Everyone who's seen the film now knows that John Blake is Nolan's version of Robin. So what are your thoughts on the matter? I've browsed a few message boards and it seems like this is one of the major criticisms a lot of people have with the film. That the Robin twist was cheesy or unnecessary, and that Robin should never have appeared in Nolan's universe in any form whatsoever.
Personally, I loved this aspect of the movie. Blake was one of my favourite characters in the film and words cannot convey how thrilled I was that Nolan had the balls to go against the grain and include his own version of Batman's sidekick. The mythology wouldn't have been complete without him. I liked the way the character was written, and I liked the way Joseph Gordon-Levitt played him. It referenced the comics, but also managed to fit within the stylistic confines of the Nolanverse.
The approach was similar to what Burton was planning with Batman Returns – to take the concept of Batman's sidekick and construct a totally original version from the ground up. But I think Nolan's approach was better than what Burton and Waters were planning and ultimately had more of a basis in the source material (more on that in the comic influences thread).
What did everyone else think? I'm guessing most people will hate the Robin twist, but I loved it.
I at first thought I wasn't going to like where things were going to end up, but after seeing the final film and the way that Nolan tied it in with the past films, I thought it worked as a story arc. I felt the way I did when I saw Batman in 1989 and Batman Returns in 1992. Yes Tim Burton did follow the motif of the characters a little bit more in terms of a comic book character versus a real life person in the real world, but Tim put his own spin on things. Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent, the Penguin being a creature from the sewers and Selina Kyle's origin story all were Burton's twists, but I couldn't wait to see how it all played out.
As a kid I remember hearing the rumors about there being a Robin who was a street mechanic, I couldn't wait to see if Tim was really going to do something like this. Yes the true die hard comic book fans hate when Tim would go off tangent like that, but you can't please everyone. I totally agree with you that Nolan's approach to Robin really isn't that much different than Burton's would have been and is actually stronger. Watching this and I did see some spoilers, knowing what role John Blake actually had, I felt like I was reading a Lonely Place to Die story arc, for a modern real world "Robin" this idea works for Nolan. It was a little cheesy when they said his name was Robin, but I get that for the general film going audience the film makers had to do it, had to sit there and tell the audience yes this is our Robin.
At the end of the day, Robin is a part of the Batman comic universe and clearly they had to leave the ending open enough if they decide to carry on this Batman universe on film so I didn't have a real problem with it.
well the thing is that all signs point to Nolan being finished with the series, so there is no sequel in the plans. It's fairly obvious if this series were to continue we wouldn't have batman and robin fighting side by side the way they have so many times before; bruces secret is out, not much point for him to don the cape and cowl.
I think it was just an inside nod and somewhat befitting in the sense that you could argue that if any character got deemed the sidekick in this film it would be Blake; Selina worked with him but she was also an antagonist to him early in the film. And of course Blake is also an orphan.
Interesting to note though that in Burtons plans for the character, he also would have made his real name Robin. I definitely wouldnt be happy if they picked it up with Joseph Gordon Lovitt as Robin (great actor but way too old).
After the movie ended, one of my friends said, "Who's ready for the Robin movie, guys?!!"
I thought Joseph Gordon-Levitt and John Blake were one of the better aspects of the film. He was smart (almost too smart) and proactive. Arguably more proactive than Bruce in the first half.
His backstory with Bruce was shoehorned in and his explanation for knowing Bruce was Batman has got to be one of the weakest explanations ever. This is in a movie where Ra's al Ghul, Bane, Talia, and Catwoman are featured- all people who found out about the secret identity in the comics and in these movies (and in more logical ways than the way presented here). And John Blake's way of figuring it out is Bruce Wayne's smile?
It would've been more organic if Blake's detective work into the events of the previous movies gave him all the clues (i.e. The Tumbler's connection to Wayne Enterprises, Bruce's mysterious disappearance at the Harvey Dent party followed by Batman's appearance, Bruce having the money and the resources to be Batman). Still would've kept Blake smart, but also would've fit with the trilogy much better.
He was also the calmest person to be dubbed a "hothead" I've ever seen. I'd hate Matthew Modine's character to ever meet Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon.
I didn't mind that he was called Robin at the end. This was Nolan's version of the end of the Batman saga and Blake was the closest equivalent to being Robin to Bale's Batman.
The reveal didn't work for me. "You should use your full name. Robin." I was half-expecting Blake to reply, "Um, okay, lady. Thanks for the advice." It was a pretty forced way of doing it and it would've been more organic if we just saw his full name on the ID.
While I liked his discovery of the Batcave at the end (like swinging through the waterfall and encountering the bats like Bruce did in Begins), I feel uneasy about Bruce leaving him the map and essentially handing him the keys to the Batcave.
It'd be one thing if Bruce really did die and Blake discovered the cave on his own. But here, it seemed as if Bruce gave up being Batman and left Gotham so he could hook up with Selina and dumped the responsibility of Batman on Blake.
Those are all fair criticisms, BatmAngelus. But in spite of them, I still really liked this character.
An obvious twist would have been to reveal his real name was Grayson. But if they'd done that, then he would've come across as an unfaithful representation of Dick Grayson from the comics. And people would've been disappointed that he didn't become Robin. By only using the name Robin, they circumvented the need to adhere to Dick Grayson's story arc and instead just focused on the basic concept: namely that Batman has a sidekick called Robin. Admittedly it's a little tenuous, but I felt it worked in the context of Nolan's universe.
Here are a few similarities between Blake and the Dick Grayson in the comics that I noticed. I'll post these again once the comic influences thread is up (which might not be for a while yet – the movie has a lot of references to the comics). But for now, here're a few things on Blake/Robin/Grayson.
First of all he's an orphan. Obviously so was Dick Grayson.
Secondly, he grew up in a Catholic orphanage. Prior to being taken in by Bruce Wayne, the Post-Crisis Dick Grayson also lived in a Catholic orphanage for a while. The unnamed priest in the movie can be seen as a parallel to Sister Mary Elizabeth, the kindly nun who took care of him in Batman: Year Three (1989).
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi396.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp42%2Fsilver-nemsis%2Fby3.jpg&hash=2d2e2d547907a3c09d9c3ab6ad2a54dada7c59ac)
Thirdly, Blake is a cop. So was Dick Grayson for a while. He began training to become a policeman in 'Bad Night in Bludhaven' (Nightwing #31, May 1999) and was accepted onto the force in 'The Sylph, Part One: Slender Thread' (Nightwing #48, October 2000). He continued to serve with the Bludhaven Police Department for almost half a decade before handing in his badge.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi396.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp42%2Fsilver-nemsis%2Fnw48.jpg&hash=41ef961bab8fa5f726e27b55417a8cb92767bccd)
And finally, the movie implies that Blake will assume the role of Batman following Bruce Wayne's death/retirement. Dick Grayson has always been the logical choice to replace Bruce in the comics too. We've seen this in recent years following the Batman R.I.P. storyline. And it also happened in the Earth Two timeline, when Dick briefly became Batman to capture the Joker following Bruce Wayne's death.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi396.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp42%2Fsilver-nemsis%2Fac462.jpg&hash=74f1de0b4749b9b1cb950ebc46bc544c6257d102)
So while on the surface Blake was an original character, he still had a few key traits in common with the Dick Grayson from the comics. I understand that a lot of people won't like this aspect of the film, but for me it was a gutsy move on Nolan's part – one that I honestly didn't expect – and I felt it worked.
Would I want to see Blake take centre stage as Batman in a fourth movie? No. The trilogy ended on a fitting note and that should cap off the Nolanverse for good. I wouldn't mind some spin off comics or videogames set between the events of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, but I wouldn't want to see a fourth entry in the movie series. Nolan's Bat-saga ended on the right note, and now it's time for a change.
^ Good work. I had forgotten about the orphanage in Year Three.
As previously mentioned by bttfbat, the part where Blake reveals he knows Bruce Wayne is Batman was probably inspired by Tim Drake's role in the comics when he revealed he knew the truth and became Robin later.
In terms of his name, well, Blake rhymes with Drake. Loose connection, I know, but the only one I could think of.
John, on the other hand, has a couple connections. Dick's full name is Richard John Grayson and, of course, there was Jean (pronounced John) Paul Valley, who wasn't Robin but, as all Batfans know, took over the mantle of the Bat for a bit and inherited the Batcave after Bane defeated Batman.
Of course, as pointed out by Silver Nemesis in the other thread, maybe it was just a reference to this: http://gotchamovies.com/news/john-blake-character-origins-in-batman ;D
Also, this is the movie of the Johns apparently. John Blake. John Daggett. Jonathan Crane.
Great analysis there! I hadn't even considered there might be some meaning behind the name. But now you've pointed out those connections, it seems likely at least one of them was intentional.
It looks like we're going to have our work cut out for us finding all the hidden references in this film.
Might as well add these from the comic book influences article:
- But Dick Grayson isn't the only Robin connected to the Dark Knight Rises character. Throughout the movie, Blake is dubbed as a "hothead" by Deputy Commissioner Foley. This was a notorious trait of the second Robin, Jason Todd.
- In addition to this, the idea of Bruce Wayne selecting a younger man to replace him as Batman is the premise of the Batman Beyond series. In that sense, John Blake can be seen as a variation of the Terry McGinnis character.
And from the thread:
- Blake mentions that his mother died when he was young, of a car accident. His father later was killed over a gambling debt, which implies he hung out with the wrong crowd. This is similar to the Post-Crisis Jason Todd origin in which Jason's mother died of a drug overdose when he was younger (later retconned to find out that his biological mother was someone else, but that's beside the point) and his father was one of Two-Face's men who was killed.
And one that was posted at SHH that I hadn't thought about:
- John Blake is promoted to Detective. One of the old school slang words for Detective is "Dick" so technically he's Dick Robin John Blake. 8)
Anyways, JGL recently spoke about playing the character on Jimmy Kimmel Live:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKi_ke9_dlc
When asked about continuing his character in another movie, he simply says that the decision's out of his hands and that the character's journey was more about ending Bruce Wayne's story than setting up a potential spin-off.
At the same time, Dan Didio of DC Comics recently hinted at the possibility of Blake being in the comics. When asked about a series of books on Blake's term as Batman, Didio responded, "A series of books? Let's see how he does on his first mission."
http://comicbook.com/blog/2012/08/12/the-dark-knight-rises-john-blake-to-join-the-comics/
Lastly, I felt I had to post this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeXEZxn8E8k
This is all great material.
To be honest, I would have preferred if his name were John Drake, connecting to both Dick and Tim. I know, small potatoes, but still.
My biggest issue with this character is simply this: if you're going to do a Robin origin story (which, in part, one may argue this is) why not just...do a Robin origin story?
I understand there are connections between Blake and the comics, and I certainly understand that Nolan was giving his own spin to the character as he had with his previous films, as Burton had, as Dozier had, etc. But at the end of the day I felt like Nolan made Robin an 'easter egg' as opposed to a fleshed out character. And as a replacement, not as a sidekick.
I'll have to admit total personal bias here, so I certainly don't begrudge anyone for digging this interpretation: I will certainly fess up that they had a terrific actor, a personal favorite in fact (if you have yet to see The Lookout or Brick, drop what you're doing and rent them). To me it felt like a missed opportunity to bring Dick Grayson to the screen. As though Nolan had to hide his identity to have one more twist in there. I wasn't in the mood for a twist, here. I had hoped for a more direct adaptation of the source material in terms of this character. Ah, well.
Whatever the case, what Nolan did do, perhaps, is plant an idea in the audience's head: that Robin can be more than a brightly colored campy character. That he is more than 'holey fill-in-the-blank' puns. In that respect, I do hope the next filmmaker is paying attention. :)
This thread wouldn't be complete without a link to ItsAllTrue.Net's reinactment of John Blake's brief comic book appearance in 1942:
http://www.itsalltrue.net/?p=19870
Blake was one of the things I liked the best about this film. I think it fit the tone of the film and series well, and gave us a good way to finish the trilogy while continuing the story in our heads.
It hit me earlier this evening that a clue to the Robin ending was dropped over a year ago.
Last year, I remember that word had leaked out that the Dark Knight Rises crew was looking for a location for "Robin's Cave." Pretty much everyone dismissed this as a red herring.
http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2011/02/07/will-robin-rise-alongside-dark-knight/
Now that the movie's out, I'm pretty confident that they were actually looking for the exterior of the cave that Blake finds at the end of the movie before rope-swinging in.
Son of a...
One thing that is never resolved, or should I say logically explained, is the entry and exit into the batcave.
We see that the waterfall is obviously still there, but no bridge type thing leading up.
Say that such a construction gives away the location, but I find it silly. Such a structure could raised and lowered ala the batcave cube we see in the movie.
In TDK he's operating from the bunker. TDKR skirts around this by not giving Bruce another Tumbler.
But when he had one in BB he was boost jumping in and out. Which is ridiculous, extremely dangerous and not a long term way of dealing with things at all.
But in TDKR he still had the batpod, and it is logical to assume he jumped in and out in the same fashion. Right....
Or, he wheeled the thing into the elevator, through Wayne Manor, out the door and drove out from there.
Best not to think about it, Dark Knight. Clearly, the filmmakers didn't. ;)
The Batcave inconsistencies are annoying, though. If my memory's correct and I'm right about the Robin's cave thing, then the waterfall opening in TDKR wasn't even the same as the one in BB.
To add to that, how is there a new Batcave when Batman's been retired since The Dark Knight? Either it was around during the time of The Dark Knight (in which case, why wasn't he using it?) or Bruce finished building it during his retirement (but why would he bother?).
Anyways, back to Blake...
I've determined that Blake is my favorite character in the movie. And the reasons why are precisely why he's a problem in the movie, too.
I mean, who shows up at a crime scene to investigate a boy's death?
Who rescued Jim Gordon after he tumbled out of the sewers?
Who caught Selina Kyle?
Who figured out what Bane would do to the cops when they went down into the sewers?
Who went out to save Jim Gordon against League of Shadows members at the hospital?
Who risked his life out in the streets, past Bane's men, during the No Man's Land period to gather supplies and recruit cops?
Not Batman.
John Blake does all of this. This guy is smart (I'd say conveniently smart at times, but it doesn't change the fact that he's a step ahead of many of the characters in these scenes). He's proactive. He cares about Gotham and other people.
I couldn't help but root for this guy more than Batman because, let's face it, Blake is getting most of this crap done while Bruce is either limping around Wayne Manor or doing angry sit-ups in The Pit.
Which is why he's a problem in the movie. He does a ton of things that either Batman or Jim Gordon should've been doing, if the writers had kept the focus on the pre-established main characters. Blake wasn't in the previous movies, yet suddenly, he becomes a protagonist when Bruce is out of commission, he's got a shoehorned backstory with Bruce, and takes on the mantle at the end.
In some ways, I was glad that Blake got the Batcave at the end. I thought he kinda deserved it, since it seemed like he was the only one of the good guys who had his crap together (I've cited that it's the only part of the ending that I really liked). But, as I've previously discussed with posters here, the character never demonstrated any physical martial arts skills for us to believe that he'd survive long as the next guardian of Gotham either.
It's weird to say, but I think the fact that I liked Blake's character better than everyone else (including Batman himself) is another reason why the movie didn't work for me.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 03:54To add to that, how is there a new Batcave when Batman's been retired since The Dark Knight? Either it was around during the time of The Dark Knight (in which case, why wasn't he using it?) or Bruce finished building it during his retirement (but why would he bother?).
Eh, I could kinda No Prize that by saying that it was already planned that the Manor would be rebuilt, obviously. My contention then is that the first thing that would be done is redesigning and setting up the Batcave. After that, construction on the main property would commence. To me that's just the logical way to do it. All you'd really need to do is cover over the entrance to the Batcave and include a section in the blueprints where you'll later come back to install the Manor entrance.
Of course, this raises the challenge that the entire Manor was rebuilt inside of at
most a year. I'm not an expert on construction by any means so maybe a project of this magnitude is absolutely doable if you've got a full 12 months to work with... but then TDK doesn't necessarily take place a year after BB. But it can't take place more than a year later. So there's a problem with the timeline even if you buy into the above solution.
So I guess in the end all I managed to do was half-ass answer your question and then ask a question of my own. Oy...
^ That also brings into question how Bruce would get the construction crew in there and avoid suspicion. Maybe they just thought it was his secret basement?
Anyways, you're certainly right that the rebuilding of Wayne Manor would've lead to the rebuilding the Batcave as well. After all, Begins ends with Bruce and Alfred agreeing on renovations to the "southeast corner."
The best explanation I can think of, regarding the timing, is that the Batcave construction finished up during the events of The Dark Knight, but before the new Wayne Manor was finished. After all, it takes less time to build a superplatform with a plexiglass case than it does to rebuild an entire mansion.
So, since the mansion was still under construction, Bruce remained at the penthouse and it just made more sense for him to use the bunker than to go all the way back to the new cave to suit up. But then, he killed Two-Face and he quit the cowl. During his eight year hiatus, Wayne Manor was finished and he moved back in, but the Batcave was never used until Alfred found him in TDKR.
generall i have no issue bashing this film but i can give it the benefit of the doubt here; the dark knight ends a year after begins and since being batman is more of a priority than being bruce wayne, not hard to fathom rebuilding the cave is his priority. It does seem half finished in TDKR
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 17:07^ That also brings into question how Bruce would get the construction crew in there and avoid suspicion. Maybe they just thought it was his secret basement?
Maybe Lucius Fox had a hand in it. Of course, he seems to do everything except change Bruce's socks for him.
It's funny how Blake kills those cement truck guys and throws away his gun, seemingly making a choice not to use it any more, disgusted with his actions.
Soon after he's charging the hospital with a shotgun...
Wasn't sure where else to post this, but here it goes.
Drew McWeeny at HitFlix is considered legit (I've read that he was the one who first reported Liam Neeson's cameo in TDKR, among other things) and reported this last night:
http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/exclusive-is-joseph-gordon-levitt-already-set-to-play-batman-in-justice-league
The Cliff Notes of this:
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt could be reprising his role as (Robin) John Blake as the Batman of the Justice League movie
- "Potentially one other actor" from the Nolan films may be crossing over into the Justice League universe, too. (Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox to give Blake more gadgets?).
- Drew speculates that JGL could have a cameo in Man of Steel, based off the fact that DC and WB have been looking at how Marvel used cameos to establish the interconnecting universe and tease future films.
Look, I get it. WB wants to connect Justice League to Nolan's after the trilogy was such a popular success. It'd be far easier for them to jump off of TDKR and bring in Bruce's successor in the Batsuit than have Christian Bale return or start with a new Bruce Wayne actor for a reboot.
And as stated earlier in this thread, I like JGL. I liked John Blake.
But Nolan's Batman universe needs to die with TDKR. Whether you loved or hated the movie, this is exactly what Nolan intended- the end of the story. Even JGL acknowledged that on Jimmy Kimmel.
Not to mention the biggest problem, which is that, if this is true, the Bruce Wayne Batman would not be the one in Justice League movie sharing the screen.
To me, this is the equivalent to having Don Cheadle's War Machine in The Avengers movie instead of Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark. Sure, the character's established and they've got a solid actor in the role...but it's not the character who's leading the franchise. A different character in the suit is a different character entirely.
Couldn't agree more sir.
Thankfully the rumour has been debunked. What I find most shocking is the amount of "fans" who liked the idea...dumbasses!
I'm infuriated by this JGL news/rumour. A massive disappointment. For once I hope it's a rumour. So many great people out there I'm sure to follow Christian Bale. What an utter disaster if this is real! The kid from "Third Rock from the Sun" as Batman!!! *gasp/sputter* ???
I was all for him as Robin and saddened we never got the full payoff of him in "costume" as a true partner to Batman. But this guy is no Batman candidate. I could accept this bizaare idea in the context of TDKR (only if however we never actually SEE the bloody guy in action in a future installment which now seems precisely what we're gonna get lol). There are certain types in casting the Caped Crusader. Had this guy come at another point with no Christian Bale Batman in existence, perhaps he could pull off a "Michael Keaton" and prove us wrong. He's following Christian Bale however! We need somebody smashing! A "Daniel Craig" after your "Pierce Brosnan"! As great as the last guy was! Somebody not afraid to make his own choices with the character or afraid of Bale's shadow! This choice will not achieve this. It's merely a safe move after the success of the Nolan trilogy. And safe choices mean quick death folks.
If this really means that we won't have Bruce Wayne in the JL movie it's the ultimate reason for me to skip it entirely (which I'm now considering).
We've just had the best Batman since Michael Keaton in Christian Bale and they go and potentially screw it up. Face it guys we don't need a Joel Schumacher this time. If Warners are going to seriously introduce a whole new Batman in a team up movie, not have it be Bruce Wayne and have him played by JGL just to cash in on Avengers, the series is going to implode all over again. Just like 1997.
For christ sake Warners do it correctly and it will continue successfully in an exciting new form! When will comic book companies (and now filmmakers) learn having a new guy in the suit is creative poison. Look at the terrible Clone Saga in Spider-Man with Ben Reilly. Terrible idea to replace Peter Parker and Marvel thankfully copped out of this nuts scheme. Same with Batman, Superman and any other character. Don't.....mess....with....the....basics.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Tue, 27 Nov 2012, 22:34
Couldn't agree more sir.
Thankfully the rumour has been debunked. What I find most shocking is the amount of "fans" who liked the idea...dumbasses!
Oh god Paul are you sure it's officially debunked? Please say so it will haunt me all night if not lol
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Tue, 27 Nov 2012, 22:40For christ sake Warners do it correctly and it will continue successfully in an exciting new form! When will comic book companies (and now filmmakers) learn having a new guy in the suit is creative poison. Look at the terrible Clone Saga in Spider-Man with Ben Reilly.
Not to argue your point but though it may have been a stupid creative choice, it certainly didn't hurt Marvel's bottom line. The Clone Saga was a big seller. People tend to forget this but it's true.
To your point though, as far as the JLA movie is concerned, use Bruce Wayne or get out. And no, I won't suffer JGL as Bruce. Give us something and someone new.
Agreed with you all, mixing the TDK trilogy with the new JL by having JGL in the role would be a dumb idea, even for the simplest of reasons that it wouldn't be Bruce Wayne, but John Blake, a character invented for the Nolanverse, a successor that worked only for the trilogy's finale.
With that said, I still detest this JLA movie concept. They should concentrate on how to pull off a few solid solo launch films for these characters before doing their crossover, Avengers worked because the audience already liked Iron Man, Thor, Captain America.
I just think Batman in a team of super heroes has been a dreadful idea from day 1. He's just a man in a cape after all and he always looks weak in comparison to his associates. There is JLA story in which Superman, Martian Manhunter and Wonder Woman fly out from the midst of an explosion. Batman on the other hand has to ride on a green "saucer" platform generatated by Green Lantern's power ring to be transported to safety. Can you imagine this on the big screen? :-\
His loner and tragic background is also reason enough to question his motives of being in a day glo super team.
Another reason why the John Blake Batman wouldn't be the same as having Bruce:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqwKrlaUyQo
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Wed, 28 Nov 2012, 23:41I just think Batman in a team of super heroes has been a dreadful idea from day 1. He's just a man in a cape after all and he always looks weak in comparison to his associates. There is JLA story in which Superman, Martian Manhunter and Wonder Woman fly out from the midst of an explosion. Batman on the other hand has to ride on a green "saucer" platform generatated by Green Lantern's power ring to be transported to safety. Can you imagine this on the big screen? :-\
His loner and tragic background is also reason enough to question his motives of being in a day glo super team.
Props to you for honesty (even though it's a completely valid part of the comics). And personally, I'm starting to wonder just when the hell fanboys in general are going to be comfortable with the idea. They didn't like the idea of a Superman/Batman teamup film in 2000/2001 because the individual franchises should be established first. Then they opposed it because sequels for each needed to be made. Then they opposed it because each trilogy (or Nolan's trilogy at least) should be finished. Will there ever come a point where they just come clean and say they just
oppose the notion? Sure, you're doing it but the rest of 'em all couch their "reluctance" in some pseudo-cinerati elite spankfest.
I wish they'd just cut the BS and tell me they don't want to ever see Batman onscreen with other heroes because it violates their perceptions of the character. Then I can point out how common it is in the comics (since the loudest dissidents tend to be the least comics literate), how the cinematic winds are blowing that direction whether or anybody likes it or not and then cordially invite them to rewatch the Nolan trilogy for the billionth time while the rest of us get something we'll enjoy more than yet another live action Batman in an immaculate universe without other characters.
Not flaming you here, you understand, just getting some stuff off my chest.
EDIT- Oh, and one other thing. Lest you think this exclusive thing is reserved only for Batman fans, permit me to say that Superman fans are at least as bad. Maybe worse. You just wouldn't believe some of the idiotic opinions that have assaulted my eyes over the years. It really is stupefying, not least because Superman (or Clark anyway) has been successfully teamed up with other characters in live action (Smallville) where pretty much every character pulled his weight and did things only that character could do. With several such examples already in the can, you'd think the argument would have defeated itself long ago. And you'd be so wrong it would hurt. So, again, not flaming you personally or even flaming Batman fans in general; I'm flaming idiotic fanboys who have absolutely no imagination.
Thankfully it's been debunked (or at least denied by JGL's reps). Me personally, I like JGL and I do think he could pull off being Bruce. But at this point that would be odd and inviting audience confusion. It would be like if Chris O'Donell played Batman in Begins, or if Don Cheadle played Tony Stark. And I really do think the Nolan series should be it's own thing. It's done and it was great (my disappointment with TDKR aside). But it's time to move on.
Quote from: SilentEnigma on Wed, 28 Nov 2012, 21:41
Agreed with you all, mixing the TDK trilogy with the new JL by having JGL in the role would be a dumb idea, even for the simplest of reasons that it wouldn't be Bruce Wayne, but John Blake, a character invented for the Nolanverse, a successor that worked only for the trilogy's finale.
With that said, I still detest this JLA movie concept. They should concentrate on how to pull off a few solid solo launch films for these characters before doing their crossover, Avengers worked because the audience already liked Iron Man, Thor, Captain America.
Exactly. Each of their films left hints there were other superhero activities going on. Also it fit because they all have super powers to an extent; JLA is harder because you have superman and green lantern and the flash next to the grounded batman and green arrow. Not impossible to pull off but tricky without Batman constantly resorting to his utility belt.
I must be honest I've never cared personally for the other DC characters outside Batman and Superman. The recent Green Lantern movie was proof to me they can't work with an audience as well as Bruce and Clark or even the Marvel characters. I worry about the future of Batman's movie universe now being contamidated by "outsiders". I'd so hate to see the badly miscast, joke laden irritant that is Ryan Reynold's Green Lantern pop up for a Gotham City cameo to plug a JLA movie. I want it to remain it's own universe as it's always been since 1989.
Batman is strong enough in his own series of movies. Why team him with publicly unknown "B-listers"? Especially at a time when he's a box office smash again. Same with Superman, although the Man of Steel needs to make it big again in his next upcoming solo film.
Fans have often complained that Warners focusses too much on either Batman and Superman and none of DC's other heroes. I don't think that's fair. The public wants and loves more Batman movies (Bale is proof there). Why should they be sacrificed to pool resources into a Wonder Woman or Atom film nobody cares about? And for me this JLA idea is merely a barricade from another proper Batman film I'm dying more to see.
Prepare for something that might sound way off, but here's my prime problem with the whole JLA concept.
For me, Batman loses his "power" when seen in daytime, surrounded by superpowered characters, in pristine sci-fi sets. What is once mythical and strikes fear in Gotham City, a setting of urban decay of which Batman is an organic part, is also rather ridiculously theatrical in daytime, when larger threats than madmen, psychotic killers, or the mob, are involved. Batman makes sense (in a pulp/comic book way) when he acts in the semi-fantastical cityscape called Gotham City.
Outside of that, what is Batman supposed to be? The brains of the operation, as has been pointed out, or the Nick Fury character, as has been argued? The "most dangerous man on earth" that helps a lot with his intellect and his money? If so, why does he have to wear that theatrical Bat-suit in the first place? He would be better off if for JLA he simply renamed himself as Tek Knight and wore a technology-based suit similar to Iron Man's that focused on function and not theatrics.
Quote from: SilentEnigma on Wed, 5 Dec 2012, 22:09
Prepare for something that might sound way off, but here's my prime problem with the whole JLA concept.
For me, Batman loses his "power" when seen in daytime, surrounded by superpowered characters, in pristine sci-fi sets. What is once mythical and strikes fear in Gotham City, a setting of urban decay of which Batman is an organic part, is also rather ridiculously theatrical in daytime, when larger threats than madmen, psychotic killers, or the mob, are involved. Batman makes sense (in a pulp/comic book way) when he acts in the semi-fantastical cityscape called Gotham City.
Outside of that, what is Batman supposed to be? The brains of the operation, as has been pointed out, or the Nick Fury character, as has been argued? The "most dangerous man on earth" that helps a lot with his intellect and his money? If so, why does he have to wear that theatrical Bat-suit in the first place? He would be better off if for JLA he simply renamed himself as Tek Knight and wore a technology-based suit similar to Iron Man's that focused on function and not theatrics.
Completely agree on everything you wrote there, buddy !
Was I the only one who thought this was what was going to be revealed when Blake said "We've met before. A long time ago.." ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzqAQbnMfwg
QuoteIt's funny how Blake kills those cement truck guys and throws away his gun, seemingly making a choice not to use it any more, disgusted with his actions.
Soon after he's charging the hospital with a shotgun...
In hindsight, I think it would've been cool if Blake had used a police baton to defend himself and beat the cement truck guys- demonstrating martial arts skills (that would make it more believable for us to buy him adopting the mantle at the end) as well as echoing the club-type weapons that Grayson/Nightwing uses.
Quote from: SilentEnigma on Wed, 5 Dec 2012, 22:09Prepare for something that might sound way off, but here's my prime problem with the whole JLA concept.
For me, Batman loses his "power" when seen in daytime, surrounded by superpowered characters, in pristine sci-fi sets. What is once mythical and strikes fear in Gotham City, a setting of urban decay of which Batman is an organic part, is also rather ridiculously theatrical in daytime, when larger threats than madmen, psychotic killers, or the mob, are involved. Batman makes sense (in a pulp/comic book way) when he acts in the semi-fantastical cityscape called Gotham City.
Outside of that, what is Batman supposed to be? The brains of the operation, as has been pointed out, or the Nick Fury character, as has been argued? The "most dangerous man on earth" that helps a lot with his intellect and his money? If so, why does he have to wear that theatrical Bat-suit in the first place? He would be better off if for JLA he simply renamed himself as Tek Knight and wore a technology-based suit similar to Iron Man's that focused on function and not theatrics.
Well, the entire conceit of the thing is that it's all of DC's heavies on a team together. As you say, what makes Batman tick as a standalone character can't easily be applied to Batman as a member of a team. So rather than try to force something that doesn't work, simply come up with a rationale for Batman to function as a team member.
For example, there's a tendency to believe that Batman isn't a joiner. That has merit for some but I don't for one moment think Batman would be entirely comfortable with the existence of a group like the JLA without there being some kind of oversight. That's a lot of raw firepower under one roof. My justification for him on the team would be that Batman would join, invited or not, just to keep an eye on them. That's a long way off from posing for press photos in front of the Hall of Justice at three in the afternoon.
Audiences clearly wanted a shared universe. That's not saying they want a live action version of the Superfriends but it has to be recognized that this is where the winds are blowing. For those put off by Batman sharing the stage with anybody, there are literally hundreds of hours of film and animation where he's the only game in town. Couple that with the fact that Batman has survived all these decades by being so malleable and I really don't understand why some people have this militant opposition to Batman in a JLA movie. Even if the end product sucks, he'll survive.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 16 Dec 2012, 08:02
Quote from: SilentEnigma on Wed, 5 Dec 2012, 22:09My justification for him on the team would be that Batman would join, invited or not, just to keep an eye on them. That's a long way off from posing for press photos in front of the Hall of Justice at three in the afternoon.
That's alright with me ! Great idea !
If a JLA film happens, it can aid Batman's characterisation. I prefer the loner Batman and that could remain true in a group setting. People know what it feels like. You're at a function or out somewhere with people you don't know or don't like and as a result say virtually nothing. You stand out because of it. Batman would be the same. He's the only non powered person in the room but that brings other unique aspects to the table. The human perspective. Keeping his eyes on them. This picture below captures what I mean:
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3250%2F3125043547_8054432c81_o.jpg&hash=f834a6f32874ecd116cb549594dcb58022d09087)
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 16 Dec 2012, 23:57
If a JLA film happens, it can aid Batman's characterisation. I prefer the loner Batman and that could remain true in a group setting. People know what it feels like. You're at a function or out somewhere with people you don't know or don't like and as a result say virtually nothing. You stand out because of it. Batman would be the same. He's the only non powered person in the room but that brings other unique aspects to the table. The human perspective. Keeping his eyes on them. This picture below captures what I mean:
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3250%2F3125043547_8054432c81_o.jpg&hash=f834a6f32874ecd116cb549594dcb58022d09087)
That's exactly what I think the approach to the JLA when it comes to the Batman should be.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 16 Dec 2012, 08:02
Audiences clearly wanted a shared universe. That's not saying they want a live action version of the Superfriends but it has to be recognized that this is where the winds are blowing. For those put off by Batman sharing the stage with anybody, there are literally hundreds of hours of film and animation where he's the only game in town. Couple that with the fact that Batman has survived all these decades by being so malleable and I really don't understand why some people have this militant opposition to Batman in a JLA movie. Even if the end product sucks, he'll survive.
Agreed. My concern, if any, with DC going full speed ahead with a JL movie is the effect this can have on the rest of the DCU/MOS sequels (if it blows, we may never see Flash or WW again) But Batman will be fine. We've had dark and gothic, we've had "realistic", let's give "comic book" a chance.
colors, TDK
Good points, your posts are always a great read. My primary problem isn't that Batman wouldn't want to work with JLA, i.e. that he's not a joiner (it would make sense for him to want to keep an eye on them), but aesthetical, as a fan and a viewer. It's the mere fact of Batman co-existing with this colorful superpowered universe that never sit right with me (for the record, I like Superman). In the comics, in certain cases where appearances of the DCU really work in the story's favour (like, say, in Miller's TDKR and anything illustrated by Alex Ross), I'm fine with it. As long as the bulk of Batman's own stories are Gotham-centric (as is the case, really), the "existence" of the DCU, the aliens, Darkseid, all this can be easily ignored. A live action film, however, that is also intented as Batman's "re-introduction", is a different thing altogether.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 16 Dec 2012, 23:57
If a JLA film happens, it can aid Batman's characterisation. I prefer the loner Batman and that could remain true in a group setting. People know what it feels like. You're at a function or out somewhere with people you don't know or don't like and as a result say virtually nothing. You stand out because of it. Batman would be the same. He's the only non powered person in the room but that brings other unique aspects to the table. The human perspective. Keeping his eyes on them. This picture below captures what I mean:
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3250%2F3125043547_8054432c81_o.jpg&hash=f834a6f32874ecd116cb549594dcb58022d09087)
This encapsulates Batman
Quote from: SilentEnigma on Wed, 19 Dec 2012, 17:42It's the mere fact of Batman co-existing with this colorful superpowered universe that never sit right with me (for the record, I like Superman). In the comics, in certain cases where appearances of the DCU really work in the story's favour (like, say, in Miller's TDKR and anything illustrated by Alex Ross), I'm fine with it. As long as the bulk of Batman's own stories are Gotham-centric (as is the case, really), the "existence" of the DCU, the aliens, Darkseid, all this can be easily ignored. A live action film, however, that is also intented as Batman's "re-introduction", is a different thing altogether.
TDK and TCB in unison- "It's a different."
But seriously, I guess my beef with that line is that it seems to be informed by a view of Batman as a general fiction character rather than specifically a comic book character. If the injection of other superhero characters interferes with the tone of Batman, there's something wrong with how Batman's tone is being, I dunno, processed? Interpreted? Conceptualized? Whatever.
I guess apart from that, a common problem I've seen with Batman in a JLA movie is that it's a human on a team of people with superpowers. My answer to that is that Black Widow and Hawkeye both worked fine in the Avengers movie. Nobody seems to complain about them because they were doing things the other team members couldn't. I don't see how putting Batman into a JLA thing is a greater or lesser "problem".
The entire point is that the JLA is all about DC's heavy hitters all on one team. Batman's inclusion won't damage him but his exclusion could damage the movie. Either way, whether there's a JLA movie in the next couple of years or not, I don't see a new Batman franchise starting any time soon so there's nothing for a JLA movie to "conflict with" or harm.
QuoteBut seriously, I guess my beef with that line is that it seems to be informed by a view of Batman as a general fiction character rather than specifically a comic book character. If the injection of other superhero characters interferes with the tone of Batman, there's something wrong with how Batman's tone is being, I dunno, processed? Interpreted? Conceptualized? Whatever.
Haven't we argued (by "we" I mean all fandom) that Batman can, and has already been, interpreted and depicted in several different ways? The most succesful films of the last 20+ years (especially since 2005) presented Batman as the lone "extraordinary" figure in a semi-realistic setting; Nolan's were said to transcend the confines of the superhero genre, while Burton's did that too, in their own way, in the early 90s. If "general fiction character" as opposed to "specifically a superhero character"* means as free of the most colorful tropes and aesthetics usually associated with "traditional" superhero comics, well, he has already been treated as such.
*(I assume that by comic book you mean superhero)The films were rich in influence and visual nods to the comics themselves, yes, but the comics that influenced them, like the most often cited examples (the original run of late 30s/early 40s, The Killing Joke, TDKR, Dark Victory etc.) were largely of the "Batman as Gotham's crimefighter" side than "Batman as a member of the DCU that teams up with JL to fight aliens". I don't know if my own view of Batman's tone is a mis-interpretation because it happens to be informed by the films and such comics.
QuoteI guess apart from that, a common problem I've seen with Batman in a JLA movie is that it's a human on a team of people with superpowers. My answer to that is that Black Widow and Hawkeye both worked fine in the Avengers movie. Nobody seems to complain about them because they were doing things the other team members couldn't. I don't see how putting Batman into a JLA thing is a greater or lesser "problem".
Yes, but who are Hawkeye and the Black Widow, how does their presence there affect their solo film franchises, and who is the Batman?
QuoteThe entire point is that the JLA is all about DC's heavy hitters all on one team. Batman's inclusion won't damage him but his exclusion could damage the movie. Either way, whether there's a JLA movie in the next couple of years or not, I don't see a new Batman franchise starting any time soon so there's nothing for a JLA movie to "conflict with" or harm.
I think the point has always been that JLA has the potential to seriously damage Batman for the foreseeable future - if we were talking about solo DC films, with maybe the possibility of a team-up in the future after audience's interest is built (the Marvel way), then most would be supporting it or at least wouldn't have much of a problem. But WB is rushing things. It has been proven that Batman is popular enough to sustain any damage and resurrect after a misfire, but this is a possibility some don't find very attractive.
Quote from: SilentEnigma on Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 05:49I think the point has always been that JLA has the potential to seriously damage Batman for the foreseeable future
Don't see how. The Nolan movies built a lot of affection for the character. One team up film of dubious quality isn't going to change much of anything.
Quote from: SilentEnigma on Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 05:49if we were talking about solo DC films, with maybe the possibility of a team-up in the future after audience's interest is built (the Marvel way), then most would be supporting it or at least wouldn't have much of a problem.
All due respect but I have no idea where that's coming from. Many segments of the fanbase had a chance to support that Superman/Batman team up movie that was rumored in 1999 or 2000. They didn't. They said individual franchises should've been established first.
They had a chance to support a post-Batman Begins/post-Singerman team up movie. They didn't. Now they were saying the individual franchises should get a sequel first.
They had a chance to support Justice League: Mortal. They didn't. Now they were saying the individual trilogies should be completed first.
Now that we're basically back to square zero with both Batman and Superman, those same people are saying individual franchises should be set up first.
The simple fact of the matter is that history shows us that an entire section of the fanbase will not support Batman as anything other than a solo character in his own universe at any time under any circumstances. They'll contrive any number of bullsh*t reasons to justify it but at the end of the day their
real objection is that Batman is one of many superhero characters rather than the only game in town. Anything else they is an excuse.
Quote from: SilentEnigma on Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 05:49But WB is rushing things.
How so? Isn't Justice League of America supposedly scheduled for summer 2015? "Development" (of some kind) has been under way since June 2012. If we assume JLA is set for a June 2015 release, that gives the film three years in development. If a movie studio can't get a film together in three years, they need to find a different line of work.
Quote from: SilentEnigma on Fri, 21 Dec 2012, 05:49It has been proven that Batman is popular enough to sustain any damage and resurrect after a misfire, but this is a possibility some don't find very attractive.
And they'll always have their Chris Nolan DVD's to console them.
I'm thinking we should open up a Justice League forum, since WB seems intent on making it now and it would be the best place for these JLA movie discussions.
As for JGL, it looks like he's in the running for one of the leads in Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy. Could this mean that he's not in consideration for Batman in Justice League? Would Marvel even be considering him if WB's planned a continuing role for him in the Batman franchise? I guess we'll see.
http://www.deadline.com/2013/01/joseph-gordon-levitt-joins-the-guardians-of-the-galaxy-race/
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 2 Jan 2013, 18:43
I'm thinking we should open up a Justice League forum, since WB seems intent on making it now and it would be the best place for these JLA movie discussions.
Good call.