I feel Nolan was very wrong on one important matter

[Edd Grayson]

try to resize it, maybe, I'm not sure.

[The Laughing Fish]

I don't know what Nolan was trying to accomplish with his "anyone can be Batman" theme. In what way exactly? Did he mean by having Batman doing something about crime that it would shake people's apathy and encourage them to make a change? Because if that's the case then it didn't work - we're not really shown what sort of impact Batman has on the city in the first movie, and then in the second movie people seem to have doubts about him. In fact, I'd say this whole symbolism would be better suited for a Superman movie, since Superman is normally the character that people are inspired by. Trying to make this symbolism out of Batman actually contradicts the whole idea that he is just as insane as the villains he fights. And it certainly doesn't make sense if Blake takes the mantle, because like how everybody else said, while he may have lost a loved one as well, he doesn't even have the money, the resources nor the training that Bruce had. And not Bruce himself could do an adequate job when he was Batman.

[johnnygobbs]

Is it confirmed that John Blake became Batman at the end of TDKR?  Also my take on TDKR was that by the end of the film Bruce finally realised that the key to effecting positive change in Gotham was through philanthropy (i.e. by donating Wayne Manor to the orphaned children), much like his father once had, rather than through vigilantism.

Also, Edd makes the point that only those who have experienced what Wayne went through could possibly be Batman but arguably John Blake (who like I state is not clearly shown to become Batman in any case) has suffered what Bruce went through by losing his parents at a young age, his father in a particularly traumatic manner, and far worse since he wasn't born to the manor with a silver spoon.

[The Laughing Fish]

Is it confirmed that John Blake became Batman at the end of TDKR?  Also my take on TDKR was that by the end of the film Bruce finally realised that the key to effecting positive change in Gotham was through philanthropy (i.e. by donating Wayne Manor to the orphaned children), much like his father once had, rather than through vigilantism.

Judging how Blake was given coordinates to find the Batcave, and since it was confirmed that his real name was "Robin", I thought it was clearly implied that he was about to take over the mantle as Batman or whatever name he would be going by as the Gotham's new hero.

[Paul (ral)]

I'm not a big fan of "derivational characters" that have come up over the years...unless they are written well of course.

For me, each hero is only there because of a unique set of characteristics/events.

Superman - last survivor of Krypton sent to earth. Our atmosphere and yellow sun are a unique combination that give him physical strength. He is found by the Kents who provide him with good solid morals...giving him mental strength.

Batman - a rich man with very high intelligence, and unwavering obsession who witnesses his parents killed at a young impressional age. His intelligence/rage leads him to study/train for the years leading up to his adulthood. A bat smashes through a window at a time when he is looking for a medium to strike fear into criminals.

Spider-man - an intelligent science obsessed teenager is bitten by a spider that happened to become radioactive via a freak experiment. His uncle is killed due to his inaction which gives him a moral focus and motivation.

All great origin stories and all creating unique characters via unrepeatable events.

[The Dark Knight]

Lovely post Ral.

The image of Batman. Looking at the outline of his mask, it could be anyone under there. Yeah, if that's what Nolan means he's making an obvious point.

But if he means anyone can literally be Batman, he's dead wrong. As Ral posts, only a perfect storm of events that are personal to Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne, etc equal Superman or Batman.

You don't put on a cape and become a crime-fighter just because you look like one.

I could post about the Blake thing - but it made me roll my eyes so much I won't bother.

[Catwoman]

try to resize it, maybe, I'm not sure.

how would i do it?

[Edd Grayson]

Just open it in MS Paint and click on Resize. It should work.

[riddler]

Bruce contradicts himself throughout the second and third films; as mentioned he is hypocritical only allowing himself to be a vigilante despite the fact that people ARE standing up to the mob and crime which should be a good thing.

Also he entrust Selina Kyle despite her being a thief and a burgalar. Cool character but THAT is who he picks?

[The Laughing Fish]

Bruce contradicts himself throughout the second and third films; as mentioned he is hypocritical only allowing himself to be a vigilante despite the fact that people ARE standing up to the mob and crime which should be a good thing.

Also he entrust Selina Kyle despite her being a thief and a burgalar. Cool character but THAT is who he picks?

Very true. Let's not forget that Bruce was set up by Selina so Bane could beat him up. And yet, Bruce still puts his faith in Selina even though she had betrayed him. Let's face it, he has no logical reason to trust her after that ordeal with Bane. Then again, what do you expect in a Nolan film? This is the guy who thought Harvey Dent allowing himself to be manipulated by the man who killed his girlfriend was a good idea.