Tie-in? No, Butt-out!

18 08 2013

When I heard several of DC’s titles where doing their own versions of “Batman Year Zero” I was excited. New stories set before our heroes gained their powers or dual identities sounded very enticing. Then the solicitations released. Nightwing, Batgirl, and Red Hood had the heading “Batman year zero tie-in.” Not exactly what I was expecting, but these are all Bat-family books. Can I really be surprised that DC was going to try and further Batman/Bruce Wayne to their origins? Then I read “Batman Year Zero Tie-In” on Green Lantern Corps, Green Arrow, and The Flash.

The Solicitation for ‘The Flash’ reads; “A BATMAN: ZERO YEAR tie-in! What crucial part did Barry Allen play in the Zero Year saga, and how did it shape his future as The Flash?”

I don’t know DC comics, what crucial part does Barry play, because he shouldn’t play any F’n part at all!



These Batman Tie-in issues are direct examples of why readers have such a horrible case of “Event” burn out. The big publishers don’t hide the reasons for so many cross-overs; event titles boost sales. But now it’s become an issue of practicality. Cross overs, or at least at the rate and size they are released, don’t just annoy consumers, they make the titles themselves less enjoyable. Some of the reasons include:

One event is released right after another

Batman “Death of the family” ended not even half a year ago, and right before that we had “Court of Owls” on every Batman related cover. These stories are marketed as “Events that will change our hero for years to come,” but when a new event happens before the year is over, there is no opportunity to see our heroes or villains affected by the prior story. One purpose of these events is to create opportunities for new stories. Makes a lot of sense, but a six-month gap between two events “That will change our cast forever” doesn’t lend much opportunity for these “changes” to be fleshed out. For example, in court of owls Nightwing discovers his very existence in life was to oppose the Wayne family. That’s some deep stuff to find out on a Wednesday! But before the Grayson/Wayne family trees are deeply explored we find out Joker may know the identities of Team Batman. Oh man, that’s rough also! I’d love to read how the Batman Family is effected by these events. Well I didn’t get to because as soon as that story ended, Damien Wayne was killed by his own mother. Man, what happens next? I don’t know, because now Batman is having a flashback that’s taking half a year. Each of these events could have easily created a years’ worth of stories, but instead we get an issue or two. Marvel’s no better. In just a few years the X-men had “Second Coming” then “Scism” then “AVX” and now a time traveling story that crosses three different time lines. After all, if it’s one thing the X-men franchise needs, it’s more time travel stories.

Cross Overs take characters out of their element, in a bad way.

What the hell is John Stewart and Barry Allen even doing in Gotham? You know what? I don’t care, because when I’m reading Green Lantern Corps, guess what I wanna read about, THE GREEN LANTURN CORPS!!! I’m sure reading a story about John Stewart without his ring can be a very interesting read. And I’m sure having Green Lantern face the Riddler can also be interesting, but John without his ring fighting the Riddler? If I want to read about a super hero fighting the Riddler without using powers I’ll read…what’s the name of that character…oh yeah BATMAN! OR NIGHTWING! OR BATGIRL! If I want to see Riddler get blasted in the face with a green energy beam, guess what book I’ll buy….

 Crossovers pause stories and piss off creators

Comic book events slow down character arcs and stories. The Green Lantern Family is concluding a crossover event the same month as the Batman year zero tie-ins. That means that any fans of    Green Lantern Corps have to wait an extra month to see how the events influence John Stewart. Many stories are forced to be slowed-down or put into the background to appease editorial demands for crossovers. Often time these orders from editorial come in very late, and a creator will already have planned out a story that spands 4 to even 12 issues. This forces the creator to cut things out, or push back issues. Creators who are vocal about their frustrations are often silenced or fired, as was the case for the late Dwayne McDuffie.

How many crossovers can you fit in a month?

In the same month Batman Year Zero is running, DC is also publishing the crossover event “Forever Evil” and concluding the Green Lantern event “Lights out.” That’s three events in one month. That’s very tiring for a reader. My brother, David, pointed out to me that it’s become very difficult to read comic books week to week or even month to month because there is so much going on, it’s hard to remember what is going on where. In many causes the same handful of characters are playing key roles in several events, so even from a chronological stand-point, figuring out the order of each story can be confusing.


The new 52 was created in order to tell new stories, and it's doing a great job. I can't remember the last time I saw the villians of DC team up against the Justice League. I've also never read a story where a side-kick died. Keep up all the original content DC.

The new 52 was created in order to tell new stories, and it’s doing a great job. I can’t remember the last time I saw the villians of DC team up against the Justice League. I’ve also never read a story where a side-kick died. Keep up all the original content DC.

After so many events, why should I care?

“If everyone is special, no one is special” the wise words from a young superhero created by Pixar. If you have 6 events in a year, none of the events become that special. Things change so rapidly readers are better off waiting for the conclusion issue to release. The conclusions have become less of “Story resolutions” and are more like sneak previews for upcoming story arcs.

What was the point of the new 52?

I thought the whole reason DC did the new 52 was because the continuity needed to be simplified. The DC universe had become a place where Martian Manhunter knew Clark Kent as a boy and Roy Harper had become almost as old as Hal Jordan. The new 52 was supposed to make character origins more direct and wipe out any stories that where confusing. Now we have John Stewart, Dick Grayson, Ollie, and Barry Allen all in Gotham the same time that Bruce Wayne is becoming Batman. This is the point where the new 52 undoes itself. The second we have characters guest starring in an origin story, it’s no longer an origin story. It’s a retcon.


A comic book fan’s review of “The Wolverine”

30 07 2013

This review contains spoilers.

The bar has been raised for what to expect from comic book movies. Marvel’s franchise and The Dark Knight trilogy have made super hero movies the new trend. After “X-men: First class” it appeared that the X-men franchise had gotten back on track. “The Wolverine,” however, proved that isn’t the case.

Several websites I follow, such as comicbookresouces.com and ign gave the film decent or even strong reviews. Many making the claim, “This is the wolverine film we’ve been waiting for,” but Fox already made a good “Wolverine” movie. It was called “X-men.” That film did more justice to the character then both his solo films put together.

My issues with “The Wolverine” start with basic story structure. The movie doesn’t know where to go or what material to pull from, large due to the film’s attempt to merge classic comic book story lines set in different time periods. Two major Wolverine tales the movie is based around are Mark Miller’s “Old Man Logan” and Chris Clermont’s stories of Wolverine in Japan. Both of these stories are wonderful and I recommend reading them. They both would also make great films, individually. And that’s the problem, one is an origin story and the other is set in the future. How the hell do you merge a story that is supposed to take place in a character’s past with a story that is supposed to be set in the future, and set in the present? You can’t, because it makes no freaking sense. What we get instead is a film that is poorly organized.

To make it even worse, the underlying plot adds even more confusion to the current continuity issues the film X-men Franchise currently has. In one of the major plots for “The Wolverine” our boy Logan is told that his healing factor can be taken away. This news comes as a shock to him. Our hero is in disbelief that his mutant powers can be removed, which I find amusing because the entire plot of X-men 3 was based around a cure for the mutant gene. If Wolverine really wanted his powers taken away, according to the X-men films, he just needs to hop over a drug store and grab a few pills.

Another subplot involves Wolverine becoming a pacifist. A story about a man created to fight, swearing an oath for peace could be a film by itself. Many great films, in fact, follow this very plot. But instead of watching our character face cross roads of morality between war and peace, the second he sees a bear hurt, his claws pop out. It took the film 10 minutes for Wolverine to break his code of fighting. “I’ll never pop my claws out again….what’s this?! Hunters?! HELLZ NAH!!<SNIKT>” And then ten minutes later he’s fighting again! ”YAKUZA?!?!? Screw those guys! <SNIKT>” Any chance he got to stab someone, he’d take it.

The other part of the plot involves Wolverine protecting Mariko, the heir to a powerful company. I like a good “Hero protect damsel” story, but I never really knew who the hell Wolverine was protecting her from. We had yakuza, ninjas, and a villain named Viper all after Mariko, but it was never made really clear who was working with who and what all the connects where. All we knew where people wanted her captured. Many successful Super hero films don’t hide who their villains are. When we all saw Harvey Dent was in ‘The Dark Knight’ we all knew “Two-face is coming!” So rather then try and make the villian’s turn a big surprise, Nolan owed the origin and focused on the journey of Harvey Dent. Sure some comics movies have a few twist, like in iron Man 3, but we all knew half way through the film that Killian was a bad guy.


In the beginning of ‘The Wolverine’, we meet a young man named Yashida. Wolverine saves him and the guy is grateful. We see him again at the very end, only this time trying to kill Wolverine for his powers. At what point in time did Yashida go from feeling indebted to Logan to pulling bone morrow out of him? We don’t know. We just have to go along with it. There is no build up, no development, no moment where we witness the characters make turn of morality. The film just says to its viewers “Sometimes people go crazy. Deal with it. And sometimes people need to cope with personal issues by building giant samurai body suits,” Which brings me to another issue.


Directors these days have too much access to CGI. Rather then try and create interesting stories, they throw CGI at a problem and move forward. It’s a waste of money and in many cases a waste of film time. At the start of the film, we see Wolverine has befriended a bear. Why is a bear in the film? And why did they bother to CGI it? Shut the hell up. That’s why. Or how about the Silver Samurai himself. In the comics, the Silver Samurai is one of Logan’s greatest rivals. Instead of telling a heart-ripping tale involving love and loss, the film’s creative team decides to make the Silver Samurai a mech suit.  The fight wasn’t even impressive. It was mostly Wolverine running and dodging, like the kitchen scene from Jurassic Park.

The bear also brings in another issue; fluff. There were tons of characters and scenes that should have been cut out. Scenes and cast members that instead of furthering the plot, slowed it down. “The Wolverine” should have been maybe 40 minutes long. We didn’t need 15 minute of wolverine defending a bear, we didn’t need to have an archer in the film, and the scenes with Jean Grey quickly became tiresome.  Even Yukio, who I was a big fan of, really didn’t have a role in the film besides “Get Wolverine to Japan.” Her backstory was supposed to be “She was brought into the family simply to entertain Mariko. While Mariko became like a sister to her, the rest of the family never took to her.” The idea of Yukio never finding a place to belong would have been an awesome complement to Wolverine’s story of self-exile. Instead we only see the two of them interact when fighting is involved. In fact, we only see Mariko and Yukio talk twice the entire film.

But really, all my frustrations, all my anger, could have been forgiven, if they had one, just one, ninja fight scene. They had Ninjas. They had fights. They never had Wolverine fight ninjas! How the hell do you put Wolverine in Japan, have him encounter an army of ninjas, and not have a night fight scene?! Oh, excuse me, that’s not entirely true. Wolverine faces the ninjas, says to the leader “Is that all you brought” and then he is shot down by arrows. Making our protagonist look like a protaga-bitch.

“The Wolverine,” is a perfect example of how to do a comic book movie wrong, even with the right intentions. But with the announcement of an X-factor film, it’s clear Fox has no intentions on slowing down the X-men franchise, so maybe we’ll still get the wolverine film we want. I just wish Hugh Jackman could be a part of that film, because he really is a great guy. Great guy, great actor, wrong film.

Older Woman Young Heroes

17 06 2013

In most movies, particularly action movies, the male character is generally older then the female. Who the protagonist is doesn’t matter, your male character will be older then the female love interest unless the plot specifically calls for the female to be older.  In many cases the male star is over a decade older then his female counter-part, like in Star Wars Episodes IV-VI where Harrison Ford is 14 years older then Carrie Fisher.

The reasons for casting younger women is not a surprise to anyone. Women are heavily sexualized in mainstream media. J.J. Abrams even had to apologized for a scene he directed in Star Trek: Into Darkness, where actress Alice Eve stands before the audience in a full body shot with only her underwear on. The scene had no purpose in the film besides giving teenage boys something to talk about at school. I Really I don’t have to much of a problem with the sexualization of women in most films, because men are also portrayed in very unrealistic ways. Will Smith is in his mid 40’s but still plays many of the same kind of roles he was playing in his mid 20’s. I’m in my late 20’s and just watching him perform stunts exhausts me. I feel like I need to rehydrate myself every time I watch a Will Smith or Tom Cruise movie.

My issues with younger women in films comes from the types of roles they are given. The directors and screen writes spend a lot of energy establishing a believable universe. Whether it is sci-fi, romantic comedy, or something in between, as an audience member the film makers want me to believe in some capacity the world they created could be my own. In any cases martial art instructors are hired so real fighting techniques are used and historians are consulted to add accuracy. The same film makers will then cast a 23 year old woman as the leading expert on genetic manipulation, or some other crap, while every male scientist in the room is in their 50’s. You really expect for me to believe someone who’s not even old enough to rent a car is some how the top dog of science? And while this same thing happens with males, because younger females are more appealing for roles (especially action roles) you see a higher number of young actresses playing roles where because of their age, any realism built is thrown out the window.

This is one more reason I am a big fan of “Man of Steel.” Actress Amy Adams is nearly 40 years old, almost a decade older her love interest Henry Cavil who play Louis Lane and Superman respectively.  I’m not going to believe someone in there early 20’s is going to be an award winning journalist who is known across America. Is it possible? Sure. Is it possible that big foot will have lunch with the president next week? Sure. Are either of these scenarios likely? Hell no. The movie industry can be heartless, and female actresses often have a shorter life span than male actors. By making Louis Lane an “older” woman (though I hardly consider 38 old by any stretch) it makes me believe the role Amy is playing much more. It’s also great to show that women in their late 30’s and early 40’s are still very attractive.

It’s also great to see a younger male with an older woman as his love interest. The way our media portrays relationships it almost feels taboo to see a woman with a younger male, even if the age difference is miniscule. The chemistry between Amy and Henry on screen shows that it’s the portrayals by the actors, not how tight their butts are, that makes the characters believable. A similar trend was in Thor, where Natalie Portman is older then her male co-star. Both where great on screen, and it would have been tragic to cast anyone else. With the success of Super Hero films, and the caliber of creators behind each movie, I hope Hollywood will take a hint and realize that movie-goers would rather have two quality characters in a film then a 3 minute bikini scene.

Man of Steel Review, a comic book reader’s review

14 06 2013

(Minor Spoilers)


 9 out of 10 (As a Superman story)


I’ve never been a big fan of Superman. Batman? Hell Yeah! Static Shock? Cool! But Superman? In many of his comic books I always felt like he was too heroic.  He could do no wrong, make no mistake, and had the power to move planets by himself. Snyder & Goyer tore that version down and gave me a Superman Clark Kent full of inner conflict, personal struggles, and moral dilemmas.

When we first meet Clark he is traveling the world, seeking the answer of who he is, not unlike the way Bruce Wayne was introduced in the Dark Knight Trilogy. Through flashbacks we see Clark has always struggling with his identity, torn between keeping his secret and doing what he believed was right. As Clark learns about himself we see him stumble, not only with his powers but with his temper. This isn’t a Clark Kent who doesn’t mind being walked over. We see him clearly frustrated that he’s forced to hold back his strength when dealing with bullies and jerks. In fact, in more the one occasion actually see him lose his cool. For me this is very important because everyone gets mad, right? No one likes being pushed around. So when I would read Superman comics where Clark would get spat on, only to walk away, instead of inspiring me to turn the other cheek it made Clark’s character very two dimensional. By showing Clark get angry, and even act out at times, it reminds us that this guy is trying his best to live a virtuous life. In many ways, that’s the real theme of the film “The most important thing to do is to try.”

It’s a theme that repeats itself. Clark goes from job to job lost, as a boy he can’t control his powers, and as we watch his struggles his successes become all the more exciting to watch. Even with the other characters in the film, the theme carries. Lois Lane is following a story no one believes in. Jor El and Zod are trying to keep their species alive. Jonathan Kent has a child with abilities he doesn’t understand, but Kent even says it in the film, “we’re trying the best we can.” And sometimes your best isn’t good enough, as we saw in the fights. The glourious glourious fights.

People died in the film. Superman doesn’t save everyone, and has to make choices that conflict him at his core. This was KEY in making a great Superman film. In the comic books, how many times did we watch Superman save every person in Metropolis from an Alien Armada. Seriously?! No one’s even hit by a stray bullet? In “Man of Steel” we see Metropolis crumble due to the battle between earth and the Kryptonians. Collateral damage is grand and many people are not only killed from direct confrontation with Zod’s forces, but from the crossfires coming from Earth’s side. Each fight has you eyes wide open because you don’t know what to expect. This is Superman fighting in a way we have always wanted to see. Fist swung at lighting speeds, building parts used as weapons, everything you would want to see in a Superman fight scene is there, and it’s as good as you’ve always hoped it’d be.

Going back to the cast, as a comic book fan this is where the film became hit or miss. As a whole, the cast was great. Each actor brought to life our favorite Superman characters in ways that will long be remembered. In fact “Man of Steel” gave me my favorite incarnation of Lois Lane to date. Lois is much less of a simple plot device in this portrayal, playing an important role in Clark’s progression and success. And without giving too much away, it takes much more then a pair of glasses to fool miss Lane. Crow as Jor El was powerful, almost to powerful. I can see many people viewing Jor El as the “Good dad” and Jonathan Kent as “Jerk Dad.”

Jonathan is shown as a reserved man who recognizes the power Clark wields. He’s clearly a concerned parent and loves his son, but he’s not the “Pa Kent” I fell in love with in Action Comics. The Pa Kent I know taught Clark how to be a Super hero. It’s his guidance Clark would turn to when things where at their worst. In this version Jonathan makes Clark fearful of his abilities, and is willing to make controversial sacrifices to keep Clark hidden. Jor El on the other hand inspires Clark to become the hero of two planets. I like Jor El as much as I like any other “Ghost Dad” but Jonathan raised Clark. For this computer program to be what inspires Clark to become Superman after a 5 minute conversation makes Mr. Kent seem unimpressive as a care taker. In fact, a reoccurring part of the film was Clark making it clear that the Kents where not his true parents. I’m not adopted, so my teenage years didn’t have those sort of Identity issues, but it was vastly different portrayal of the Kent family then what I am used to.


What I was the most curious about walking into the film was the origin story. I knew they made changes to Superman’s background, which has been done in the past, but as far as Krypton’s destruction goes, this was one of the best. Kal El is not only the last son of Krypton, but the first organic birth in thousands of years. Before Kal El, each Kryptonian is born with a role in place. Kal El was given free will. This is a wonderful twist to the Superman mythos. Clark is not special because he is the last son of Krypton, he is special because he is also the first in centuries. This also ties into the them of “Trying.” Other Kryptonians, as Zod points out, know their role from birth. Clark is forced to find it, and it’s not an easy road. And it shouldn’t be.


This idea of a Superman who doesn’t know his path really speaks to me, we all can relate to this. All of us go through a phase in our life where despite our successes or failures, our strengths or weaknesses, we still feel lost. And we’ve all felt that no matter how hard we try, it doesn’t feel like what we’re doing is good enough. But we only truly fail when we stop trying.


Man of Steel isn’t perfect. But it doesn’t have to be. As a DC comics fan, it gave me almost everything I wanted from a live action Superman film, and gave me a Clark Kent who wasn’t suffering from a boy scout syndrome. If we can see more of Man of Steel and less of Green Lantern, Marvel might have to watch it’s back.

Fox says Quicksilver I say bullshit

25 05 2013

Since the theatrical release of Marvel’s “The Avengers” Marvel execs have been hinting at the use of Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch in the sequel. A few days ago Josh Whedon confirmed it. Before any of us fan-geeks had a chance to defog our glasses, Brian Singer posted on twitter that he is using, and has even casted, Quicksilver to use in his film X-men: Days of Future Past.

Could this all be a merry coincidence? Sure. Do I believe it is? Hell no! Fox has pulled this same kind of crap before, using petty tactics to spite competition. In fact this same sort of crap was done in the X-men franchise itself! When James Marson, the man who played cyclops, was cast for Superman Returns, Fox told the X-men writers “Kill off Cyclopes! Kill’em good and fast!” Now I’m all for a old fashion hero slay’n, but only when it progresses the story. While the film already had many other production issues, the script for X-men 3 had been mostly intact…until the command to kill Cyclopes come down from the Fox executive office.This was like throwing a bomb into a tornado made out of feces. What we got was the shit storm that we all know X-men Last stand became.

The point I’m trying to make is during these studio battles the real losers are the fans. We arn’t going to these films wearing “I’m with Disney” T-shirts. We’re going so we can watch stories we’ve enjoyed on paper literally come to life! All we want are for our favorite characters to be brought to life respectively.

I remember after watching x-men one, half the fun of the film were the cameos. No one cared Kitty was in the film for just 30 seconds, she didn’t need to be. We got to see one of our fan favorites come alive. That’s what the magic of cinema is.

And you would think that after all this time, the studios could learn to play a long a little better. If for no one else, then for the fans. The comic book movie goes are large and have proven to be loyal. We deserve for rewards. Who is it really hurting to let Disney say the word “Mutants.” Who is that effecting? If in the Avengers film it is revealed that Quicksilver is the child of Magneto, why is that such a bad thing? Avengers showed that by linking movies, it will increase viewership. Is Fox’s head so far up it’s own ass that it’s willing to turn down free publicity by revealing Quicksilver has ties to the X-men Franchise?

Both films are in production, and while Fox has burned us many times, Josh Whedon has done right by his fans. If the Quicksilver thing ends up being more trouble then it’s worth Josh will scrap it. As pointed out, there is no shortage of fantastic Avengers to use. But if this is going to become a studio war, “I’m with Josh”


Spoilers Ahead for Dark Knight Rises

27 07 2012

John Blake, one of the characters in Dark Knight Rises, is arguably just as much of a star as Bruce Wanye in the film. He is also revealed to be the Arial Avenging Boy Wonder, Robin.

So is Robin’s inclusion in this film a good thing? Does it fit? I’m going to have to say yes, on all accounts. When most people think of Robin they picture Burt Wart’s character. A spunky young lad who uses the word “Holy” more often than a catholic priest. The image of a campy kid who stinks of homosexual innuendos never escaped  the main stream audience. Even though more mature versions of Robin have appeared, the second most recognized version of Robin is attached to the film “Batman and Robin.” A movie so bad that the director had to apologize to fans. A movie so bad that monkeys would rather pick up their own feces then dvd copies of this film. Thanks to these two infamous incarnations, few main stream fans believe Robin can be taken seriously. Well screw those guys. Robin is cool and Nolan’s proved it.

A pole with the word “Dick” on it….hidden inside of what appears to be a closet…..Oh Robin, you have not had it easy

Christopher Nolan’s universe is much more realistic. Nolan’s Batman is more of a super ninja then “The peak of human potential.” In fact, technically, Bruce Wayne only carries the title of Batman for under 2 years. In the first film he’s only known as Batman for maybe a month, Dark Knight jumps forward a year and it’s time frame is under a months as well, and then we’re jumped forward 8 years to a Gotham with no Batman. You won’t find Joker Gas and Venom in this incarnation, so a 13 year old circus acrobat would be a very hard sell.

Rather than make Robin a teenager, he’s presented as a young man who was inspired as a boy by both Bruce Wayne. Nolan also went a different route then most others. Instead of choosing a character who’s carried the title “Robin” he created a new character actually named “Robin.” For Nolan’s universe this was the best route to take. Some fans feels cheated that the character’s real name wasn’t “Richard” or “Drake” but for Nolan’s story, naming the character Robin makes much more sense.

Long ago, in an interview, Christopher Nolan stated that a large reason he wouldn’t use Robin was that once you put that character in a story, it becomes a Robin story and not a Batman story. And even in the case of Dark Knight Rises, this was true. In many ways Dark Knight Rises was as much Blake’s story as Bruce Waynes. While Blake doesn’t ever fight Bane, he is forced to overcome many of the obstacles created by the villain and ends the film as a different person. This film in many ways is the origin story of how Blake becomes the successor of Batman. But still, why not use Dick, Tim, or even Jason, one of the Robins formally introduced in the comic book world.


No matter what Robin he chose,  Nolan would be getting fans upset. If he chose Dick Grayson, fans would be upset that he wasn’t in the circus, if he chose Jason or Tim, fans would be upset they Nolan went out of “Robin order.” And even if he did chose Jason, fans would say “He’s gonna be killed by the Joker.” Instead Nolan merged the three iconic Robins into one. Similar to Dick he’s not only a cop (which Dick was in the comic books as an adult) but believes in “always doing the right thing,” sometimes to the point of being naive. Like Jason, his father was associated with crime leaving him with a angry chip on his shoulder, and like Tim, Blake is a gifted detective. And so what if Nolan created his own “Robin” character. He’s made created changes with nearly every other character he’s introduced. Joker’s smile being made of scars, Bane’s mask being meant for breathing, even the role Luscious Fox plays in Batman’s mission was changed.

But why even use Blake’s character at all? Blake represents the new generation of Gotham stepping up to the plate. Gordan, Fox, and Wayne have all aged and are on the way out. The Dark Knight trilogy is as much about Gotham as it is about Batman. Time after time we see this city put to the test, and the citizens always rise up in the end. Levitt’s character, Blake, is a direct product of Bruce Wayne’s mission. Blake watch Bruce return, he knows the sacrifices that were made, and he’s faced Gotham’s hardships head on. A reoccurring theme in “Rises” is hope, and Blake is Gotham’s next “Hope.”




23 07 2012