The Dark Knight Rises Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

[ThePhantasm]

My problem with Blake is that he is a boring and generic Gary Stu. I thought he was a complete screen vacuum throughout the whole film. When I rewatched TDKR, I started thinking on all the possible things they could have done in the film if Blake was cut out. They could spent more time to develop characters like Catwoman, Bane and even Talia. Instead, we had to watch a very boring and generic character (IMO) who is not only nowhere as interesting as the rest of the characters in the film but is also not a new archetype to this particular continuity. I consider him to be Batman Begins' Gordon only far less interesting.

Well said. My feelings exactly.

 

[DACrowe]

My problem with Blake is that he is a boring and generic Gary Stu.

Well...you just pretty much described Robin, at least when played by pre-Nightwing Dick Grayson and Tim Drake, down to a tee. He is a cypher and a Gary Stu. He is meant, in his most basic conceit, to be wish fulfillment for children reading Batman comics and even as college-age Dick Grayson is meant to have an everyman (or boy) appeal.

Nolan took that universality and aged it to his 20s and made him a beat cop. Same character.

I thought he was a complete screen vacuum throughout the whole film. When I rewatched TDKR, I started thinking on all the possible things they could have done in the film if Blake was cut out. They could spent more time to develop characters like Catwoman, Bane and even Talia. Instead, we had to watch a very boring and generic character (IMO) who is not only nowhere as interesting as the rest of the characters in the film but is also not a new archetype to this particular continuity. I consider him to be Batman Begins' Gordon only far less interesting.

To be fair though, Joseph Gordon-Levitt delivered a great performance. It just sucks that it wasn't for a more compelling character.

Eh...I think your viewing him as a vacuum comes from a hatred of the made-up character and not the other way around. Sure, I wish that Catwoman had more screentime (Bane got plenty) or more of this or that, but legacy is a crucial aspect of the Batman mythos and DC at large. Nolan clearly wanted to tap into that for his trilogy. Even if Bruce Wayne retires, he would not at least seed something in his place. And like Terry McGuiness, Dick Grayson and Tim Drake, John Blake fulfilled that role.

To cut out Blake is to drastically change the ending and in some ways would be even more of a change from the comics, given legacy and mantles being such a major dimension to Batman's character. For it to end with no future of another Batman is a departure itself.

But Blake is fine and certainly deserved more screentime than Talia.

And you really dislike Gordon in BB? I thought he was one of the best parts of that movie.

 

[kvz5]

Bane's time was just right IMO. not too little but not too much. I would've like more screen time for Talia to develop her character more but IMO the ones that got shafted the most were Gordon and Selina. I'm just glad that Gordon at least had TDK were he was given an amazing storyline. We don't have that with Selina. I was really surprised at how small her screen time was. I was expecting her to have Dent-like screen time since she's interacting with both Bruce and Batman. It just seemed like after they took Bruce out from Gotham in act 2, they didn't know what to do with her character anymore. I know there are some that felt that Bruce having a HEA ending with her didn't feel deserved so I think more development on her character would've fixed that.

 

[Monicabbm]

Bane's time was just right IMO. not too little but not too much. I would've like more screen time for Talia to develop her character more but IMO the ones that got shafted the most were Gordon and Selina. I'm just glad that Gordon at least had TDK were he was given an amazing storyline

I was so sad for Gordon. I had a great expectation for him in this film, especially after seeing that scene in the trailer, but it was disappointing.

I was really surprised at how small her screen time was. I was expecting her to have Dent-like screen time since she's interacting with both Bruce and Batman. It just seemed like after they took Bruce out from Gotham in act 2, they didn't know what to do with her character anymore. I know there are some that felt that Bruce having a HEA ending with her didn't feel deserved so I think more development on her character would've fixed that.

I have the same thoughts.

 

[ThePhantasm]

And you really dislike Gordon in BB? I thought he was one of the best parts of that movie.

He didn't say that. He said Blake is a generic copy of BB's Gordon that isn't as compelling or interesting.

 

[Shikamaru]

Well...you just pretty much described Robin, at least when played by pre-Nightwing Dick Grayson and Tim Drake, down to a tee. He is a cypher and a Gary Stu. He is meant, in his most basic conceit, to be wish fulfillment for children reading Batman comics and even as college-age Dick Grayson is meant to have an everyman (or boy) appeal.

That would be true if we were still in the Silver Age. However, that is no longer the case. There are many things in comics, in Batman comics in particular, that started out as things just there for kids appeal or for shock value. Robin was included as one of those things. As time passed though, comics became more mature (barely to no kids read mainstream comics on a constant basis these days) and a lot of things were given substance. It is true that Robin started out as nothing but a gimmick pandering to kids but in today's Post-Crisis Modern world of DC Comics, Robin is a compelling character with a purpose of existing in the Batman mythos that works in the context of the narrative. Things have been that way since the early 1990's.

Nolan took that universality and aged it to his 20s and made him a beat cop. Same character.

And also turned him into a boring and generic Gary Stu who always seems to be right and can do no wrong. He is a generic idealist cop archetype. Not that all idealist cops are automatically boring and generic with no character. There are plenty of interesting ones out there (i.e. Gordon) but Blake came off to me as the generic idealist cop that I have seen already in many many films.

Now that I think about it, even his name sounds like the name of a boring and generic Gary Stu. John Blake. Meh. Sounds like the new "John Smith". And just to clarify things in case someone reading this is misinterpreting things, I'm not saying that his name constitutes to him coming off as boring and generic to me in any way. I'm just making a funny observation here.

Eh...I think your viewing him as a vacuum comes from a hatred of the made-up character and not the other way around. Sure, I wish that Catwoman had more screentime (Bane got plenty) or more of this or that, but legacy is a crucial aspect of the Batman mythos and DC at large. Nolan clearly wanted to tap into that for his trilogy. Even if Bruce Wayne retires, he would not at least seed something in his place. And like Terry McGuiness, Dick Grayson and Tim Drake, John Blake fulfilled that role.

To cut out Blake is to drastically change the ending and in some ways would be even more of a change from the comics, given legacy and mantles being such a major dimension to Batman's character. For it to end with no future of another Batman is a departure itself.

But Blake is fine and certainly deserved more screentime than Talia.

I don't have a problem with characters not from the comics added in. I always liked Agent Coulson and other original characters from other comic book films. As I said, my problem with Blake is that he is boring. I consider him a vacuum because we have to spend precious screen time with a boring character like him as opposed to focusing on characters with a more interesting personality. Heck, not even that. Just characters with a personality.

And yes, the ending would have been completely different if we would have cut out Blake but that is a good thing.

It depends on what you mean by "legacy". It is true that Bruce has trained kids like Dick Grayson and Tim Drake but he did not train them with the intention that they will one day take up the Batman mantle. He trained them because they, much like Bruce at their age, sought the training required to fight crime. However, Nightwing and Red Robin do not live in Batman's shadow or are Batman's sidekicks (even though some writers often think they are). They are their own men. Bruce gave them the training and whatever they did after that point was entirely up to them. The Nightwing persona is just a fitting to Dick Grayson as the Batman persona is to Bruce Wayne. Both Batman and his "sons" have no desire for any of them to become Batman.

If you're referring to legacy being a part of the Batman mythos in the sense that Batman is a legacy character and that the mantle can be passed on, that is false. In fact, that goes against everything Batman is all about. Along with Superman, Batman is literally the last superhero to ever be a legacy character. Batman is not a mantle that can be passed down generation to generation like the Flash and Green Lantern mantles. Batman is the byproduct of Bruce Wayne's scarred psychological mind. There is no Batman without Bruce Wayne. The whole message behind Batman is that Bruce Wayne is literally the only man to have ever achieved the impossible: He has mastered everything there is to master and has transformed himself into a demon in human form through his sorrows. That is something no one can do. It takes a ridiculous commitment to become Batman that no person can have. Not anyone can be Batman. Batman is and forever will be a part of Bruce. The thing inside him that drives Batman to do what he does and makes him literally the most motivated superhero (that is not an exaggeration) all comes from Bruce Wayne. Sure that you can have guys like Dick Grayson and Tim Drake take his place temporarily while he is missing or considered dead but no one can permanently take his place because there can be no one who can truly replace Bruce and bring the same drive to Batman that Bruce does, something that all his sidekicks know and respect. This is why I find the entire message of TDKR to be very anti-Batman. The idea that anyone can be Batman and that Batman is a legacy character whose mantle can be passed down completely flies in the face of the essence of Batman.

Out of all the stories in all the Batman mediums in the 74 years that Batman has existed for, the only time the idea of Batman being a legacy whose mantle is passed down to someone else has ever worked while still staying 100% true to everything that Batman is all about was in Batman Beyond. I tip my hat to Bruce Timm and Paul Dini for being able to pull off a concept that, by its very nature, should not have worked at all. Sadly, miracles only happen once in a lifetime. I could be wrong but I don't think I will ever see it be pulled off again, or at least not as good as they did. Ironically, what made the concept of Batman Beyond work was that they put emphasis on the fact that it is impossible to become Batman and that only Bruce can do it. We saw how far Amanda Waller had to go and how dirty she had to get her hands in order to create a second Batman. What she did and the boundaries she crossed to do it is absolutely disgusting, and that is the beauty of it. There are many other reasons as to why it worked (such as the fact that Terry was just as mentally scarred as Bruce but for the exact opposite reasons) but that is probably the main reason. And even in the end, they still established that Batman will always be a part of Bruce Wayne in a way it isn't part of anyone else (including Terry).

And you really dislike Gordon in BB? I thought he was one of the best parts of that movie.

I never said I disliked him. He was one of the best parts of BB IMO. What I said is that John Blake is essentially a 2.0 version of the Gordon from BB. The only difference is that he is nowhere as interesting as Gordon in BB was.

 

[BatLobster]

I'm not sure I can identify what made Gordon in BB more interesting, when you really get down to it. Was it the fact that he had a family we saw for two seconds? His mustache? I do think Gary Oldman is obviously a better actor than JGL, but that's not what we're discussing here.

There were a good bunch of moral crusaders in these movies. Gordon is one. Rachel is another. Dent for the first half of TDK is another. These are all righteous characters, and the movies slam us over the head with their strong sense of morality and justice.

I don't think Blake was a "copy" of Gordon, so much as someone that might remind Gordon of a younger version of himself- a version we never see in the movies mind you.

I agree with DACrowe, Blake was fine. It's not that I think he's a great character, but I felt he was fine and fit into the milieu of Nolan's Gotham. He filled a necessary role in the story and did so very competently, and in the end it turned out to be a nod to the idea of Robin, which I appreciated as a fan.

Now that I think about it, even his name sounds like the name of a boring and generic Gary Stu. John Blake. Meh. Sounds like the new "John Smith". And just to clarify things in case someone reading this is misinterpreting things, I'm not saying that his name constitutes to him coming off as boring and generic to me in any way. I'm just making a funny observation here.

I think that's kind of the point though, man. He's meant to represent that "audience surrogate" sort of character (which is the reason Robin was created in the first place). Also, he's just "Blake" throughout the movie. We never hear him go by "John" until the end, and by then we find out his real first name is Robin .

 

[DACrowe]

That would be true if we were still in the Silver Age. However, that is no longer the case. There are many things in comics, in Batman comics in particular, that started out as things just there for kids appeal or for shock value. Robin was included as one of those things. As time passed though, comics became more mature (barely to no kids read mainstream comics on a constant basis these days) and a lot of things were given substance. It is true that Robin started out as nothing but a gimmick pandering to kids but in today's Post-Crisis Modern world of DC Comics, Robin is a compelling character with a purpose of existing in the Batman mythos that works in the context of the narrative. Things have been that way since the early 1990's.

Well if we're gonna' be honest, you still have to give the comics a HUGE mulligan for accepting that Bruce Wayne would put 12-year-old boys in the same room as criminals like the Joker in brightly colored costumes that make them walking targets. It is always going to be something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you think about it for more than a minute.

However, I agree that they gave Dick Grayson depth (mostly as Nightwing) and tried again with Tim Drake. I also love Damian Wayne who is not really like those two. I grew up on comics in the '90s

But my point is that Robin has always been more of a "Gary Stu" character. He is always optimistic, outgoing and not very deep. The most interesting Robin (besides Damian) to date is TAS's own take on Tim Drake. But in the comics? They are all ciphers and everyman/everyboy meant for everyone to relate to. The trick is if the writing makes them interesting. John Blake fits that to a tee, they just update it to him being in his 20s. He is the Terry McGuiness character. And I think the way they write his revelation scene to Batman is so well performed that it works.

And also turned him into a boring and generic Gary Stu who always seems to be right and can do no wrong. He is a generic idealist cop archetype. Not that all idealist cops are automatically boring and generic with no character. There are plenty of interesting ones out there (i.e. Gordon) but Blake came off to me as the generic idealist cop that I have seen already in many many films.

Did you miss the part where he was wrong to judge Gordon? That's why he "retires" at the end, because he is sick of realizing the grayness and political side of law and order. But he accepts Gordon was right. I also recall his plan to rescue his partner ends up getting his partner killed and himself almost executed if not for Batman showing up.

Now that I think about it, even his name sounds like the name of a boring and generic Gary Stu. John Blake. Meh. Sounds like the new "John Smith". And just to clarify things in case someone reading this is misinterpreting things, I'm not saying that his name constitutes to him coming off as boring and generic to me in any way. I'm just making a funny observation here.

And there's my point. You dislike the character because he is not from the comics and are even making mountains out of flat dirt, such as his name. He is the EXACT same archetype as the popular main Robins (i.e. not Jason Todd).

I don't have a problem with characters not from the comics added in. I always liked Agent Coulson and other original characters from other comic book films. As I said, my problem with Blake is that he is boring. I consider him a vacuum because we have to spend precious screen time with a boring character like him as opposed to focusing on characters with a more interesting personality. Heck, not even that. Just characters with a personality.

And yes, the ending would have been completely different if we would have cut out Blake but that is a good thing.

It depends on what you mean by "legacy". It is true that Bruce has trained kids like Dick Grayson and Tim Drake but he did not train them with the intention that they will one day take up the Batman mantle. He trained them because they, much like Bruce at their age, sought the training required to fight crime. However, Nightwing and Red Robin do not live in Batman's shadow or are Batman's sidekicks (even though some writers often think they are). They are their own men. Bruce gave them the training and whatever they did after that point was entirely up to them. The Nightwing persona is just a fitting to Dick Grayson as the Batman persona is to Bruce Wayne. Both Batman and his "sons" have no desire for any of them to become Batman.

If you're referring to legacy being a part of the Batman mythos in the sense that Batman is a legacy character and that the mantle can be passed on, that is false. In fact, that goes against everything Batman is all about. Along with Superman, Batman is literally the last superhero to ever be a legacy character. Batman is not a mantle that can be passed down generation to generation like the Flash and Green Lantern mantles. Batman is the byproduct of Bruce Wayne's scarred psychological mind. There is no Batman without Bruce Wayne. The whole message behind Batman is that Bruce Wayne is literally the only man to have ever achieved the impossible: He has mastered everything there is to master and has transformed himself into a demon in human form through his sorrows. That is something no one can do. It takes a ridiculous commitment to become Batman that no person can have. Not anyone can be Batman. Batman is and forever will be a part of Bruce. The thing inside him that drives Batman to do what he does and makes him literally the most motivated superhero (that is not an exaggeration) all comes from Bruce Wayne. Sure that you can have guys like Dick Grayson and Tim Drake take his place temporarily while he is missing or considered dead but no one can permanently take his place because there can be no one who can truly replace Bruce and bring the same drive to Batman that Bruce does, something that all his sidekicks know and respect. This is why I find the entire message of TDKR to be very anti-Batman. The idea that anyone can be Batman and that Batman is a legacy character whose mantle can be passed down completely flies in the face of the essence of Batman.

Out of all the stories in all the Batman mediums in the 74 years that Batman has existed for, the only time the idea of Batman being a legacy whose mantle is passed down to someone else has ever worked while still staying 100% true to everything that Batman is all about was in Batman Beyond. I tip my hat to Bruce Timm and Paul Dini for being able to pull off a concept that, by its very nature, should not have worked at all. Sadly, miracles only happen once in a lifetime. I could be wrong but I don't think I will ever see it be pulled off again, or at least not as good as they did. Ironically, what made the concept of Batman Beyond work was that they put emphasis on the fact that it is impossible to become Batman and that only Bruce can do it. We saw how far Amanda Waller had to go and how dirty she had to get her hands in order to create a second Batman. What she did and the boundaries she crossed to do it is absolutely disgusting, and that is the beauty of it. There are many other reasons as to why it worked (such as the fact that Terry was just as mentally scarred as Bruce but for the exact opposite reasons) but that is probably the main reason. And even in the end, they still established that Batman will always be a part of Bruce Wayne in a way it isn't part of anyone else (including Terry).



I never said I disliked him. He was one of the best parts of BB IMO. What I said is that John Blake is essentially a 2.0 version of the Gordon from BB. The only difference is that he is nowhere as interesting as Gordon in BB was.

And there it is writ large. You dislike the idea of Batman passing his legacy on and so you hate Blake and, to an extension, the movie.

Batman IS a legacy character. In the modern sense of comics that is the best explanation of why such a loner and borderline psychotic control freak takes on a "Bat-family" that includes multiple sons (Dick, Jason, Tim, Damian) and a daughter (Barbara). He is building a network to continue his work after he is gone.

There is always the implied undertone in the better Batman/Nightwing stories that Nightwing is the heir apparent. It is a burden he does not want, but is almost haunted by. During "Knightsend," the best volume of "Knightsfall," Nightwing feels dejected and insulted that after Bane broke Batman, Bruce left the mantle to some random nutjob instead of himself. Tim Drake feels similarly, though he knows he is too young and inexperienced to become Batman. Nightwing ends up battling this metal monstrosity and Jean-Paul even says, "The Heir Apparent has come for his mantle" or something to that extent.

Then when Bruce Wayne is "killed" again, Dick Grayson really becomes Batman. And if you ask many comic book readers, Dick Grayson as Batman and Damian Wayne as Robin were some of the best Batman stories in years. The only reason Dick quit being Batman, which continued even after Bruce Wayne came back, was because DC wanted their New 52 Reboot to only have one main Batman character.

Yes, Bruce Wayne always comes back and never permanently passes the mantle, but that is because this is the nature of comic books. They are never ever going to KILL or end Batman for good. So, Bruce Wayne will always be Batman. But that is the nature of the beast. But the better comic writers, including Morrison, recognize Batman is a legacy character and find clever ways to explore that in his confounds. Bruce Wayne's necessity for Robins can only be rationally explained as such.

In other mediums where endings are allowed this becomes more explicit.

In "The Dark Knight Returns," Bruce Wayne fakes his death and trains the little girl and an army of freaks in the sewers to become an army of Batmen. Why? Because they will continue on his good work in his name. Is it a bit dark and mean spirited how this version of legacy is realized? Yes, but that's Frank Miller for you.

In Batman Beyond, which you acknowledge, Paul Dini and Bruce Timm have the advantage to end their story with Bruce Wayne passing on his legacy to Terry McGuiness. And it is just a kid off the street who makes Batman his own, until the years-later retcon in an episode of Justice League Unlimited reveals that he is like some half-clone or some such nonsense. Ignoring that, within the confines of the show and its film, Terry becomes Batman because Bruce Wayne needs someone to carry on his work and like Dick and Tim, there is something about Terry that Bruce sees himself in. Not unlike....

John Blake. Like Dick, Terry, Tim in TAS, etc. Blake is an orphan who shares Bruce's anger. Bruce sees something of himself in John Blake and at first lets him do small tasks while he carries the big load (not unlike how Batman treats his Robins). But there is an eye on him as being a potential successor.

It is a major aspect of the source material. It is just one that you want to ignore.

 

[BatLobster]

Excellent post DACrowe, seriously excellent.

 

[DACrowe]

Thanks very much.

 

[georgec]

Excellent post DACrowe, seriously excellent.

+1 to this.

 

[Brain Damage]

I know there are some that felt that Bruce having a HEA ending with her didn't feel deserved so I think more development on her character would've fixed that.

This. The notion of Bruce running away with Selina to start a new life tickles my fanboy pantaloons and makes me produce high pitched squeals, but the TDKR Selina (and her relationship with Bruce) didn't have nearly enough development for me to believe that they would do such a thing.

 

[BatLobster]

The way I see it, they were both looking to find a fresh start in life. Why not together when they already had already developed a bond and attraction?

I feel like Bruce and Selina are healing together as much as they are living out some sort of romantic fantasy. Recovery loves company.

 

[Brain Damage]

If you're referring to legacy being a part of the Batman mythos in the sense that Batman is a legacy character and that the mantle can be passed on, that is false. In fact, that goes against everything Batman is all about. Along with Superman, Batman is literally the last superhero to ever be a legacy character. Batman is not a mantle that can be passed down generation to generation like the Flash and Green Lantern mantles. Batman is the byproduct of Bruce Wayne's scarred psychological mind. There is no Batman without Bruce Wayne. The whole message behind Batman is that Bruce Wayne is literally the only man to have ever achieved the impossible: He has mastered everything there is to master and has transformed himself into a demon in human form through his sorrows. That is something no one can do. It takes a ridiculous commitment to become Batman that no person can have. Not anyone can be Batman. Batman is and forever will be a part of Bruce. The thing inside him that drives Batman to do what he does and makes him literally the most motivated superhero (that is not an exaggeration) all comes from Bruce Wayne. Sure that you can have guys like Dick Grayson and Tim Drake take his place temporarily while he is missing or considered dead but no one can permanently take his place because there can be no one who can truly replace Bruce and bring the same drive to Batman that Bruce does, something that all his sidekicks know and respect. This is why I find the entire message of TDKR to be very anti-Batman. The idea that anyone can be Batman and that Batman is a legacy character whose mantle can be passed down completely flies in the face of the essence of Batman.

I wish I could give you a big hug for this post.
I enjoyed a lot of the Blake character. I think JGL give a superb performance, and I love how proactive the character was throughout the entire film. But his role needed to be considerably smaller. Ideally, a role the size of Stephens in TDK.

From the Begins days it always seemed to me that Bruce wanted to inspire the people of Gotham to take back their city much in the way Harvey Dent was doing in TDK. I never got the sense that he wanted anyone else to don a costume and seek vigilante justice.

My favorite interpretation of the character comes from Frank Miller who said (paraphrasing) that "Batman is a character who wishes he didn't have to exist. He wants to create a world where a young Bruce Wayne would not be a victim. In a way, Batman is out to make himself unnecessary."

Up until TDKR, that seemed to me to be the direction Nolan and crew were heading in. I just don't believe that Bruce would give up the mantle until the job was done. And I mean the film Bruce. In TDK, he was ready to give up because Harvey Dent was doing his job for him, but halfway through that film he realizes that NO ONE can do his job for him, and no matter what the cost to him ("Then why was it me who lost everything?" "It wasn't."), he would finish his crusade. He would endure. He would not give up on Gotham until it was a city where a young Bruce Wayne would not be a victim.

By the end of TDKR, things honestly seem a hell of a lot worse for Gotham than they did at the start. I just can't buy that Bruce would say "Well, not my problem anymore. I'm gonna go bang Selina on an Italian beach."

 

[BatLobster]

If he was serious about passing the mantle though, how much trust would that show in Blake if he was there to hold his hand until Gotham was clean as a whistle?

I think what it is about TDKR that confounds some fans is that for once, it's about Bruce finally learning to value his own well-being and make a calculated, but ultimately healthy decision. The writing is on the wall for Bruce at this point, and he chooses not to ignore it.

Although, I see Gotham at the end of TDKR as having an opportunity to rebuild itself as a better city than it ever was. The police force is full of war heroes, not slime like Flass and Wuertz. The city has lived through its darkest chapter. Things have to get worse before they get better, right? It's hard to imagine it getting any worse. Now is the time for rebuilding and renewal of faith. I like to think Blake is there to rise to the mantle if Gotham ever needs a hero outside the system again, not that he'll start doing nightly patrols right away.

 

[Laderlappen]

I can understand that he can see when a person fakes a smile, but how he connects that to him being Batman I dont understand.

 

[BatLobster]

I'm sure everyone has seen it ages ago, but this video still gives me a good chuckle:

[YT]jJ5l5ls0hP4[/YT]

 

[Brain Damage]

I'm sure everyone has seen it ages ago, but this video still gives me a good chuckle:

[YT]jJ5l5ls0hP4[/YT]

As someone who hates the original song, this is absolutely FANTASTIC.
I can't believe I'm just now seeing it.

Bane as the drummer makes me life complete

 

[BatLobster]

Oh yeah dude, I despise the original song haha. Had to even walk into the reception to it as a groomsman at my buddy's wedding :shudder:.

But it's a fun parody, lots of funny little Easter eggs in there too.

 

[shauner111]

Whoever says Batman isn't a legacy character is ignoring the history to his or her convenience. Batman is ABSOLUTELY a legacy character. Always has been. You just cant see how it fully plays out because DC won't let that happen. For the comics, I don't blame them, it's not an ideal move. But film is made for the mainstream not the fanboys, they don't have rules and regulations and guidelines, they can go through with it all the way. That's what Nolan did.

Fantastic post DACrowe!

Sticking to the comics is not a priority for the medium of film. What is the essence to one person who reads comics, is different from the next guy who also reads comics and then different from the next dude who only watches the films. They can create their own Robin and name his first name by that alias if they want, it's not about honoring the comics note for note. I know im starting to sound like Jett from BOF, but in this case he's absolutely right. What works in the comics/animation isn't going to work in live-action most of the time because that stuff is geared towards the hardcore fanboy or the kids at home with their tv sets. Not the same thing. If the movies can create a more relatable Robin for the movie audience then more power to them.

So with that said, all one director needs to do is honor the dark, psychological, tragic past of Bruce Wayne and what made him Batman in the first place. Everything else? They have the power to interpret any way they see fit. It's their right, because they're not making the films for the fanbase. That's not the target audience.

I look forward to more people like Nolan who have the balls to make their own version of Batman and stories, whether they pull from some comics or create their own path and characters. Im looking forward to somebody who wont tell the same stories we can just read in the comics. As long as it's dark/psychological/well-acted im fine with whatever direction they go. As soon as the acting feels subpar or the cinematography/editing OR it's starts feeling incredibly goofy with spoofy elements...THAT is when ill start *****ing. Why? Because Batman was never created to be a light spoof like in the silver-age, 60s series or Clooney.

 

[Bim]

I feel Reese's discovery was plausible and well handled.

Blake's was ridiculous and unbelievable.

My feelings on this matter also

 

[Schrute]

It just seemed very forced to have Blake "rise" up to take the mantle when he never once realistically proved to Bruce that he was worthy. He and Bruce had about only 3 scenes together.

They meet for the first time at Wayne Manor where Blake tells Bruce he knows he is Batman because a "look" told him all he needed to know, that he was hiding the pain and putting on an act. There is no detective skill there whatsoever, it's just Blake having a hunch. If he were to say "after that day I started digging around" or "I thought who could be the only person that could afford all this weaponry and technology to fight for Gotham" but nope, just a "felt it in the ol' bones".

The second interaction is when Blake gives him a ride back to his house, where they have a conversation about wearing a mask. That's basically it. Nothing there to prove to Bruce that Blake could take up the mantle.

Everything else after the car ride is irrelevant to Bruce because he is locked away in the pit. He has no clue what Blake has been up to or how skillful he could've been during the siege.

The final meeting is where Batman has to swoop down and save Blake before he is about to be killed. Batman fights 3 or 4 thugs while Blake just kind of stands there. If they would have showed us Blake HELPING Batman it would have helped a little more, but nope Blake just stands there and looks like he can't handle the thugs that Batman takes care of almost effortlessly. So Bruce also doesn't see any combat skills that Blake may have.

So they have 3 meetings where Blake tells him he knows who he is, they talk about wearing a mask, and then Batman has to save him. Where at all did Blake prove to Bruce that he is worthy of taking up the mantle, or Legacy of Batman??

I just think Bruce looks dumb at the end of the film for passing the "legacy" onto someone who never proved he could handle it, with no detective or combat skills. And I am not talking about what WE as the audience saw, I'm talking about what Bruce actually saw.

 

[BatLobster]

Bruce knew that Blake was a key member of "the resistance" during Bane's occupation. Blake risked his life for to stay in contact with the cops underground, and it's because of his efforts to free them that they were all in one spot and ready to go when Batman blows the hole open for them. "You've given me an army..."

Blake was a good soldier.

 

[Schrute]

So were the other members of "the resistance", hell Catwoman was a better soldier than Blake I'd say. If it wasn't for Batman Blake would have been killed in that scene, he didn't really prove anything. People didn't know he was a cop so he was able to stay in contact with his friends. Sure, he was smart, one of the more intelligent characters in the series I'd say. But I still fail to see how, in their brief 3 interactions, Bruce would feel comfortable giving the mantle to Blake.

 

[BatLobster]

Selina was probably more capable as Blake as a fighter and such, but Blake's commitment to justice and fearlessness was pretty indisputable. Where was Selina during the occupation? She didn't decide to help until Bruce nudged her. Blake didn't need such nudging.

I get that it's a bit of a stretch because Bruce only encountered Blake three times, but remember...a lot of Bruce's actions happen off screen in the movie, particularly the period of a few weeks between him escaping the pit and when we see in the day before the bomb goes off. He was known to do background checks on GCPD officers, as seen in TDK. He could have looked up Blake's file, etc.

Anyway, the important thing is that Blake was trustworthy and respected the symbol. In fact, if Blake didn't want to do assume the mantle, he'd still be a good person to recruit somebody else with the right attributes. The ending is very open to interpretation in that way.