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

[Fudgie]

Yes, but TDK drove that idea even further, and showed us that Bruce didn't want any masked Batmen running around trying to be the hero. That was shown to us explicitly in TDK, and the main theme of the movie was to give the people of Gotham a hero with a real face --the true hero of Gotham. Yes, Bruce thought of his endeavor as being finite, and yes, he wanted to shake the people out of apathy, but at the same time, he didn't want people running around as superheros, as he didn't want to create more escalation. He wanted the people of Gotham to stand up against the crimes themselves...real people, actual citizens, not masked vigilantes. The "symbol" he was talking about wasn't an actual Batsymbol(as he never even created it yet), or a vigilante symbol, it was a symbol of truth, hope and justice. Something that was lost on the city at the time. And you know who also represented that symbol before Blake? Gordon, Rachel, Harvey, police officers etc. Why was Blake needed again? Oh, so Batman could retire with a twist ending, and then contradict a main theme in both BB and TDK?

Now cut to TDKR, and we have a contradiction of the main themes represented with the other movies. Bruce never even wanted other masked vigilantes taking over, which was spelled out very clearly in TDK when Alfred mentioned more Batmen sightings, and then Bruce says, "that's not what I had in mind when I said I wanted to inspire". Bruce wanted the system to work properly(and normally), which is why he appointed Harvey to be the new face of Gotham, because he was the hero he could never be. Why all the sudden is he now instructing Blake to wear masks when he goes out to fight? At first Bruce didn't want Batmen running around Gotham, he wanted a hero with a face like an ordinary citizen, but now he wants a "hot head" running around with a mask on, who is apposed to working within the system itself? I mean, which movie got it wrong: TDK or TDKR? Why is Blake's character needed again, when not only were we shown other characters just like him in this series, but his character contradicts everything that was setup before it? It's like the Nolans remembered to implement the mentioning of Harvey and Rachel in TDKR, but forgot what the characters actually represented, and then added Blake into the equation, which contradicts so many things before it.

I mean, seriously, if Batman was just going to retire and give over his cape to someone else, what was the entire point of covering up Harvey's crimes? What was the point of the entire movie of TDK? Because if all he wanted was to have a Batman or a masked vigilante running around the streets cleaning up crimes, why didn't he just do it himself, instead of giving so much emphasis over to Havery while taking the blame and having to retire right afterwords? Did John Blake's character work in TDKR? Ummm, if you forget about the other two movies, then sure. His character makes "perfect sense".

Give this person a cigar

 

[TheBat812]

Better question is why would he want to pass it onto someone with no training and who didn't do anything special except unsuccessfully try to get some orphans out of the city.

I cannot stress how much I dislike John Blake.

"The training is nothing. The will, is everything."

Yes, it's just a line, but it's also just a story. Things like this do have meaning. Realistically, everybody in gotham dies within a few years of radiation poisoning, haha.

 

[MAKAVELI25]

What the hell makes ya think he enjoys seeking justice more than Bruce did. Bruce was seeking justice as well.

You trying to imply Robin Blake is going to be better as Batman than Bruce was?

Exactly, some of the defenses people have put up for this movie are borderline ridiculous. Obviously it goes both ways (ridiculous criticisms) but this is just another example

 

[MAKAVELI25]

Yes, but TDK drove that idea even further, and showed us that Bruce didn't want any masked Batmen running around trying to be the hero. That was shown to us explicitly in TDK, and the main theme of the movie was to give the people of Gotham a hero with a real face --the true hero of Gotham. Yes, Bruce thought of his endeavor as being finite, and yes, he wanted to shake the people out of apathy, but at the same time, he didn't want people running around as superheros, as he didn't want to create more escalation. He wanted the people of Gotham to stand up against the crimes themselves...real people, actual citizens, not masked vigilantes. The "symbol" he was talking about wasn't an actual Batsymbol(as he never even created it yet), or a vigilante symbol, it was a symbol of truth, hope and justice. Something that was lost on the city at the time. And you know who also represented that symbol before Blake? Gordon, Rachel, Harvey, police officers etc. Why was Blake needed again? Oh, so Batman could retire with a twist ending, and then contradict a main theme in both BB and TDK?

Now cut to TDKR, and we have a contradiction of the main themes represented with the other movies. Bruce never even wanted other masked vigilantes taking over, which was spelled out very clearly in TDK when Alfred mentioned more Batmen sightings, and then Bruce says, "that's not what I had in mind when I said I wanted to inspire". Bruce wanted the system to work properly(and normally), which is why he appointed Harvey to be the new face of Gotham, because he was the hero he could never be. Why all the sudden is he now instructing Blake to wear masks when he goes out to fight? At first Bruce didn't want Batmen running around Gotham, he wanted a hero with a face like an ordinary citizen, but now he wants a "hot head" running around with a mask on, who is apposed to working within the system itself? I mean, which movie got it wrong: TDK or TDKR? Why is Blake's character needed again, when not only were we shown other characters just like him in this series, but his character contradicts everything that was setup before it? It's like the Nolans remembered to implement the mentioning of Harvey and Rachel in TDKR, but forgot what the characters actually represented, and then added Blake into the equation, which contradicts so many things before it.

I mean, seriously, if Batman was just going to retire and give over his cape to someone else, what was the entire point of covering up Harvey's crimes? What was the point of the entire movie of TDK? Because if all he wanted was to have a Batman or a masked vigilante running around the streets cleaning up crimes, why didn't he just do it himself, instead of giving so much emphasis over to Havery while taking the blame and having to retire right afterwords? Did John Blake's character work in TDKR? Ummm, if you forget about the other two movies, then sure, his character makes "perfect sense".

Couldn't have said it better myself

 

[TheBat812]

What the hell makes ya think he enjoys seeking justice more than Bruce did. Bruce was seeking justice as well.

You trying to imply Robin Blake is going to be better as Batman than Bruce was?

Yes, I'm suggesting he will be a better Batman in the coming Gotham. Batman was a war-time Batman, now we need a peace-time Batman. I'm not saying he'll literally be a better Batman, but he's what the city will need. It's also not like Blake has to be Batman immediately, Bruce is just giving a worthy successor the tools to uphold justice.

Travesty, that's very well put, but you act as though there's no progression allowed to happen. Bruce didn't want random people going out and fighting mobsters. He wanted them to have the courage to fight and stand up against them in venues where they COULD make a difference. He wanted to be the badass in the suit so HE could punish the bad guys in BB and TDK. He wanted and bore the responsibility. In TDKR he finds a man who is very much like him, with clearly a lot of intuitive skills, and a borderline obsession for justice, who's willing to put himself in harms way for it, but without the guilt that drove him. When Bruce finds closure in TDKR, he no longer needs Batman, but knows Gotham might one day need one again. So imo, it's not a contradiction, but an evolution of his goals.

 

[The Joker]

Yes, but TDK drove that idea even further, and showed us that Bruce didn't want any masked Batmen running around trying to be the hero. That was shown to us explicitly in TDK, and the main theme of the movie was to give the people of Gotham a hero with a real face --the true hero of Gotham. Yes, Bruce thought of his endeavor as being finite, and yes, he wanted to shake the people out of apathy, but at the same time, he didn't want people running around as superheros, as he didn't want to create more escalation. He wanted the people of Gotham to stand up against the crimes themselves...real people, actual citizens, not masked vigilantes. The "symbol" he was talking about wasn't an actual Batsymbol(as he never even created it yet), or a vigilante symbol, it was a symbol of truth, hope and justice. Something that was lost on the city at the time. And you know who also represented that symbol before Blake? Gordon, Rachel, Harvey, police officers etc. Why was Blake needed again? Oh, so Batman could retire with a twist ending, and then contradict a main theme in both BB and TDK?

Now cut to TDKR, and we have a contradiction of the main themes represented with the other movies. Bruce never even wanted other masked vigilantes taking over, which was spelled out very clearly in TDK when Alfred mentioned more Batmen sightings, and then Bruce says, "that's not what I had in mind when I said I wanted to inspire". Bruce wanted the system to work properly(and normally), which is why he appointed Harvey to be the new face of Gotham, because he was the hero he could never be. Why all the sudden is he now instructing Blake to wear masks when he goes out to fight? At first Bruce didn't want Batmen running around Gotham, he wanted a hero with a face like an ordinary citizen, but now he wants a "hot head" running around with a mask on, who is apposed to working within the system itself? I mean, which movie got it wrong: TDK or TDKR? Why is Blake's character needed again, when not only were we shown other characters just like him in this series, but his character contradicts everything that was setup before it? It's like the Nolans remembered to implement the mentioning of Harvey and Rachel in TDKR, but forgot what the characters actually represented, and then added Blake into the equation, which contradicts so many things before it.

I mean, seriously, if Batman was just going to retire and give over his cape to someone else, what was the entire point of covering up Harvey's crimes? What was the point of the entire movie of TDK? Because if all he wanted was to have a Batman or a masked vigilante running around the streets cleaning up crimes, why didn't he just do it himself, instead of giving so much emphasis over to Havery while taking the blame and having to retire right afterwords? Did John Blake's character work in TDKR? Ummm, if you forget about the other two movies, then sure, his character makes "perfect sense".

Great post, Trav

Yes, I'm suggesting he will be a better Batman in the coming Gotham.

A better Batman than Bruce Wayne was?

Batman was a war-time Batman, now we need a peace-time Batman.

A peace time Batman? You mean a Batman in a crime free city?

I'm not saying he'll literally be a better Batman, but he's what the city will need.

Just like Bruce was what Gotham needed when he became Batman.

 

[TheBat812]

Great post, Trav



A better Batman than Bruce Wayne was?



A peace time Batman? You mean a Batman in a crime free city?



Just like Bruce was what Gotham needed when he became Batman.

A Batman that's better for Gotham, yes.

One that's not in the clutches of the mob and corruption.

And yes, exactly.

 

[JackWhite]

I'm still baffled at this whole "Blake would be a better Batman than Bruce" angle.

Bruce thought he could inspire a hero with a face, but that turned out to be a disaster. So I buy a guy like Blake, who is cut from the same cloth as Bruce, being able to be a worthy successor to the Batman mantle. Blake wasn't some wannabe, yet ill suited vigilante like the fake Batmen. This was a guy who actually had a good head on his shoulders. So I can believe him being the next Batman, or whatever. But not once did I think he would be more successful as Bruce's Batman.

 

[shauner111]

He's not going to be Batman in my eyes, but that was another fight for another time..and at the moment im done fighting that battle.

As for the last handful of posts who still dont like Blake and dont like or understand (whichever one it is) why he was needed. Im not going to continue defending it much longer but here it is.

It makes perfect sense to ME. And in the same way u cant wrap ur head around it, I can't seem to wrap my head around the fact that people think it doesn't match up perfectly with what Bruce set out to do in the previous two films. Bruce didnt want Batmen with guns running around solving problems and this is not the future of Blakes character either. So you guys should chill out with that.

Robin doesn't become Batman, the Batman is dead, his symbol of hope lives on though through Blake and possibly many of its citizens. The directions to the cave was simply a way to give his equipment to this man since Blake doesnt have that kind of money and he'll need help IF he decides to take the mantle. He doesnt become Nightwing, Red Hood...he is only a version of Robin. It would be closer to Catwomans identity. We knew she was Catwoman but she was never called that, she had a little mask but not enough to hide every ounce of her identity. Blake was hesitant about the mask, he may not even wear a damn mask! He doesnt have people in his life that he cares about at the moment, or a career to protect, so Blake wont care about wearing one. At least for the time being.

To me, Bruce sends this ordinary citizen to the cave because he's one of Gothams good people. A young guy who reminds him of his young self, a similar backround, someone who understands and is inspired by the symbol, believes in the Batman even when Bruce stopped believing. That's a good enough reason to pass the torch to Blake. Bruce doesnt come in contact with new people very often, he happened to meet this young guy with all these qualities, so it's his chance.

What's the torch? I think it's merely a choice. What Bruce set out to do in the beginning was to hand the symbol of hope (which is NOW associated with the bat..back then he wasnt sure what it would be) to ordinary Gothamites who will help each other out. He recognizes that Blake has a lot of interest in the boys home, the orphanage, helping his own. He was a police officer on top of that, and like Gordon, not a corrupt one. So Robin fits that bill of "a person who is WILLING to help his people".

The training is a big help but it's not the essence. The essence is the will to act. Bruce sees some of this in Blake obviously. And that's more important. It's not even a big issue because the guy is young, he has time to go and train if he wants, or he can do things his own way. Blake taking the mantle is more of a "incase this city needs somebody in the way they needed me, the Batman, you can be that person if you want, i trust you with my equipment, it's up to you now". That's the message i got from it. Bruce isn't there to tell him what to do, so Robin can choose whatever method he wants.

Wayne envisioned a quick end to his crusade in Begins and he was naiive. He got himself into some deep stuff in TDK and wanted a way out, it was longer than he expected and he created some psychos along the way. He wanted Dent to be the guy, that failed and he got his way out but it was bitter sweet for him. It was at the cost of Rachel and Harvey. So he got what he wanted but not only was he miserable in this "break" from Batman, it wasnt how he envisioned retiring. He wanted to proudly hand it off to Dent, a normal man, then walk away with Rachel in peace. He was angry but he still tried helping the city with the Energy project & when THAT failed, he became a recluse. His first comeback against Bane was more for selfish reasons, a part of him needed Batman as a therapy for his anger and a way to be put out of his misery. He found inspiration in the pit, he wanted to live now, for himself and for those hurting in Gotham. The REAL Batman came back at the end. He leaves at the end for good, retiring on his terms to go off in peace, something he originally wanted in TDK. But this time Batmans symbol can carry on through everyones hearts, and the torch is passed to an ordinary citizen..not a district attorney who might wipe organized crime away but perhaps only temporarily. Robin and who knows how many other people like him can step up just as everyday PEOPLE. And keep it going. Mask or not, that doesnt matter.

The symbol lives on. And IMO Robin John Blake is a fantastic successor. That's my take and i cant help you guys if u still dont see eye to eye with me or the other posters who believe the same thing. To each their own i guess!

P.S if i went on about things that i said i wouldnt, sorry lol i just cant help it!

 

[TheBat812]

I think you guys are taking the "better than Bruce" thing a bit too literally. Obviously Bruce's batman would kick the **** out of Blake any day. I'm just saying that he might be a better Batman for Gotham since his prime focus is justice, rather than Bruce who was also trying to find a way to ease the guilt he felt.


And great post shauner, I agree.

 

[shauner111]

thanks! No doubt Batman would destroy Robin, just like in the comics lol. But that argument is just speculation. Maybe he has better detective skills, maybe he doesnt create as many freaks as Bruce did, maybe he does! Calm down ppl.

 

[The Joker]

A Batman that's better for Gotham, yes.

Is this more conjecture or have you got a basis for this?

One that's not in the clutches of the mob and corruption.

So basically what would Batman be doing?

 

[TheBat812]

I guess fighting petty crimes, which is why he doesn't need to be a trained martial artist...

If you're going to label stuff like this conjecture, then pretty much every opinion about anything in any movie that is implied or presented must be conjecture.... It's just my opinion based on what information was given to me by the films, as is anything we talk about here.

Nolan goes out of his way to make him similar to Bruce but without having witnessed such a painful event - the thing that inspired Bruce to create the idea of batman. Now Bruce himself has inspired this lost soul (like he was) to fight for justice. Is it wrong to think that maybe the one that's not psychologically disturbed by a traumatic event, but chose it willingly, just might be the best candidate for the position you could act for? When I say better, I mean that he's a person NOT motivated by pain and guilt, but by a need for pure justice. Not that it really matters, but it certainly adds weight to the character and to Bruce's decision to trust him with the legacy. Just because nobody's drawing lines directly from A to B, doesn't mean there is no journey to be found there. Even if I were completely off base with what Nolan intended, it's still there. Having said that, there's a reason Nolan gave us all this info, and for me, that's the conclusion I come to. I guess he can never be a 'better' batman (in the way it seems you're taking it) than Bruce because Bruce was exactly what Gotham needed at the time, and so shall Blake when the time comes.

 

[The Joker]

I guess fighting petty crimes, which is why he doesn't need to be a trained martial artist...

Really? Bruce gave John his Batcave and all that glorious equipment so he could fight petty crime?

If you're going to label stuff like this conjecture, then pretty much every opinion about anything in any movie that is implied or presented must be conjecture.... It's just my opinion based on what information was given to me by the films, as is anything we talk about here.

But that's just it, what information in the movie is this based on? You're saying what you think will happen but you're not really saying why you think it based on the content of the movies.

What makes you think he's going to be strictly tackling petty crime? Why do you think the mantle of the Batman is even needed for that? Is Gordon and his men so incompetent that they can't handle petty crime?

Wouldn't another Batman going around make Gotham think he's not dead?

Nolan goes out of his way to make him similar to Bruce but without having witnessed such a painful event - the thing that inspired Bruce to create the idea of batman. Now Bruce himself has inspired this lost soul (like he was) to fight for justice. Is it wrong to think that maybe the one that's not psychologically disturbed by a traumatic event, but chose it willingly, just might be the best candidate for the position you could act for? When I say better, I mean that he's a person NOT motivated by pain and guilt, but by a need for pure justice. Not that it really matters, but it certainly adds weight to the character and to Bruce's decision to trust him with the legacy. Just because nobody's drawing lines directly from A to B, doesn't mean there is no journey to be found there. Even if I were completely off base with what Nolan intended, it's still there. Having said that, there's a reason Nolan gave us all this info, and for me, that's the conclusion I come to. I guess he can never be a 'better' batman (in the way it seems you're taking it) than Bruce because Bruce was exactly what Gotham needed at the time, and so shall Blake when the time comes.

Ra's "What are you seeking?"
Bruce: "I seek the means to fight injustice. To turn fear on those who prey on the fearful"

Bruce was always seeking justice. He learned to deal with his anger and guilt in his training sessions with the LOS. He was all set to go before he became Batman. Blake managed to deal with his own demons himself as he said in his story to Bruce.

Either way they're both coming from a similar place they just managed to deal with their anger and pain in different ways. Only Bruce had the necessary training to do the job, too.

 

[TheBat812]

Really? Bruce gave John his Batcave and all that glorious equipment so he could fight petty crime?



But that's just it, what information in the movie is this based on? You're saying what you think will happen but you're not really saying why you think it based on the content of the movies.

What makes you think he's going to be strictly tackling petty crime? Why do you think the mantle of the Batman is even needed for that? Is Gordon and his men so incompetent that they can't handle petty crime?

Wouldn't another Batman going around make Gotham think he's not dead?



Ra's "What are you seeking?"
Bruce: "I seek the means to fight injustice. To turn fear on those who prey on the fearful"

Bruce was always seeking justice. He learned to deal with his anger and guilt in his training sessions with the LOS. He was all set to go before he became Batman. Blake managed to deal with his own demons himself as he said in his story to Bruce.

Either way they're both coming from a similar place they just managed to deal with their anger and pain in different ways. Only Bruce had the necessary training to do the job, too.

I was joking about petty crime... There's no point putting much effort in to what he does afterwards, there are infinite possibilities in that regard. The only point is that he gave somebody he trusted to fight for justice with his tools to use when Gotham needed a hero again.

I don't think it's as simple as 'it was all good to go' for Bruce. He transferred his anger and guilt to being Batman, so he could fight for justice. His need for justice is driven by his need to avenge his parents. Not until the end does he find closure and truly move on.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Yup, John Blake sucks.

 

[Alex Logan]

Yes, but TDK drove that idea even further, and showed us that Bruce didn't want any masked Batmen running around trying to be the hero. That was shown to us explicitly in TDK, and the main theme of the movie was to give the people of Gotham a hero with a real face --the true hero of Gotham. Yes, Bruce thought of his endeavor as being finite, and yes, he wanted to shake the people out of apathy, but at the same time, he didn't want people running around as superheros, as he didn't want to create more escalation. He wanted the people of Gotham to stand up against the crimes themselves...real people, actual citizens, not masked vigilantes. The "symbol" he was talking about wasn't an actual Batsymbol(as he never even created it yet), or a vigilante symbol, it was a symbol of truth, hope and justice. Something that was lost on the city at the time. And you know who also represented that symbol before Blake? Gordon, Rachel, Harvey, police officers etc. Why was Blake needed again? Oh, so Batman could retire with a twist ending, and then contradict a main theme in both BB and TDK?

Now cut to TDKR, and we have a contradiction of the main themes represented with the other movies. Bruce never even wanted other masked vigilantes taking over, which was spelled out very clearly in TDK when Alfred mentioned more Batmen sightings, and then Bruce says, "that's not what I had in mind when I said I wanted to inspire". Bruce wanted the system to work properly(and normally), which is why he appointed Harvey to be the new face of Gotham, because he was the hero he could never be. Why all the sudden is he now instructing Blake to wear masks when he goes out to fight? At first Bruce didn't want Batmen running around Gotham, he wanted a hero with a face like an ordinary citizen, but now he wants a "hot head" running around with a mask on, who is apposed to working within the system itself? I mean, which movie got it wrong: TDK or TDKR? Why is Blake's character needed again, when not only were we shown other characters just like him in this series, but his character contradicts everything that was setup before it? It's like the Nolans remembered to implement the mentioning of Harvey and Rachel in TDKR, but forgot what the characters actually represented, and then added Blake into the equation, which contradicts so many things before it.

I mean, seriously, if Batman was just going to retire and give over his cape to someone else, what was the entire point of covering up Harvey's crimes? What was the point of the entire movie of TDK? Because if all he wanted was to have a Batman or a masked vigilante running around the streets cleaning up crimes, why didn't he just do it himself, instead of giving so much emphasis over to Havery while taking the blame and having to retire right afterwords? Did John Blake's character work in TDKR? Ummm, if you forget about the other two movies, then sure, his character makes "perfect sense".

Give this person a cigar

Couldn't have said it better myself

You're all forgetting that Bruce's plan from TDK didn't work.

 

[Alex Logan]

He's not going to be Batman in my eyes, but that was another fight for another time..and at the moment im done fighting that battle.

As for the last handful of posts who still dont like Blake and dont like or understand (whichever one it is) why he was needed. Im not going to continue defending it much longer but here it is.

It makes perfect sense to ME. And in the same way u cant wrap ur head around it, I can't seem to wrap my head around the fact that people think it doesn't match up perfectly with what Bruce set out to do in the previous two films. Bruce didnt want Batmen with guns running around solving problems and this is not the future of Blakes character either. So you guys should chill out with that.

Robin doesn't become Batman, the Batman is dead, his symbol of hope lives on though through Blake and possibly many of its citizens. The directions to the cave was simply a way to give his equipment to this man since Blake doesnt have that kind of money and he'll need help IF he decides to take the mantle. He doesnt become Nightwing, Red Hood...he is only a version of Robin. It would be closer to Catwomans identity. We knew she was Catwoman but she was never called that, she had a little mask but not enough to hide every ounce of her identity. Blake was hesitant about the mask, he may not even wear a damn mask! He doesnt have people in his life that he cares about at the moment, or a career to protect, so Blake wont care about wearing one. At least for the time being.

To me, Bruce sends this ordinary citizen to the cave because he's one of Gothams good people. A young guy who reminds him of his young self, a similar backround, someone who understands and is inspired by the symbol, believes in the Batman even when Bruce stopped believing. That's a good enough reason to pass the torch to Blake. Bruce doesnt come in contact with new people very often, he happened to meet this young guy with all these qualities, so it's his chance.

What's the torch? I think it's merely a choice. What Bruce set out to do in the beginning was to hand the symbol of hope (which is NOW associated with the bat..back then he wasnt sure what it would be) to ordinary Gothamites who will help each other out. He recognizes that Blake has a lot of interest in the boys home, the orphanage, helping his own. He was a police officer on top of that, and like Gordon, not a corrupt one. So Robin fits that bill of "a person who is WILLING to help his people".

The training is a big help but it's not the essence. The essence is the will to act. Bruce sees some of this in Blake obviously. And that's more important. It's not even a big issue because the guy is young, he has time to go and train if he wants, or he can do things his own way. Blake taking the mantle is more of a "incase this city needs somebody in the way they needed me, the Batman, you can be that person if you want, i trust you with my equipment, it's up to you now". That's the message i got from it. Bruce isn't there to tell him what to do, so Robin can choose whatever method he wants.

Wayne envisioned a quick end to his crusade in Begins and he was naiive. He got himself into some deep stuff in TDK and wanted a way out, it was longer than he expected and he created some psychos along the way. He wanted Dent to be the guy, that failed and he got his way out but it was bitter sweet for him. It was at the cost of Rachel and Harvey. So he got what he wanted but not only was he miserable in this "break" from Batman, it wasnt how he envisioned retiring. He wanted to proudly hand it off to Dent, a normal man, then walk away with Rachel in peace. He was angry but he still tried helping the city with the Energy project & when THAT failed, he became a recluse. His first comeback against Bane was more for selfish reasons, a part of him needed Batman as a therapy for his anger and a way to be put out of his misery. He found inspiration in the pit, he wanted to live now, for himself and for those hurting in Gotham. The REAL Batman came back at the end. He leaves at the end for good, retiring on his terms to go off in peace, something he originally wanted in TDK. But this time Batmans symbol can carry on through everyones hearts, and the torch is passed to an ordinary citizen..not a district attorney who might wipe organized crime away but perhaps only temporarily. Robin and who knows how many other people like him can step up just as everyday PEOPLE. And keep it going. Mask or not, that doesnt matter.

The symbol lives on. And IMO Robin John Blake is a fantastic successor. That's my take and i cant help you guys if u still dont see eye to eye with me or the other posters who believe the same thing. To each their own i guess!

P.S if i went on about things that i said i wouldnt, sorry lol i just cant help it!

Great post! It's nice to see another person who can think outside the box.

 

[shauner111]

Yeah, seriously, not to pat myself on the back but they should all read my gigantic post above on this page. I could have posted a hell of a lot more, but i think if they still dont understand the concept of Blake and Bruces plan after reading our posts...i have no idea what to say.

Different strokes for different folks i guess! But to say that it contradicted the other 2 movies and Bruce's arc, that's what baffles me big time.

EDIT: Just saw ur response now Logan, thanks!

 

[Fudgie]

Yup, John Blake sucks.

Ruined the movie he did.

You're all forgetting that Bruce's plan from TDK didn't work.

Blame dopey Gordon for that. Carrying a written confession around on him while he's on the job. Holy plot convenience.

 

[Fudgie]

Yeah, seriously, not to pat myself on the back but they should all read my gigantic post above on this page. I could have posted a hell of a lot more, but i think if they still dont understand the concept of Blake and Bruces plan after reading our posts...i have no idea what to say.

Different strokes for different folks i guess! But to say that it contradicted the other 2 movies and Bruce's arc, that's what baffles me big time.

EDIT: Just saw ur response now Logan, thanks!

I read it. Don't agree with a word of it. Travesty's was way better and more factual than yours.

 

[Travesty]

You're all forgetting that Bruce's plan from TDK didn't work.

Actually it did, I don't see how you can say otherwise, unless you saw a different TDKR where Bruce never retired, because of his "failed plan".

 

[shauner111]

it worked temporarily. It worked for 8 years but in the long run if the truth was let out? No the plan did not work all together. I didnt read what was said, so if ur referring to hiding Two Faces crimes then thats what i mean. But if ur talking about Bruces plan before Rachel died? It didnt work at all obviously, because he wanted to leave with Rachel and give Harvey the spot.

 

[Travesty]

Yeah, seriously, not to pat myself on the back but they should all read my gigantic post above on this page. I could have posted a hell of a lot more, but i think if they still dont understand the concept of Blake and Bruces plan after reading our posts...i have no idea what to say.

Different strokes for different folks i guess! But to say that it contradicted the other 2 movies and Bruce's arc, that's what baffles me big time.

EDIT: Just saw ur response now Logan, thanks!

Oh, I understand the characters quite well, because I'm actually going by what the movies have told us, and I'm not filling in the gaps with pure conjecture. If you actually gave proof to your claims other than saying things like "to me/in my opinion", then maybe I could see more validity to your claims, but it seems like you're just filling in the gaps yourself, and completely dismissing what the other movies have told us explicitly.

So yeah, seeing as you are going to continue to do that, I can see why you're baffled.

it worked temporarily. It worked for 8 years but in the long run if the truth was let out? No the plan did not work all together. I didnt read what was said, so if ur referring to hiding Two Faces crimes then thats what i mean. But if ur talking about Bruces plan before Rachel died? It didnt work at all obviously, because he wanted to leave with Rachel and give Harvey the spot.

You're still missing the point it seems....

 

[shauner111]

Anyways im done with this thread. I said what i had to say regarding the matter. I loved Blake, understood why he was written that way, felt it was 100 PERCENT in line with everything that was set up in the past 2 films with Bruce, and his intentions. I cant help it if people dont like or "get" this trilogy and how it ended.