lies and is found out in one way or another and its the huge accumulation of lies and reveals that drags the film down.

I’d tend to agree. Gordon’s lie gets uncovered and he just gives Blake a speech about how sometimes you have to work outside the system. Batman’s gets uncovered and no one seems to care.

The film never really deals with the consequences of either of these revelations, and neither Gordon nor Bruce ever get any real resolution in terms of what they did. In a franchise that has been about the heroes "learning" things, I don't think Bruce and Gordon learned much about their actions regarding Dent.

You say that Bruce questioning himself about leaving Gotham to Blake is irrelevant to wrapping up his story. Bruce Wayne as depicted in this trilogy is an incredibly focused man, an incredibly honourable man, and the most morally firm and incorruptible man we as an audience could ever imagine.

Umm...no.

He lacks focus at several points in the storyline.

He is not incredibly honorable, because he's telling lies right and left.

He is not the most morally firm and incorruptible in the least. In fact, he's rather wish washy with his morals in some regards.

Blake looking at the gun melodramatically and throwing it away is nothing but foreshadowing at it's clunkiest, although maybe I should have expected that given the lug headed portentousness in Alfred's speech about the cafe. If he's a cop who understands the importance of being armed while the city faces a terrorist threat why throw away the gun in the first place? It's a piecemeal measure to make us think "Oh wow! He's just like Bruce!"

Its definitely supposed to be foreshadowing to a point.

Its also a chance for the writers to use melodrama, the Nolans' stock and trade. Its the biggest moment they could give JGL at that point. Later on, they'll have him scream "You idiots! You blew it up! You killed us!" etc like a spastic teenage girl.

John Blake is not the root of the issues in TDKR, but because he intersects with so many characters and themes, he may be the best EXAMPLE of the film's issues. A lot of melodramatic ideas, many of which are forced into the film and franchise, some of which have weight, none of which are very well explored. I thought Blake had potential as a character. I still enjoy watching the film and his role in it.
He’s not the worst character in the franchise, and in fact, he has some of the better moments. The basic idea is a solid one. But its very thinly written and not terribly interesting, and ultimately somewhat unsatisfying in its exploration of themes and concepts, which describes a lot of whats in TDKR.

On another note, why hasn’t this been merged with the John Blake thread?

 

[TheBat812]

It has nothing to do with him not exploring what I wanted. All I wanted was a coherent story told well that respected what had been established up until this point. I didn't feel that it did.

You say that Bruce questioning himself about leaving Gotham to Blake is irrelevant to wrapping up his story. Bruce Wayne as depicted in this trilogy is an incredibly focused man, an incredibly honourable man, and the most morally firm and incorruptible man we as an audience could ever imagine. Along with this the circumstances that set him on the path to becoming Batman were lightening in a bottle: parents death, Falcone's murder of Chill, travelling the world, imprisoned, trained by a secret organisation of master ninja assassins, huge resources given his wealth. To suggest that you can wrap up Bruce's story without exploring the weight of responsibility that he would be putting on the shoulders of someone unprepared for it is ridiculous.

Blake looking at the gun melodramatically and throwing it away is nothing but foreshadowing at it's clunkiest, although maybe I should have expected that given the lug headed portentousness in Alfred's speech about the cafe. If he's a cop who understands the importance of being armed while the city faces a terrorist threat why throw away the gun in the first place? It's a piecemeal measure to make us think "Oh wow! He's just like Bruce!"

It's not a 'piecemeal', it is how you link important things in cinema. Through using imagery we already know and recognize, we know exactly why he's throwing it away. This is just cinematic convention. Would have been nice if he could have figured out a new way to do it, but this is part of the cinematic language they've used throughout the trilogy.


I was saying it's irrelevant in terms of the main arc Nolan was telling. it's just not the most important thing to cover, and since it's something that will come after the timeline in the movie, I don't see where you would even cover it without it feeling jarring and unnecessary. It not being explored directly does not at all affect the film. I still think he bears no guilt, he's simply handing off useful tools of the trade to somebody he knows might want it to uphold justice.

What made the film incoherent to you? I would argue that the film is completely coherent, but asks the audience to fill in alot for themselves, something I thought actually was more comic booky than anything else Nolan has done.

John Blake is not the root of the issues in TDKR, but because he intersects with so many characters and themes, he may be the best EXAMPLE of the film's issues. A lot of melodramatic ideas, many of which are forced into the film and franchise, some of which have weight, none of which are very well explored. I thought Blake had potential as a character. I still enjoy watching the film and his role in it.
He’s not the worst character in the franchise, and in fact, he has some of the better moments. The basic idea is a solid one. But its very thinly written and not terribly interesting, and ultimately somewhat unsatisfying in its exploration of themes and concepts, which describes a lot of whats in TDKR.

Agreed, this is one of Nolan's weakest films, and has the sloppiest execution of Nolan has done. It's just not as succinct and detailed as Nolan's made us used to. Modine is definitely an example of him doing it poorly in this movie, even though he worked from a writing standpoint to represent the everyman who have been indirectly given hope by the Batman - but I didn't give a **** about him when watching. Blake worked much better and paid off in a huge way, but his introduction was abrupt and just something you had to accept. It works from a writing point of view, but is jarring as hell in execution. However, I would still say that everything Nolan does in this film DOES add to the film and to the trilogy as a whole, which is why the film is still very strong cinematically despite it's small problems of feeling rushed and cramped.


It's just a grandly epic film that cares more about spectacle and emotional resonance than a typical Nolan film. It's certainly not perfect because of how much content and story he put in there. That's why this is the weakest of the three films, but probably the most enjoyable one (as far as escapism) for me. It feels like a comic book movie that actually has purpose within it and is still head over heels better than what you expect out of an action film.

 

[Polaris23]

I freaking love this thread. I hate John Blake.

 

[shauner111]

i saw the end as being similar to the dark knight returns,blake hasnt been left everything to become batman,he has been given tools to help fight crime and above him a house full of unfocused 16+ orphans..to me the implication was that an alternative police force or a responsible well trained vigilantie crew was to be formed from there...lets face it in a house full of teenagers the batcave aint going undiscovered for long.

This actually makes a lot of sense, the more i think about it. A vigilante crew sounds perfect. The torch was passed from one orphan to another. So who would be the future of Batmans symbol, when Robin John Blake is gone? An unlimited amount of orphans now located in Wayne Manor..from decade to decade, through each new generation, the symbol carries on forever.

If Robin can identify Bruce, then a similar situation is bound to happen. Some other kid, whether in contact with Blake or not through the years, will probably figure it out or at least be suspicious of Blake. Like you said somebody will stumble into the cave at some point. It's inevitable.

 

[Golgo-13]

I would argue that if someone tallies up the minutes, Blake might have got as much sceentime as Bruce.

He was in it way too much. Like his character, but TDKR was borderline going down the Blade:Trinity route where to much of the main characters screentime was being given to his possible replacement.....

 

[Agent Orange]

Jesus. Now we're drawing parallels to Blade ****ing Trinity??

 

[JackWhite]

I would argue that if someone tallies up the minutes, Blake might have got as much sceentime as Bruce.

He was in it way too much. Like his character, but TDKR was borderline going down the Blade:Trinity route where to much of the main characters screentime was being given to his possible replacement.....

I'm nearly positive that Bale, as both Bruce Wayne/Batman had more screen time than Blake. I'm really interested to know for sure though.

 

[Victarion]

Jesus. Now we're drawing parallels to Blade ****ing Trinity??

We can't accept a good superhero threequel.

My only problem with Blake was his deduction of Batman's identity. Dagget and Foley were voices for Gotham in TDKR. In a Gotham where the underworld has been crippled by the Dent Act, white collar crime would be the means for the unscrupulous, ambitious individuals like Dagget to gain power in Gotham. Likewise, bringing in the man who killed Dent would've been a way for Foley to advance his position in the Gotham PD. However, Foley wasn't really a bad guy at all--just ambitious--whereas Dagget was.

 

[shauner111]

Blade Trinity? What is wrong with you people lol...seriously...

 

[LykanKomics]

I think some of you are really trying to hard with this

 

[Alex Logan]

Here's the thing. Saying “The other two films had the same types of issues and flaws” is not a valid excuse for shoddy or lazy filmmaking. Its only a valid statement if you're comparing the quality of the filmmaking from film to film. Which, in context, people aren't doing when they discuss TDKR's flaws on its own.

I never said it was, but I don't agree that TDKR has shoddy or lazy filmmaking. Well, in most cases I've seen people are not comparing the quality of the filmmaking from film to film.

It depends on which problems you're referring to. I've only seen a few issues mentioned here in this particular thread, and they all have to do with extraneous characters like Foley, Dagget, and a lack of Gotham's "voice" and some muddled theme work, all of which are very real issues with the film. I don't really see that as people just not liking a direction the film took. Unless the direction the film took that they didn't like was "flawed".

I don't think Foley or Dagget were extraneous characters and I don't really care about the lack of Gotham's "voice", we had enough of that TDK. I don't think people would have been happy no matter what we got. If we had more Foley/Dagget and had more of Gotham's "voice" than people would be complaining about the lack of Batman in the film. I honestly believe that no matter what we got, people would still find something to pick apart.

I think you really have to discuss each issue people have with the film separately. Not group all issues people have with the film together as “This is the issue people have”. Because its just not that simple.

You're right, but most people I've seen are grouping them together and making it simple.

There are certainly a few fans who have nitpicked to find "plot holes". But the majority of people who have problems with TDKR, and who continue to discuss them, have issues with the quality of the writing and structure of the film as a whole, not just with plot holes, minor plot holes, etc.

I definitely don't see that, maybe I'm not looking in the right places. The majority of people I've seen are nitpicking the so called "plot holes".

 

[Alex Logan]

Jesus. Now we're drawing parallels to Blade ****ing Trinity??

Yeah, exactly.

Blade Trinity? What is wrong with you people lol...seriously...

Yep.

I think some of you are really trying to hard with this

Yes, they are.

 

[shauner111]

Im starting to think some people on here are hell bent on hating this movie, so they look for every excuse in the book to make it seem like it has 20 000 plot holes and hundreds of excuses as to why John Blake shouldn't have been written that way.

It's actually starting to get really stupid.

 

[The Guard]

I never said it was, but I don't agree that TDKR has shoddy or lazy filmmaking. Well, in most cases I've seen people are not comparing the quality of the filmmaking from film to film.

Well, we’ll agree to disagree then. Not everyone is going to have the same standards or opinions on a film.

I don't think Foley or Dagget were extraneous characters and I don't really care about the lack of Gotham's "voice", we had enough of that TDK. I don't think people would have been happy no matter what we got. If we had more Foley/Dagget and had more of Gotham's "voice" than people would be complaining about the lack of Batman in the film. I honestly believe that no matter what we got, people would still find something to pick apart.

You may not care about Gotham’s voice. But the thing is…the franchise's creator/director Chris Nolan DID care about Gotham’s voice, through two films. And in caring about Gotham’s voice, he made audiences care. Suddenly he more or less forgot to include that element as well as he did in two previous films, despite making a film that is largely focused on a story involving the people of Gotham. That strikes me as less than impressive filmmaking and thematic exploration.

The lack of Batman isn’t a chief complaint people have, it’s merely an observation people have made because it’s a sizeable change from previous films. But most “nitpicks” people have don’t revolve around “the lack of Batman”.

I think its ridiculous to suggest that people would not have been happy no matter what.

The previous two films and the reaction to them don’t bear that out. Sure, there are some people who are almost impossible to please, but to suggest that, with a better made film that there’d be the same level of disappointment among fans? I can’t agree with that.

Yes, people will always find something to “analyze”. “Pick apart” implies that looking at a film with a critical eye is always a negative thing. It need not be.

You're right, but most people I've seen are grouping them together and making it
simple

Then I think you’re seeing things selectively. I think a lot of people defending the film are. These boards haven’t been overrun with nitpickers and people “hating” the film, especially of late. From what I’ve seen, very few people HATE the film. They are just disappointed with certain elements of it. But just because people were disappointed with some key elements of the film doesn't mean they didn't like the movie.

I definitely don't see that, maybe I'm not looking in the right places. The majority of people I've seen are nitpicking the so called "plot holes".

Again, I don’t think most people crying about “nitpickers” taking over these boards are paying attention or being honest about the content of most of the discussions taking place here. We could go through the thread and count the opposing viewpoint sand approaches, but certain people apparently just “feel” like the film has been unfairly attacked ad nauseum, and that there's nothing but nitpicking happening, and that’s just not the case compared to the intelligent discussion also taking place on a regular basis.

There are patterns to people’s complaints. Most of them aren’t making up random things to hate about the movie.
I’m personally very tired of people arguing vaguaries like “Too many nitpickers”. Either you’re ok with people having their own opinions, or you aren’t. I’ve got no issues with people defending the things other people have criticized or discussing the ideas in the film in both negative and positive light, but this catch-all attitude of “Why can’t nitpickers/people who have issues with the movie just like the film, what did they want?” is counterproductive, distracting, and annoying.

Im starting to think some people on here are hell bent on hating this movie, so they look for every excuse in the book to make it seem like it has 20 000 plot holes and hundreds of excuses as to why John Blake shouldn't have been written that way.

It's actually starting to get really stupid.

You know what's starting to get old? Hyperbole like this. 20,000? Hundreds?

 

[shauner111]

It sure as hell is starting to feel like it's that amount. It never ends around here.

 

[The Joker]

Great posts as always, Guard

 

[A Necessary Evil]

It sure as hell is starting to feel like it's that amount. It never ends around here.

It's even worse in the Spider-Man threads.

Also, guys. We need to chill out here.