The Dark Knight Rises Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

[Schrute]

Yeah I see what you're saying, I just felt it was forced. I think if Nolan had Blake include that he also used some type of detective skills to deduce Batman's identity, and show him do some hand to hand combat during his scene with Batman it could've helped sell the idea to Bruce for me.

JGL is great in the role though, even if his character is kind of boring and "forced" at times (imo)

 

[BlackFox]

I love how Blake is doing those Robin things throughout the film - from doing detective work down to just being an optimist and hopeful presence.

Yes and its all without the audience realising it.

And I am someone who hates the character of Robin usually, if someone had said before the film that Robin was in TDKR I would have raged like nothing this earth has seen

But the fact Nolan not only put the character in but also maked me LIKE the character of Robin without me realising until the reveal is something astounding to me and changed my perception around on a character.

I love the scenes between Blake and Wayne/Bats. The initial Blake knowing scene, in the car with Wayne explaining anyone can be Batman.
and explaining the mask is to protect other people.

TDKR is actually a Batman and Robin film in disguise. But again I would repeat if you have an issue with Blake you are going to have some major issues with TDKR.

 

[Ryan]

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).

Bingo!!

 

[BatLobster]

Damian could have been an AWESOME Batman...if he lived

And no, I'm not saying that only people with Wayne blood can make a good Batman.

Besides Blakeman could not exist if not for Bruce's resources, so it's not like he is just created in a vacuum. Batman is very much Bruce Wayne's legacy in TDK Trilogy. I imagine that a hundred years later in Nolan's Gotham, whoever is holding the mantle (if it's still necessary) will still have a great deal of reverence for the original, godfather of 'em all...Mr. Wayne. He's like the George Washington of Batman.

I hate the idea that nobody could ever possibly hope to be as good as him, because ONE DAY BRUCE WAYNE WILL BE DEAD. I'd hate to think there's no hope for Gotham once Bruce is gone. The comics will probably never reach that point on a permanent basis though.

 

[Brain Damage]

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.

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.

You deserve a cookie.

 

[DACrowe]

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.

Just for the record, Blake did take down one of the thugs when Batman shows up. So you even saw Batman and Robin fighting side by side for about two seconds.

How did Bruce know he could trust Gordon, Selina Kyle, Rachel Dawes and Harvey De...Well, he was right three out of four times. He goes on instinct a lot though by what people he brings into his circle. Same with when he let Dick, Jason, Tim, Barbara and Terry in in other media. He may have trained them all, but he knew them all, save for Barbara, for about a day before handing them the keys to the cave.

 

[The Joker]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Amazing posts are amazing

 

[BatLobster]

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.

I think DACrowe already made a superb rebuttal to Shika's post, but there is this one selection I'd like to address.

I take issue with the idea that the "message" of the Batman story is that only Bruce Wayne could possibly muster up the will to be Batman. That seems like a hollow and circular message to send out to me. Messages in fiction should comment on aspects of life and offer something universal...not comment on themselves. What is the value of a message that says, "Only Bruce Wayne can be Batman"? What can we learn from that?

The way I see it, Batman could only be created by Bruce Wayne as a result of his tragic past, his indomitable will and his family fortune. Bruce Wayne's life is a perfect storm of factors that result in the creation of The Batman, and it's a creation unique unto Bruce himself. Nobody could've been the FIRST Batman except Bruce. To say that the torch of "Gotham's protector" can't be carried effectively into future generations is baffling to me though. There are tons of brave and willing people in the world. There are tons of people who have rage and demons to exorcize due to something tragic in their past. There are surely quite a few able-bodied men who fit into both of those categories. They don't need to have the resources, because Bruce can provide that.

I mean, shoot...I recently saw an HBO Doc about real life superheroes, who go out on nightly patrols in costume. There are plenty of people out there with a strong desire to serve the public and fight for justice. If Batman was real, there'd be people lining up around the block to be Bruce's protege. And chances are, he'd find a good one.

 

[shauner111]

Damian could have been an AWESOME Batman...if he lived

And no, I'm not saying that only people with Wayne blood can make a good Batman.

Besides Blakeman could not exist if not for Bruce's resources, so it's not like he is just created in a vacuum. Batman is very much Bruce Wayne's legacy in TDK Trilogy. I imagine that a hundred years later in Nolan's Gotham, whoever is holding the mantle (if it's still necessary) will still have a great deal of reverence for the original, godfather of 'em all...Mr. Wayne. He's like the George Washington of Batman.

I hate the idea that nobody could ever possibly hope to be as good as him, because ONE DAY BRUCE WAYNE WILL BE DEAD. I'd hate to think there's no hope for Gotham once Bruce is gone. The comics will probably never reach that point on a permanent basis though.

Exactly. I love that Nolan made him a legacy character and the way he pulled it off. I the idea of there being a Batman 100 years later if necessary. It's a fantastic interpretation. The idea behind these films should be about creating original stories and versions of the Batman, not regurgitating comic book stories for eternity.

Id like to think that many successors could be in the making. Especially since Blake would now have a full Wayne Manor full of orphans to choose from to continue the legacy. Let's be honest, Blake is PROBABLY going to get a job working with these orphans at Wayne Manor since he's A) out of a career in the police force B) has a passion for helping children that went through the same stuff he did C) he has the batcave in his possession so he would need easier access.

It ALL flows so well into the idea that Batman can continue on even after Blake, from generation to generation. Probably from orphan to orphan. Just like the comics, these are all orphans/kids who have lost their parents and who grow up lost without a purpose....all becoming men who finally have a purpose through the Batman's rules.

Yes and its all without the audience realising it.

And I am someone who hates the character of Robin usually, if someone had said before the film that Robin was in TDKR I would have raged like nothing this earth has seen

But the fact Nolan not only put the character in but also maked me LIKE the character of Robin without me realising until the reveal is something astounding to me and changed my perception around on a character.

I love the scenes between Blake and Wayne/Bats. The initial Blake knowing scene, in the car with Wayne explaining anyone can be Batman.
and explaining the mask is to protect other people.

TDKR is actually a Batman and Robin film in disguise. But again I would repeat if you have an issue with Blake you are going to have some major issues with TDKR.

Excellent point. I am also a person who never cared deeply about any specific Robin or their inclusion in animation or live-action. If it's done well like the animated series or certain modern comics then im on board but it's not something I ever loved. I can do without a "Robin". Nolan made me feel like there could be another way of doing Robin without getting corny or making him or her too young to the point where it's a bit unbelievable.

TDKR is a Batman and Robin film but Nolan-style.

 

[BatLobster]

Exactly. I love that Nolan made him a legacy character and the way he pulled it off. I the idea of there being a Batman 100 years later if necessary. It's a fantastic interpretation. The idea behind these films should be about creating original stories and versions of the Batman, not regurgitating comic book stories for eternity.

Id like to think that many successors could be in the making. Especially since Blake would now have a full Wayne Manor full of orphans to choose from to continue the legacy. Let's be honest, Blake is PROBABLY going to get a job working with these orphans at Wayne Manor since he's A) out of a career in the police force B) has a passion for helping children that went through the same stuff he did C) he has the batcave in his possession so he would need easier access.

It ALL flows so well into the idea that Batman can continue on even after Blake, from generation to generation. Probably from orphan to orphan. Just like the comics, these are all orphans/kids who have lost their parents and who grow up lost without a purpose....all becoming men who finally have a purpose through the Batman's rules.

Yyyyup. One beautiful thing about TDKR is that had Bruce not learned to let go and walk away from the mission on his own terms, he would have never been able to pass the torch because he eventually would've gotten himself killed. And if that happened, Batman would die with him. By ensuring his future as Bruce Wayne, he ensures the future of Batman.

And your points about the orphans in Wayne Manor is spot-on. The power of the Blake rising in the cave ending for me isn't that I'm excited for Blake to be the next Batman. It's this sense that Batman will carry on over the generations. Blake is the first step in that, but certainly not the last (if we're to assume Gotham continually needs a protector). The Dark Knight will always rise if Gotham needs him. It's "Batman Forever" expressed in a more practical way.

 

[VictoriaR85]

Yup.

BLAKE (cont’d)
We were so excited - Bruce Wayne,
billionaire orphan. We made up
stories about you. Legends. The
other boys’ stories were just that.
But when I saw you I knew who you
really were... (Beat.) I’d seen
that look on your face. Same one I
taught myself.

The answer is in Blake's quote. He says he and the other boys made up stories and legends about Bruce Wayne. What legends? The kind that would indicate that Bruce was Batman. But to the other boys, the idea was too fantastic that they dismissed it as being just stories to tell. Blake put two and two together when he met Bruce for the first time and figured out the legends they made up were true.

 

[JackWhite]

Besides Levitt's great acting, my favorite part of that scene is after Blake tells Bruce about his dad being shot over a gambling debt and then Bruce's body language shifts; you can clearly see him reliving the night his own parents were murdered.

 

[Shikamaru]

I think DACrowe already made a superb rebuttal to Shika's post, but there is this one selection I'd like to address.

I take issue with the idea that the "message" of the Batman story is that only Bruce Wayne could possibly muster up the will to be Batman. That seems like a hollow and circular message to send out to me. Messages in fiction should comment on aspects of life and offer something universal...not comment on themselves. What is the value of a message that says, "Only Bruce Wayne can be Batman"? What can we learn from that?

The way I see it, Batman could only be created by Bruce Wayne as a result of his tragic past, his indomitable will and his family fortune. Bruce Wayne's life is a perfect storm of factors that result in the creation of The Batman, and it's a creation unique unto Bruce himself. Nobody could've been the FIRST Batman except Bruce. To say that the torch of "Gotham's protector" can't be carried effectively into future generations is baffling to me though. There are tons of brave and willing people in the world. There are tons of people who have rage and demons to exorcize due to something tragic in their past. There are surely quite a few able-bodied men who fit into both of those categories. They don't need to have the resources, because Bruce can provide that.

I mean, shoot...I recently saw an HBO Doc about real life superheroes, who go out on nightly patrols in costume. There are plenty of people out there with a strong desire to serve the public and fight for justice. If Batman was real, there'd be people lining up around the block to be Bruce's protege. And chances are, he'd find a good one.

It takes more than just will to be Batman. Batman is not just someone very motivated to make a change. Superman has the will. The Green Lanterns have the will. Spider-Man has the will. The rest of the Bat Family has the will. Superheroes in general have a strong desire to serve the public and fight for justice and that is what we learn from them.

What separates Batman from the rest is the insanity. The obsession. The paranoia. The lack of humanity (not that there is no humanity at all in Batman but he is one of the least human superheroes on the inside when you think about it). The people you are describing in this post I am quoting would have more in common with Superman and most other superheroes than with Batman. To be Batman is to be a tragic curse and it is unhealthy to the human mind. Bruce Wayne is destroying his life, and to an extent himself, in order to do what he does. Nobody would really want to be Batman whether they realize it or not. Even if you had superpowers that you wanted to use for good, you would lack the obsession, insanity, and monster within you in order to be Batman (and be proud of this because it is a sign you're sane ).

However, the fact that no one really would want to be Batman and the message of "Only Bruce Wayne can be Batman" itself is something very valuable to begin with. It is why people admire Batman so much in the first place. You applaud this man for not only being what nobody else could be but for being what nobody else wanted to be. Bruce took that unwanted position and embraced it, hurting himself and his own life in the process. Despite that, he does what he does so that no one else would have to suffer what he had to suffer at the hands of crime and corruption. In other words, his entire goal is to aim for a world that would no longer need a Batman and where no more "Batmen" (for lack of better term) would be created. That itself is a valuable message. We may not want to be Batman but Batman is arguably the most admirable superhero for that exact same reason. I'm not exactly a religious man but I'll bring up Jesus Christ in this conversation to draw an analogy. The Christian religion states that mankind was doomed to go to suffer eternal punishment due to humans being sinful creatures and the only way to save mankind from this was if there was a "lamb" (AKA Jesus) to be sacrificed. Would any Christian want to be Jesus and carry the burden he had to carry, which was to be crucified? Not really. The man had good morals that Christians look up to (in the same way how Batman has good moral values that his fans look up to) but nobody would want to be Jesus and experience what he had to experience. However, Christians admire Jesus for this exact reason. He is admired by his followers being the man who taking the job that nobody could take or wanted to take in the first place so that mankind would be able to experience eternal bliss.

Now, are there other characters in the DC universe with good morals and a strong will that are just as messed up in the head as Batman is? Probably. However, despite them being like Batman, they will never be able to be Batman in the same way how Barry Allen looked at Jay Garrick's Flash and said "I will be the Flash" or in the same way how Hal Jordan looked at Alan Scott/Abin Sur and said "I will be the Green Lantern". This is because Batman is a part of Bruce. He exists in Bruce's mind. Bruce Wayne is the mask while Batman is who he really is, in the exact same way how Daily Planet Reporter Clark Kent is Superman's mask while Superman is who he really is. Those other similar characters to Batman would go on to be Birdman or whatever else fits them.

 

[shauner111]

Yes, those are character traits of Bruce Wayne. But you don't need paranoia, insanity, obsession of THAT degree in order to be Batman. The obsession might be there if you want to stay Batman for longer, but it's not necessary. You need the will and training and the resources in order to be Batman.

If someone were to take up the mantle of Batman, they wouldn't need that kind of psychology or paranoia in order to be him. That's silly. That's just Bruce Wayne and his problems.

This is why Batman seems more relatable to the world. Anybody could become Batman if you have dark things driving your motivation...making you willing to go through with it. You'll need the resources (Blake has it). You'll need the training but depending on who youre facing each night, you may not need the extensive training that Bruce had.

 

[Green Goblin]

Reeses discovery was more plausible. I found Blakes abit far fetched personally.

 

[shauner111]

I wont lie, I don't see it far-fetched at all. I guarantee you if I was in that world, me and many others would be able to put our heads together and figure out that Bruce Wayne is Batman pretty quick. The far-fetched part comes with NOBODY outside of Blake figuring out who he is.

I remember when I first saw that scene with Blake, I was thinking to myself "well yeah! absolutely!" it's a major suspicion and he follows through with it in the weeks, months, years later. It's over the top to think that he's the only one not that he figured it out.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I take issue with the idea that the "message" of the Batman story is that only Bruce Wayne could possibly muster up the will to be Batman. That seems like a hollow and circular message to send out to me. Messages in fiction should comment on aspects of life and offer something universal...not comment on themselves. What is the value of a message that says, "Only Bruce Wayne can be Batman"? What can we learn from that?

Why do you want the Batman mythos to be some moralizing tale about street vigilantism? Why does it have to have a singular "message" that we can all apply to our lives? Why can't it just have compelling characters, relevant themes, and darn good entertaining storytelling?

The fact that only Bruce Wayne can be Batman isn't a hollow message. It isn't the kind of moralizing message you are looking for at ALL. It is only because you want it to be a moralizing message that you find it hollow. But if you want to universalize it, here you go: every human being is unique, and we find ways to be courageous and to fight for good in unique ways. Bruce Wayne is a unique character, and Batman is a product of his unique psyche, background, history, and influences. We can still be inspired by Batman without everyone having to become Batman in order to show courage, etc. Bruce Wayne is a unique person, there will never be another Bruce Wayne. Anyone who tries to be Bruce, or his unique creation Batman, will be making a futile attempt, in the same manner that someone attempting to replicate Nolan's batfilms will always produce a second-rate imitation - because they aren't Nolan. Because people are unique.

Batman is not a legacy character. Far from it. Nor was Batman supposed to be a legacy character in BB and TDK - the idea was to save Gotham for a time when there wouldn't need to be a Batman. Only TDKR changed things up. And it changed things up to expedite the shoehorning of a two-dimensional character into the cape and cowl in order to try to justify a) Bruce giving up the Batman identity forever and b) having a "Robin" knock-off character for completion's sake.

 

[Green Goblin]

Just because Brue shows pain on his face, doesn't mean he's batman.

 

[Green Goblin]

Though yea It was odd how not as many people figure out who batman is, then again that is the same in the comics.

 

[shauner111]

Why do you want the Batman mythos to be some moralizing tale about street vigilantism? Why does it have to have a singular "message" that we can all apply to our lives? Why can't it just have compelling characters, relevant themes, and darn good entertaining storytelling?

The fact that only Bruce Wayne can be Batman isn't a hollow message. It isn't the kind of moralizing message you are looking for at ALL. It is only because you want it to be a moralizing message that you find it hollow. But if you want to universalize it, here you go: every human being is unique, and we find ways to be courageous and to fight for good in unique ways. Bruce Wayne is a unique character, and Batman is a product of his unique psyche, background, history, and influences. We can still be inspired by Batman without everyone having to become Batman in order to show courage, etc. Bruce Wayne is a unique person, there will never be another Bruce Wayne. Anyone who tries to be Bruce, or his unique creation Batman, will be making a futile attempt, in the same manner that someone attempting to replicate Nolan's batfilms will always produce a second-rate imitation - because they aren't Nolan. Because people are unique.

Batman is not a legacy character. Far from it. Nor was Batman supposed to be a legacy character in BB and TDK - the idea was to save Gotham for a time when there wouldn't need to be a Batman. Only TDKR changed things up. And it changed things up to expedite the shoehorning of a two-dimensional character into the cape and cowl in order to try to justify a) Bruce giving up the Batman identity forever and b) having a "Robin" knock-off character for completion's sake.

It absolutely is a product of his unique psyche, backround, history and influences. This is how Batman is created. It has to be Bruce Wayne. But to become Batman afterwards, you don't need his unique psyche or backround, you don't need his obsession, paranoia, or some Sherlock Holmes level of intellect. That was necessary for Bruce but it's not the essential elements of what one would need in order to put on a Batsuit in a post-Wayne world.

Batman IS a legacy character. Always has been. You just haven't seen the torch passed for more than a little bit because of comics limitations.

Nolan told a story that could be told on film and not in the comics. Sue him frig. It's a different medium without the same limitations. He said "well if I could tell a complete story here that had a beginning and end, how would it play out?...well here it is!". It's not some crime lol. Only fanboys are complaining. But guess what, these movies aren't made for you.

 

[Marx]

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

Blake's was ridiculous and unbelievable.

Pretty much.

 

[shauner111]

Let's think about this for a second. Put yourself in Blake's shoes at that moment. Let's say Bruce is there acting all phony, whatever. Is it so hard to believe that Blake is thinking "Look at his movements, how he's acting, this guy must be screwed up sinc e childhood, look what happened to his parents. And yet look at his face. God I do that too in public. It's like he's masking his pain.......wait a second, mask....what the ****? what if HE is the Batman?? He's rich, he's....my god Bruce Wayne is the Batman I just know it".

Then he sees the signs as he gets older, with the disappearance, etc. I mean. Even if he knew right then by seeing his face, it sounds like something me or anybody would be able to figure out even by accident...if we were constantly hiding in plain sight like Blake seems to do.

 

[BatLobster]

One thing I want to say real quick is that I tend to not think of Batman as a Christ-figure. That's one reason I enjoyed the fact that he did not ultimately sacrifice his life for Gotham's salvation in TDKR. Being Batman night in and night out is a form of self-punishment in a way, but I hesitate to draw too strong a parallel between the two figures. Being self-sacrificing and putting the needs of others before their own is a quality all heroes must attain to some degree in order to be true heroes. And at the same time I don't really think of Batman as purely a burden or curse that Bruce has to carry. I think there's a component of him feeding off the adrenaline and aggression that gets released. It's a way to exorcize his demons, and feel useful to society. It's an addiction, but it has its benefits that keep Bruce afloat. I don't think Batman is a mark of Bruce's insanity, on the contrary I think it's what helps keeps him sane. Certainly, being Batman is a tough job, but it's one he's well-equipped for. Being a soldier in a war is a tough job too, and those guys put their lives on the line and suffer for it just as much as Batman (watching their friends and comrades get dismembered and killed). Society is full of self-sacrificing heroes who are willing to get their hands dirty to fight for what they believe in.

To address the rest of your points- I have no objection to the argument that only Bruce Wayne's Batman would be exactly like Bruce Wayne's Batman. That's a given. But there's a difference between saying that, and suggesting that nobody else could ever hope to do a good job as Gotham's protector if they had Wayne's resources at their disposal, a personal reason from their past to keep fighting and a sense of idealism/dedication to justice. Especially if we're talking about a protege with a personal reverence for Bruce and a desire to honor his accomplishments.

Rather than saying only one person can ever be Batman, I much prefer to say that only one person a generation can be Batman. Because I don't like to think Bruce Wayne is naive enough to think that "the work" will ever be completed in his lifetime.

If none of that jives with your personal interpretation of Batman, that's completely fine. This is me giving my take on what the Batman mythos is all about. From what I gather Shika, you really lean towards the Batman of the BatGod(damn) variety, who is basically infallible and almost more machine-like than human. Heck, you even have a specific idea of what Batman's speech patterns ought to be like (and I'll add that I agree with it). It's great that you have such detailed opinion on your ideal version of Batman, but it's important to realize that there really is no 100% agreed upon "definitive" version of the character. Batman didn't come to be this iconic by being a static character, he's changed a lot from version to version and while he's been chiseled out and more well-defined over the past several decades, I think we as fans have to accept that there will always be a multitude of ways to present the character. Grant Morrison recognized this and applied a wild, biographical interpretation to all the various phases of Batman comics as a way of saying that it's all valid in its own way.

I guess what I'm saying is, we all have our own "definitive" idea of Batman when we close our eyes, but I don't believe there's only only one "objectively correct" interpretation of the mythos. Batman is too big for that.

Why do you want the Batman mythos to be some moralizing tale about street vigilantism? Why does it have to have a singular "message" that we can all apply to our lives? Why can't it just have compelling characters, relevant themes, and darn good entertaining storytelling?

Please show me where I said the Batman mythos had to be some moralizing tale about street vigilantism. Because that is far, far from my initial point. I don't think the Batman story should have one singular message either. I just think the idea that "Only Bruce Wayne can be Batman" isn't much of a message, and Shika was arguing that it was the WHOLE point of the Batman mythos. I disagree wholeheartedly.

The fact that only Bruce Wayne can be Batman isn't a hollow message. It isn't the kind of moralizing message you are looking for at ALL. It is only because you want it to be a moralizing message that you find it hollow. But if you want to universalize it, here you go: every human being is unique, and we find ways to be courageous and to fight for good in unique ways. Bruce Wayne is a unique character, and Batman is a product of his unique psyche, background, history, and influences. We can still be inspired by Batman without everyone having to become Batman in order to show courage, etc. Bruce Wayne is a unique person, there will never be another Bruce Wayne. Anyone who tries to be Bruce, or his unique creation Batman, will be making a futile attempt, in the same manner that someone attempting to replicate Nolan's batfilms will always produce a second-rate imitation - because they aren't Nolan. Because people are unique.

That's all fine. But as I said above in my post addressing Shika's, that has nothing to do with whether or not someone else can do a good, competent job protecting Gotham. It's why I don't even think Blake will necessarily be a new "Batman" at the end of TDKR, but rather something else entirely- perhaps a Nightwing or some variation.

Batman is not a legacy character. Far from it. Nor was Batman supposed to be a legacy character in BB and TDK - the idea was to save Gotham for a time when there wouldn't need to be a Batman. Only TDKR changed things up. And it changed things up to expedite the shoehorning of a two-dimensional character into the cape and cowl in order to try to justify a) Bruce giving up the Batman identity forever and b) having a "Robin" knock-off character for completion's sake.

I think that's part of the flaw of Bruce's plan to begin with. He thinks he can just clean up the city and walk away, and then everything will be fine and dandy. But as we learn in TDK, he changed things forever.

I don't think Batman MUST be a legacy character by definition. But he certainly can be one and it's something that the comics have heavily dealt with. This trilogy was about symbols and their power, almost more than the men behind them. And as a trilogy, it also was really the first true "Hero's Journey" take on the Batman mythos. And the hero's journey is all about cycles- it's easy to see how a generational aspect and passing the sword down would come into play there.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Please show me where I said the Batman mythos had to be some moralizing tale about street vigilantism.

Messages in fiction should comment on aspects of life and offer something universal...not comment on themselves. What is the value of a message that says, "Only Bruce Wayne can be Batman"? What can we learn from that?

... I mean, shoot...I recently saw an HBO Doc about real life superheroes, who go out on nightly patrols in costume. There are plenty of people out there with a strong desire to serve the public and fight for justice. If Batman was real, there'd be people lining up around the block to be Bruce's protege. And chances are, he'd find a good one.

You directly tied your argument about message-value into an example about street vigilantism. Since the message of TDKR is "anyone can be Batman" NOT "anyone can be a hero, courageous, etc." I concluded that this was what you were talking about. If not, we probably agree on some things... but consequently disagree with the (silly) message of TDKR.

 

[ThePhantasm]

What's funny is that TDKR is based partly on Knightfall... and the whole message of Knightfall, Knightsquest, and Knightsend is that ONLY Bruce can be Batman.