The Dark Knight Rises Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

[shauner111]

I agree with others here that I find it not believable that Blake would be able to find out that Bruce Wayne was Batman from a look he saw 20 years ago.

You mean 8-9 years...

And tell me this people..why is it that only Batman fanboys think it's unbelievable that Blake found out? The general audience never had a problem with it. I think it's because you guys nitpick way too much and compare things to the source material so much in that barely anyone has figured it out there in the comics..so you get all mad about how it turned out. It's just really amazing to me that ive heard NOTHING from the general public about this scene. General audience meaning people who don't usually watch these comic book movies or have too much investment in the characters and their source material. I mean, these are people who are basically watching films that are probably less fantastical by nature since comic book movies tend to have the most outlandish and fantastical ideas. Yet they had no problems believing this scene or getting emotionally invested in it. Hmm, I wonder why?

As soon as he said "I knew who you are because I could see it in your eyes and feel that anger in my bones" I felt like I was pulled out of the film. I couldn't believe this is where they decided to take the story.

And in that moment I was sucked in deeply into the story. I couldn't believe where they decided to take the story, and loved it.

As for Batman being a "legacy character", that's all fine when Bruce is dead and buried after years of torment on his body and mind. Even though I don't like those kind of stories where it brings those ideas to light, I think The Dark Knight Returns and Batman Beyond handled it infinitely better than TDKR. Atleast that Bruce still referred to himself as Batman and was more obsessively driven (and had a handful of Robin's and successors that weren't just there in name only).

Sure, if this was an exact adaptation from the comic roots. But it's not. It's film and allowed to be its own interpretation of the character.

 

[The Joker]

Based on this, I wouldn't doubt if John Blake was just an excuse for Nolan to use Joseph Gordon Levitt in one of his films again. Especially if he enjoyed working with him (and his cast mates) in Inception.

I hated the character, especially when I think of all they could have delved into (like focusing on Selina Kyle and Selina and Batman a bit more, or even poor Gordon who got the shaft) if he wasn't included. As soon as he said "I knew who you are because I could see it in your eyes and feel that anger in my bones" I felt like I was pulled out of the film. I couldn't believe this is where they decided to take the story.


As for Batman being a "legacy character", that's all fine when Bruce is dead and buried after years of torment on his body and mind. Even though I don't like those kind of stories where it brings those ideas to light, I think The Dark Knight Returns and Batman Beyond handled it infinitely better than TDKR. Atleast that Bruce still referred to himself as Batman and was more obsessively driven (and had a handful of Robin's and successors that weren't just there in name only).

Well said

 

[Shikamaru]

Based on this, I wouldn't doubt if John Blake was just an excuse for Nolan to use Joseph Gordon Levitt in one of his films again. Especially if he enjoyed working with him (and his cast mates) in Inception.

That's what one of my friends thinks as well. I don't know whether or not that is true but it wouldn't be that out there of an idea. Nolan is the (talented) type of writer who can get away with adding characters in for reasons such as that without anyone noticing. Like I said, I don't know if I can completely roll with that idea though. However, I will let my friend know that he's not alone. lol

I hated the character, especially when I think of all they could have delved into (like focusing on Selina Kyle and Selina and Batman a bit more, or even poor Gordon who got the shaft) if he wasn't included. As soon as he said "I knew who you are because I could see it in your eyes and feel that anger in my bones" I felt like I was pulled out of the film. I couldn't believe this is where they decided to take the story.

As for Batman being a "legacy character", that's all fine when Bruce is dead and buried after years of torment on his body and mind. Even though I don't like those kind of stories where it brings those ideas to light, I think The Dark Knight Returns and Batman Beyond handled it infinitely better than TDKR. Atleast that Bruce still referred to himself as Batman and was more obsessively driven (and had a handful of Robin's and successors that weren't just there in name only).

Well said.

And tell me this people..why is it that only Batman fanboys think it's unbelievable that Blake found out? The general audience never had a problem with it. I think it's because you guys nitpick way too much and compare things to the source material so much in that barely anyone has figured it out there in the comics..so you get all mad about how it turned out. It's just really amazing to me that ive heard NOTHING from the general public about this scene. General audience meaning people who don't usually watch these comic book movies or have too much investment in the characters and their source material. I mean, these are people who are basically watching films that are probably less fantastical by nature since comic book movies tend to have the most outlandish and fantastical ideas.

And tell me this people..why is it that only Transformers fanboys think Bay's Transformers films are bad? The general audience never had a problem with them. I think it's because you guys nitpick way too much and compare things to the source material so much in that barely anyone has figured it out there in the comics..so you get all mad about how it turned out. It's just really amazing to me that ive heard NOTHING from the general public about these movies. General audience meaning people who don't usually keep up with Transformers or have too much investment in them and their source material. I mean, these are people who are basically watching films that are probably less fantastical by nature since comic book movies tend to have the most outlandish and fantastical ideas.

You see how poor and desperate that argument sounds? "Most people liked it so you should like it too". Sorry but things don't work that way.

Also, how do you know that the GA liked/had no problem with the scene? The only thing we know for a fact is that the GA loved TDKR overall but we have no way of knowing what the majority of people thought of each individual scene unless you're determined enough to go out there and ask every person that saw the film.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Shauner, are you still using the "GA loved it" phenomenological argument? Yawn. I think by this point we've told you a million times "who cares? its irrelevant" but you still think it is something incredibly revealing or pertinent.

 

[shauner111]

That's not what im saying. Im saying there's a pattern. The Batman purists who keep looking to the source material to see if this or that can be okay in a batman movie are the only ones complaining. The GA don't seem to question it. And people who want to see the genre tossed around a bit while taking it seriously seem to be fine with it. Like me, the posters who agree with me on here and someone like Jett who despite what you think of him actually understands that film is film and things can be changed, and the comics are the comics.

Im just pointing out what I see. From what ive heard in my own experiences, what ive read.

Im not talking about the overall film and that you should follow the majority. Don't put words in my mouth, please. Im talking about the scene.

 

[ThePhantasm]

So we're Batman purists. Whatever. Does that make our points less valid or something?

 

[shauner111]

It clouds your judgement. You can dislike it, its your right. But being a purist tells me that you don't understand why these films are made. Fanboys (im one too) are in the minority. The general audience is the main reason why changes are made from the source material and it's also to fit the vision of the director to fit the story they want to tell. Wanting a comic book adaptation is fine, I kinda wanna see it in the Bat reboot but im also aware that changes have to be made.

The complaining about a new Robin is the same as no Lazarus Pits, no permawhite, no whip and cowl, no venom arguments. It's just fanboy talk. Purist talk. But it's irrelevant to these movies because theyre not made to please the fans unless it's a literal adaptation. Even then, changes were made to Watchmen.

I just get the vibe that with this scene it's not about Blake being able to find out that is your problem. Its like you have an agenda. It's just that u don't like the Blake character because he's not straight from the comics. Him knowing the identity is what is logical. I could have figured it out the exact same way. To me most of us and most of Gotham should have too. What's unbelievable is how nobody else figures it out. NOT that Blake did.

Yet people come on here and act like it's a big deal. Well I don't see people complaining who are non readers of the comics. I see a pattern.

 

[Shikamaru]

That's not what im saying. Im saying there's a pattern. The Batman purists who keep looking to the source material to see if this or that can be okay in a batman movie are the only ones complaining. The GA don't seem to question it. And people who want to see the genre tossed around a bit while taking it seriously seem to be fine with it. Like me, the posters who agree with me on here and someone like Jett who despite what you think of him actually understands that film is film and things can be changed, and the comics are the comics.

Im just pointing out what I see. From what ive heard in my own experiences, what ive read.

Im not talking about the overall film and that you should follow the majority. Don't put words in my mouth, please. Im talking about the scene.

I'm talking about the scene too. As I said, you have no way of knowing if the GA liked that scene in particular in the same way I have no way of knowing if they hated it or were just neutral towards it.

As for your "purist" argument, let me get this straight. Our entire problem with that scene is the fact that it does not make sense for Blake to be able to figure out Bruce's identity just by looking in his eyes. Your rebuttal to that is that this is not the comics.



How does that argument make any logical sense? It has nothing to do with the comics. It is not an adaptation problem. John Blake is not a character from the comics. The scene itself was never done in the comics. There is nothing to get the "purists" angry because there is nothing there to deviate or change from the comics in the first place.

The straw man arguments used to defend these films are ridiculous. It has gotten to a point where any flaw a film has is dismissed with the cliche "this isn't the comics" argument.

I wonder how long it will take before flaws in movies that are not comic book movies get defended with that same argument.

 

[Shikamaru]

Shauner, please answer this question for me. If I am a purist that expects everything to be 100% true to the source material, why am I such a huge fan of BB and TDK? Why don't I dislike BB due to the lack of Lazarus Pits or of Ras' immortality? Or due to the fact that they changed Ras' entire reason for doing what he does than in the comics? Or that they added in Rachel Dawes? Why don't I dislike TDK because the Joker lacks the permawhite skin? Why have I, according to your argument, suddenly turned into a purist prior to seeing TDKR?

 

[shauner111]

Because nobody has found out that way in the comics so you get all crazy about it. As if "why is this original character being able to figure out Bruce's identity and just from a smile!? WHAT A JOKE!" Ive even heard people defend it by saying if it was Dick Grayson then they could understand.

Then taking it away from the purist argument.

Just isolating it. It's more plausible for Blake or anyone to find out the way they did and have a decade to look into those suspicions than for nobody to figure it out.

 

[shauner111]

Shauner, please answer this question for me. If I am a purist that expects everything to be 100% true to the source material, why am I such a huge fan of BB and TDK? Why don't I dislike BB due to the lack of Lazarus Pits or of Ras' immortality? Or due to the fact that they changed Ras' entire reason for doing what he does than in the comics? Or that they added in Rachel Dawes? Why don't I dislike TDK because the Joker lacks the permawhite skin? Why have I, according to your argument, suddenly turned into a purist prior to seeing TDKR?

Then in your case, you are not a purist. BUT in your case and others, who maybe don't have a hidden agenda, I can tell you that I don't see your logic behind thinking the scene made no sense. Because it makes more sense to me and it seems every general moviegoer ive seen the movie with, that Blake and the city would figure it out than the other way around.

 

[milost]

Shauner, are you still using the "GA loved it" phenomenological argument? Yawn. I think by this point we've told you a million times "who cares? its irrelevant" but you still think it is something incredibly revealing or pertinent.

It's just as good as the tired and true, "well, my friends, family, and the audience I went with to see it all loved it, so it must be good".

 

[shauner111]

Never talked about good, bad, liking it versus not liking it. Only having a problem with that scene's logic or not.

 

[milost]

If I am a purist that expects everything to be 100% true to the source material, why am I such a huge fan of BB and TDK? Why don't I dislike BB due to the lack of Lazarus Pits or of Ras' immortality? Or due to the fact that they changed Ras' entire reason for doing what he does than in the comics? Or that they added in Rachel Dawes? Why don't I dislike TDK because the Joker lacks the permawhite skin? Why have I, according to your argument, suddenly turned into a purist prior to seeing TDKR?

This.

Most of the people I've seen on here that heavily criticize TDKR, seem to LOVE Batman Begins and The Dark Knight and those are far from being "pure" to the source (whatever that is). No comic book film really is. Dark Knight Joker ain't permawhite, I love him. Ra's is a FAR cry of what he is in the comics, he's great. Even Batman himself isn't 100% true to any one era and I have a hard time finding anything wrong with him (until TDKR that is).


They could have called John Blake Dick Grayson for all I care, he still would have sucked based on how they utilized him in the story. It wouldn't have changed a thing. It's just as bad as the early 90s scripts before the finalized version of Batman Returns that had the character running around as "The Mechanic" or that abandoned Year One script with a homeless Bruce Wayne and "lil Al". It's not bad because it's not faithful to the comics, fidelity has nothing to do with it. It's bad because it doesn't feel natural with the story they're trying to tell and, most times, feels incredibly forced and contrived.

 

[shauner111]

I already answered that.

BTW that stuff from Aronofsky sounded pretty good to me. Because it was a different take. I like bold filmmakers especially when they make bold moves but still treat it seriously.

When bold filmmakers like Burton (early in his career) change things but do it so it's out of the realm of belief to the point where the comics feel more grounded, like his butchered Penguin-man, then yeah it's ridiculous because it's not taken seriously.

They could have called John Blake Dick Grayson for all I care, he still would have sucked based on how they utilized him in the story.

I thought they utilized him wonderfully. Different strokes.

 

[Tequilla]

Based on this, I wouldn't doubt if John Blake was just an excuse for Nolan to use Joseph Gordon Levitt in one of his films again. Especially if he enjoyed working with him (and his cast mates) in Inception.

Exactly.

I actually heard he only made a sequel to TDK , not because of the tremendous sucess of the movie , but so he could accommodate Hardy , Cotillard and Levitt in a new project.

True story.

 

[Brain Damage]

Jesus, shauner. These arguments are thinner than those pieces of paper they put between slices of cheese.

I honestly can't see how anyone could objectively think the way Blake discovers Batman's identity is not poor writing. Everyone's allowed to have their own opinions, of course, but the kind of people who think it's great stuff for a cop to discover Batman's identity based on a LOOK that happened off-screen, years ago. Well, let's just say I don't think I'd want to see what kind of movies they make.

If you adore this movie, great, I get it. If you want to make a sticky mess over the film reel, I get it. But please, for the love of God, someone give me an objective of defense of how that scene makes any logical sense within the world of this trilogy. I have yet to see one.

The two defenses I keep hearing are "You don't like it because it's not what you wanted", which I won't even dignify with a response, and "It's symbolic."

Unless you're making The Shining or Only God Forgives, you can't use "symbolism" as a major plot point. The burning bat symbol is symbolic, yes, but it's not a major plot point. The story beat is that Batman comes back, the burning bat is the symbolic icing on the cake.

 

[NosfeRomas]

Exactly.

I actually heard he only made a sequel to TDK , not because of the tremendous sucess of the movie , but so he could accommodate Hardy , Cotillard and Levitt in a new project.

True story.

Rumor has it before they began shooting this atrocity of a film (sarcasm), he called Kevin Smith for some advice on how to make a movie with your friends.

 

[Mistah K88]

I'm talking about the scene too. As I said, you have no way of knowing if the GA liked that scene in particular in the same way I have no way of knowing if they hated it or were just neutral towards it.

As for your "purist" argument, let me get this straight. Our entire problem with that scene is the fact that it does not make sense for Blake to be able to figure out Bruce's identity just by looking in his eyes. Your rebuttal to that is that this is not the comics.



How does that argument make any logical sense? It has nothing to do with the comics. It is not an adaptation problem. John Blake is not a character from the comics. The scene itself was never done in the comics. There is nothing to get the "purists" angry because there is nothing there to deviate or change from the comics in the first place.

The straw man arguments used to defend these films are ridiculous. It has gotten to a point where any flaw a film has is dismissed with the cliche "this isn't the comics" argument.

I wonder how long it will take before flaws in movies that are not comic book movies get defended with that same argument.

*claps*

The fact is, people don't like that scene not because "it's not the comics!" but because they felt it was pretty bad writing. You telling me that out of all the people in Gotham, John Blake is the only one who is such a smartie to figure out that Bruce and Batman are one in the same? Especially with his brilliant detective work by seeing that Bruce's playboy persona is a fraud therefore he MUST be Batman. I can understand Blake seeing through Bruce's playboy persona, but figuring out he was Batman off of that, I don't buy. Heck even if there were lines like "He showed up when you came back, and disappeared when you became a recluse" it would have been plausible. But the way it actually came out took me out of the movie...I didn't like Blake...

Coleman Reese figured it out too, but as you see while Reese handling of the subject was "not in the comics!", it was plausable, even intelligent. He didn't just see Bruce sleeping in the conference room and put together the fact that Mr. Wayne and Batman are one in the same off of that.

 

[ThePhantasm]

It clouds your judgement.

Thanks for the ad hominem and poisoning the well. I'm through talking to you.

I'm thankful that there are some posters on these boards like batlobsterrises who I can have a discussion with (and disagreement with) without feeling like I'm being insulted every other post by fallacious arguments insinuating things about my character.

 

[ThePhantasm]

"Well the GA loves it!" Who gives a flip. I don't see the GA on this board or in this thread discussing this right now. We are.

 

[milost]

Not to mention the general audiences moved on a looooong time ago.

TDKR isn't even really relevant anymore, it's just us. We're the ones that linger, still discussing, analyzing, criticizing, the movie, not them.

It's not 2012 anymore, it's not July 20th. Things change, people's feeling change. Most of those numbers we post is a snap shot of time.

 

[shauner111]

He's had 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.

It never felt like bad writing to me. Pfft haha that's a joke that people think 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 watch comic book movies and watch a lot of layered films. So don't give me that crap.

When I saw the scene in the theater It felt genuine and made perfect sense to me and I put myself in Blake's shoes. I could have easily saw the signs in Bruce's face and his "act" (im not an orphan but ive done plenty of hiding in public when I was younger). Blake is looking at a billionaire with all kinds of money, and there's something off about how he's acting......this is 8 or 9 years prior when the Batman just showed up and Wayne popped back up in Gotham just a few months earlier....it's fairly easy to pick up that Bruce was Batman....YES.....in that moment. Sorry but when you look at a person and you put all these things together in your mind and then there's an entire decade where Blake banked on his "idea" by presenting it to a reclused Bruce Wayne.

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.

 

[BatLobster]

TDKR was being written by Jonah based on Chris and Goyer's story treatment while Chris was shooting Inception. I'd bet anything that the Blake character/mantle being passed ending predates Nolan's relationship with JGL. I highly doubt that component of the ending was an afterthought, cause Nolan is so ending driven. No way Jonah's original draft (the 500 page one) didn't include Blake or something like him.

Does anybody seriously believe that Nolan compromised the ending of his entire trilogy just to have an excuse to work with JGL again? That's one of the most outrageous theories I've heard on here.

 

[shauner111]

Not to mention the general audiences moved on a looooong time ago.

TDKR isn't even really relevant anymore, it's just us. We're the ones that linger, still discussing, analyzing, criticizing, the movie, not them.

It's not 2012 anymore, it's not July 20th. Things change, people's feeling change. Most of those numbers we post is a snap shot of time.

Yet you and I and everyone else are still in this TDKR section talking about the movie. What's your point? I didn't create the thread.

Thanks for the ad hominem and poisoning the well. I'm through talking to you.

I'm thankful that there are some posters on these boards like batlobsterrises who I can have a discussion with (and disagreement with) without feeling like I'm being insulted every other post by fallacious arguments insinuating things about my character.

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

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

Im done with this section of the boards. Im going back to the Batman/Superman section where I can have a good time talking about stuff we love and not feel so negative.

I never told you not to dislike the scene of Blake. But I pointed out a pattern that I see where a lot of people say it doesn't make sense when I feel it's the opposite. And yes, having a purist mindset clouds your judgement with these movies big time. Changes are made for the general audience. If you don't think theyre relevant then you got it all wrong. Us the fans are irrelevant. We don't matter. The story matters, even if it's far away from the comics.