The Dark Knight Rises Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

[shauner111]

Yeah BatLobster. Anybody who says Nolan wrote that in just because he wanted JGL. LOL that's not how it works. Plus like you said, this ending was thought up for a LONG time. A long time before Inception was made and JGL was cast.

 

[milost]

He's a decade to look into his suspicion. Who's to say he meant that he knew he was Batman right in that moment? Maybe he meant right then I knew who you really were, I knew you disguising your true self.

All off screen with a random, undeveloped character that is never introduced or shown in previous films.

Blake didn't exist prior to last year, that's a fact. You don't just thrust this character to the audience as this big important object in the story without building him up as something special. It's jarring.

They at least built up Harvey Dent (quite well I might add). Batman and Gordon are even suspicious of him at first and they build upon Dent's character with Wayne's suspicion, the all-American angle of the court room scene, etc.


Blake? He's just there. And worse yet, Bruce Wayne just automatically trusts him. There's no suspicion, there's no development. It's not naturally done, it's just, literally, "I'm Blake, I'm a fellow orphan, and I met you years ago when I was a kid and I knew who you were from your eyes and that feeling I had in my bones".


I don't even see how that's acceptable from a story telling perspective. It'd work in a novel, you could have a whole chapter dedicated to it, but in a film? I'm sorry, it's bad in my opinion. Third movies are always the culprit too. Instead of going forward naturally, they always have to go back. Any time they have to go back and the stories history and "add" or "change" something, from Uncle Ben being murdered by Sandman, Bernard "cleaning Norman's wounds", nerdy Killian back in 1999, etc. it's usually not written well.

It never felt like bad writing to me. Pfft haha that's a joke that people it's not logical for him to figure it out yet they feel it's OK for everyone of Gotham to NOT ever figure out Batman's identity? Give me a break. That's beyond ridiculous. Ive seen this movie with several people and they all thought that scene made perfect sense and thought it was an awesome scene. People who don't want comic book movies and watch a lot of layered films. So don't give me that crap.

Coleman Reese was the answer to how logical it would be for an ordinary Gothammite to figure out Bruce Wayne was Batman (it was actually very meta as far as writing goes since it involved the Tumbler and years prior there were complaints about "why wouldn't anyone recognize the Tumbler in Begins"), and that didn't just come out of no where. I don't remember any criticisms against him in 2008, 2009 or even now, years after the film was released.


We're introduced to him, we see his hatred and jealousy of Bruce Wayne. Then Fox insults him and tells Reese to check the numbers again, and Reese finds out about the R&D and the Tumbler. He backs up the suspicion with blue prints and the evening news (all shown in Batman Begins), it just isn't some unspecified point in time where this random character saw Bruce Wayne's expression and knew.

Yeah, I don't know how any of you guys wouldn't be able to figure it out like Blake. So you're telling me you would be like all the other Gothamites and just never find out after so many hints? no comment.

It's a story with a structure, not real life. Film is a visual medium with a story. We're not shown this event, an event that supposedly takes place during Batman Begins or The Dark Knight. Blake isn't developed, he's just there. This and the revelation of the Dent conspiracy are the crux of the movie and they're handled poorly for the reasons above.


con·trived

/kənˈtrīvd/
Adjective

• Deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously.
• Giving a sense of artificiality.

The whole deal with Robin John Blake is deliberately created, not naturally occurring. It's like the story was the very first draft of the Nolans and Goyer's brainstorming. They thought, "well, how do we get Bruce from point A to point B" and John Blake is that answer. It's random, it's forced, it's not developed. It's thrown in there for the sake of it.




That's people's problem with it. That this character that we never even heard of before, comes into the scene with this huge revelation that we're just supposed to swallow.




For die hard fans that are so fixated on the idea of a "Dark Knight Trilogy" and structure and parts and acts of a story, I'm surprised with how accepting they are of John Blake. I'm surprised with how they just accept that the crux of the story, the big revelation from the last film, is from a letter that a character keeps in his pocket for a night or two that just happens to be found by the big baddie in the third movie, that said baddie conveniently uses for his end game.


Sure, TDKR's supporters can fall back on the argument of the "IMAX and running time" limitations as to why these things aren't developed, but should that have really taken a back seat to the story? Something y'all seem to love? I'm not so sure.

 

[shauner111]

Fair enough. I disagree with everything, but fair enough.

I never thought it was jarring. It's a new character thrown into the story. Same thing happened with Harvey Dent in TDK.

 

[milost]

Same thing happened with Harvey Dent in TDK.

And they covered that. It's not just Dent on the scene, like they do with Blake.

Blake's VERY first scene is questioning Gordon about "that night, 8 years ago today". He's already suspicious, he KNOWS. He's not set up, he's literally just there. Next scene, the sewer entrance, already diving into the plot, random kid, orphan, got it. No development, yet we the audience are supposed to care.


Dent was developed before he was even shown.


- "Do you trust him" in the Bank vault, there's a new character being introduced and Batman and Gordon are suspicious of him.

- "I'm watching him closely" in the Batbunker with the character decked out all along Batman's console monitors.


Two scenes that establish that, there's a new DA in Gotham and that our heroes don't quite know how to perceive him in a corrupt city.


Then, BAM, Harvey Dent's big scene where he's introduced in person to the audience in the perfect setting, a court room.


- We see how he relates to Rachel Dawes and his relationship with her

- We see his personality and charisma and that all-american attitude he has in the face of a mob threat

- We see his OWN fears and suspicions with Gordon and the Batman how he wants to clean the city up as well

- We see the "Harvey Two-Face" angle's conception


He's not just thrown in like Blake, he's built up. They're completely different in how they're executed as "new characters" and establishment.

 

[shauner111]

It's simple, he's not Harvey Dent, he's his own character. He doesn't have to be introduced the same way. But theyre still new characters introduced in the sequel near the beginning of each movie. I personally didn't feel it was jarring but I still cared.

 

[milost]

But theyre still new characters introduced in the sequel near the beginning of each movie. I personally didn't feel it was jarring but I still cared.

But the other new characters aren't announcing big revelations like, "years ago, during some unspecified, random time, conveniently around Batman Begins, I met you, even though you probably don't remember me, and I knew by looking at your eyes, smile and face that you were Batman because I am a fellow orphan and I could feel that feel you feel in my bones".


That's the argument here.


But like you said, different strokes for different folks and all that. You didn't have a problem with it and just accepted what was given to you, others didn't, that's fine.

 

[shauner111]

Because theyre not Blake. He's his own character, serving his own purpose. He can come into a story anyway they want. Don't see the big deal. It was a good introduction. He's introduced as a cop who has questions and isn't just happy with looking the other way.

 

[Brain Damage]

milost isn't saying that Blake should have been developed in the exact same way as Dent.

He's saying that Blake should have been set up with the same depth and care that Dent was.

 

[shauner111]

Blake's story didn't call for losing a person close to him within the story, that's why Dent seemed to have more depth. He was going through a transformation from Dent to Two-Face and they had to show it.

Blake is his own character. He didn't need to have the same depth in order to get the point across that they wanted. He was developed with enough care IMO.

 

[Brain Damage]

It didn't call for him losing a person but he was just as important of a character to the story as Dent was.

TDK hinges on Dent the same way TDKR hinges on Blake. Both characters serve as someone for Bruce to play off of and be compared to thematically, and as such, they both are crucial to the ending of their respective stories.

Throughout TDK I never wondered why Gordon and Batman were putting their trust in Dent, we get plenty of scenes that show why, yet in TDKR I'm constantly wondering why Bruce is putting his trust in Blake. That's a problem with character developments.

Why does he trust him? Because they're both angry orphans and Bruce can relate to him? That's baloney with a y.

 

[shauner111]

Well all I have to say is different strokes then. Because I had no problem with the film, no problem with Blake, or how he was handled. I loved it all. Ill answer questions if theyre presented to me, but im done with this section in terms of starting up discussions or throwing out my opinions. Too much negativity for me. Too many threads being started that are about what they DIDNT like, or biting people's heads off when they defend this movie like it's against the law.

Ill glady go back to other parts of this forum where it feels like a different attitude. Cheers.

 

[Brain Damage]

I asked you a very specific question which you did not answer. Why does Bruce trust Blake?

 

[shauner111]

He trusts Blake because he's a good judge of character and im sure he looked into his past, since he left him something in his will, knows his full name, etc. What he sees is a genuine person who wants to help and questions what's wrong with society. He reminds him of himself when he was younger and what could have been. He trusts Blake because they went through the same things, he knows his secret, he's smart, he has "the will" to make a difference. These are things that Bale and JGL have answered in numerous interviews. Nothing new here. Very simple stuff.

 

[Tequilla]

I asked you a very specific question which you did not answer. Why does Bruce trust Blake?

He sees a reflection of himself in him.

Dent's turn on TDK is a hundred times more unbelievable , and badly developed than anything in Rises.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Great stuff, milost, especially in post #152. You've hit the nail on the head.

Reese worked because he was integral to the storyline, particularly the GOTHAM storyline. Gothamites are shown trying to kill Reese and it builds an enormous amount of tension for the ferry scene. Because we see people trying to kill Reese, we think it is very possible that Gothamites will try to kill one another on the ferry. Reese's story sets up the concluding "battle for Gotham's soul."

Blake, by contrast, has little or nothing to do for the entire film. His finale on the bridge with the orphans is a distraction to the main storyline. All his rescue attempts or resistance attempts come to naught. We never get to see what it is that makes him worthy to be Batman. Heck, we never see what it is that supposedly makes him an interesting character. He's a second-rate mix of Gordon and Bruce that supposedly has all their best attributes without any of their flaws. If you took Blake out of the story almost nothing would really change.... except you'd have more valuable and precious screentime to use developing Selina's character and giving Gordon the arc he deserved.

 

[ThePhantasm]

This will be my last post in response to shauner.

Because I say it clouds your judgement in being a purist?

Poisoning the well logical fallacy. Used to undermine someone's credibility or their argument without actually interacting with said argument.

Im not trying to insult your character. Im a purist in certain things, but not with this. I live in the real world where film is something else entirely and there are no purist ways of doing things. Comics are different.

Contradiction. Shauner says he isn't insulting us, but he also says our judgment is clouded and insinuates that we "don't live in the real world" because we disagree with him. And he says I'M rude.

You're done with me? Good. Ditto. You think you're better than everyone here and are nothing but sarcastic.

Ad hominem, and unsubstantiated. I've never said I was better than anyone here, and in fact have numerous times said "we're all fans here, even if we disagree," because I view us as being on equal footing in this discussion. It is shauner who believes that because I don't agree with the majority or the general audience that my argument is somehow inferior. Furthermore, he thinks that if I disagree with the majority I somehow "think I'm better than everyone here." Nope. I have a lot of respect for Joker, Shikamaru, BatLobsterRises, and others who participate in a divisive discussion without resorting to fallacies and insinuations.

Im not BatLobster, Im me. Don't compare. I can have civil discussions with everyone but I always see you being rude and sarcastic everywhere. When it comes to the subject of TDKR , yes I get defensive and im not civil, I don't want to discuss, I want to state my opinions because us DEFENDERS feel like it's some sort of crime to talk good about a movie.

Its not a crime, but you shouldn't be surprised that people have different opinions than you do. This is a discussion forum where people are free to disagree. I'm glad to see you at least admit that you are not civil in these discussions.

 

[BatLobster]

For die hard fans that are so fixated on the idea of a "Dark Knight Trilogy" and structure and parts and acts of a story, I'm surprised with how accepting they are of John Blake. I'm surprised with how they just accept that the crux of the story, the big revelation from the last film, is from a letter that a character keeps in his pocket for a night or two that just happens to be found by the big baddie in the third movie, that said baddie conveniently uses for his end game.

I'm steering clear of the whole Blake issue because I've stated my point of view on it too many times now and don't care to repeat myself.

But I did want to address this real quick. I seriously never thought the letter thing was a bad device, in fact I remember thinking when I first saw it that it was a pretty good and concise way to handle that aspect of the story. The symbolism of that really works for me. Gordon is guilt-ridden and harboring a terrible truth. This manifests in him holding onto that letter, which in turn puts him and the secret in a vulnerable position.

The fact that Bane finds it and it only adding fuel to the fire, that's why it works for me. It's this idea of an evil inevitably brewing under this newfound prosperity and a "storm coming". The storm is coming regardless. And that's the point. Gotham locking up its mobsters does not mean it's automatically a reformed society. Its external enemies (established as the LoS) are not going to stop viewing Gotham as a cancer on society because of this. The truth JUST SO HAPPENS to be on their side, and that is what makes them that much more terrifying.

In the wrong hands, the truth can become a vile weapon. But even if Bane didn't have that letter, he still could've made a speech in front of Blackgate about Gotham is a police state, these men were given unfair treatment, symbols of oppression, old money, etc. etc. etc. It's not exactly hard to demonize or propagandize. The added sting about Dent just gives everything more dramatic punch. It fuels and vindicates the "power of belief".

Of course, this could no doubt feed right into another debate about the LoS's true motives and whether or not people should've believed Bane...but those aren't things I wish to debate again either.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I liked the letter myself, as well as Bane's speech and his ripping Dent's portrait right down the middle. Loved all that. If we had gotten a better idea of Gotham's reaction to Bane's speech, it all would have been worth it. The only problem with the letter in my view was that there was no payoff.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I also love that Bane denounces Gordon for his lies in his speech, when Bane is lying to the faces of the people in Gotham by asserting that they will live and that Gotham will endure. In that way Bane is almost like an evil mirror image of Gordon or something. But again, that imagery gets no payoff later, its just kinda "there."

 

[Shikamaru]

On top of there being no payoff, I still question why people believed Bane in the first place. He has no legitimate evidence that the Dent coverup is true other than reading a letter that the Gothamites have no way of knowing whether or not Gordon wrote it. Why would anyone believe the terrorist with the bomb in the first place? If Bane made Gordon admit the truth on TV or had Harvey pulled out of Blackgate to make him admit it (assuming he was alive), that would have made sense. That would have been a solid reason to believe the coverup is true. Yet none of that is addressed. People believe it literally just because Bane said so.

Also, wonderful post you wrote, Phantasm . I agree with everything you said. I have respect for the users on here and don't look down on anyone either.

 

[The Joker]

He trusts Blake because he's a good judge of character

He trusted Ducard who turned out to be a villain. He trusted Miranda Tate who turned out to be a villain. Even Harvey Dent, who he had groomed to be Gotham's real hero turned into a villain eventually.

Good judge of character my foot

 

[milost]

He trusted Ducard who turned out to be a villain. He trusted Miranda Tate who turned out to be a villain. Even Harvey Dent, who he had groomed to be Gotham's real hero turned into a villain eventually.

Good judge of character my foot

Those were all bad guys?

Excellent point though. Man, I can't believe he got duped by an Al' Ghul AGAIN. It's just crazy. Especially with all the red flags, all the little hints that she drops throughout the picture sounding just like her dad.



You know what would have been great and very much in character. If he pulled her aside and said he knew what was up and asked her what her angle was before being thrashed by Bane. Then maybe Talia AND Bane (and their motivations) could have been more developed once Bruce in a pit instead of festering until the big twist.




Trusting Blake as soon as he meets him is bad, trusting Talia then sleeping with her is even worse. That was a pretty jarring moment too, that whole rain scene.

 

[milost]

On top of there being no payoff, I still question why people believed Bane in the first place. He has no legitimate evidence that the Dent coverup is true other than reading a letter that the Gothamites have no way of knowing whether or not Gordon wrote it. Why would anyone believe the terrorist with the bomb in the first place? If Bane made Gordon admit the truth on TV or had Harvey pulled out of Blackgate to make him admit it (assuming he was alive), that would have made sense. That would have been a solid reason to believe the coverup is true. Yet none of that is addressed. People believe it literally just because Bane said so.

Exactly.

It didn't help that we don't even get to see Gotham's response (instead we get Blakes I guess?), but the city just believes him? Gordon's not even around. This terrorist just blew up a stadium and killed football players, citizens and the mayor. They're just going to buy that Gordon made this letter?


It's just so messy.


I also hate how Gordon practically tells everyone at the Harvey Dent Day ceremony at Wayne Manor that there's more to Dent than meets the eye (they even cut to the audience looking at Gordon with interest) and then he's just like, "well, maybe I'll save that for another day".


"Uhhh, no Gordon, how about you tell us now? There's more to this? It almost sounds like it isn't true!?!"



Blake, the letter, the reveal of the conspiracy, that was all 4 long years of hard work and writing?

 

[shauner111]

Because in this trilogy he was never quite the world's greatest detective. That will saved for the reboot. He was a smart but not super intelligent, ordinary man. Any one of us could have been duped by Talia under those circumstances, especially since he was so rusty and out of the game. His mind wasn't right. Nolan always tried making him more relatable in this version.

For the sake of the story told and that version of Wayne, it was fine. I never once thought "he should be figuring this out". But if he was set up as the world's greatest detective from the get-go then I would have facepalmed when Talia reveals herself.

I assume Goyer will write the new Batman to be more sci-fi. A better mind and a better fighter.

 

[milost]

I assume Goyer will write the new Batman to be more sci-fi. A better mind and a better fighter.

Well considering he initially created the big twist with Ducard/Ra's (most of that screenplay for Begins is all his baby) and that was once again carried over to TDKR, I wouldn't be surprised if Goyer makes a similar Batman once again. I hope not, but all we can do is base the future on what he's previously delivered.

I'm going to be optimistic though. All the guys in Hollywood and they just keep bringing in Goyer. I just don't get it. Why not give someone else a chance? Surely there's someone else with a great take on Batman other than Goyer?