28 November, 2012

Do we have a new Batman?

Unless you've been locked in a cupboard or living under a rock, you've probably seen "The Dark Knight Rises" an you will know that Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character John Blake is being set up to take over Batman's duties. While this just looked like a beautiful closure to Nolan's trilogy, but now it is looking like it was a setup to the Justice League movie.

 "According to sources, Joseph Gordon-Levitt absolutely will be appearing in “Justice League” as the new Batman.
Now here’s where things get interesting. The more insistent the drumbeat has become, the more poking around I’ve been doing, and it’s looking like we may see Gordon-Levitt in the suit earlier than that. They’re a long way from filming anything “Justice League” related, but they appear to be solidifying deals for Gordon-Levitt and, potentially, at least one other actor from the Nolan films to do… something."

I have a few major concerns with this rumour actually, firstly Bruce Wayne is Batman not John Blake never has he been an never should he be. I don't doubt Levitt's acting ability, he is a great actor but he isn't Bruce Wayne he is John Blake, Nolan's character not a DC hero. Using Blake in the Justice League movie makes no sense at all to me, we need Bruce Wayne as Batman just as we need Clark Kent as Superman without their alter-ego's the beauty of the comics and the legacy of 70 or so years.

Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

2 comments:

  1. JW30/11/2012, 18:16

    "...we need Bruce Wayne as Batman just as we need Clark Kent as Superman without their alter-ego's the beauty of the comics and the legacy of 70 or so years."

    I don't know that I agree. One of the conditions that limits what writers and filmmakers can do is this insistence on legacy. The closure of Nolan's series has the potential to be transformative if you want to see it that way: anybody can be the Batman. This is a freeing statement within the confines of film. He's given us a fellow with no ties to the comic whatsoever (outside of a middle name that feels shoehorned into the script). He only exists within the film. Somebody somewhere should have the sac to run with that.

    And I'm fine with it, there's absolutely enough Batcrap to go around and satisfy all comers. I'm not interested in yet another a reboot where we watch Bruce Wayne follow his parents down an alleyway and come out a psychologically scarred individual blah blah blah. Great story! I've HEARD it. Why do we need to hear it again? New stories, please.

    Thanks for letting me post. I enjoy your blog very much. Keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chris' Movie Corner02/12/2012, 14:03

    I can see where you're coming from for the filmmakers and writers, but I don't think I'd enjoy the film as much knowing under the Batsuit is John Blake an not Bruce Wayne.

    It is true that we have seen the Batman origin story far too much, much more than any other superhero I can know of. So I guess in that sense using Blake as Batman would add another dimension to the story, and save the watcher from going through the previously seen "Alley" scene.

    You are more than welcome, hope you keep coming back I appreciate it.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)