Why Joseph Gordon Levitt should not be Batman

Hey everyone! You're in the line of fire! Recently, I've heard rumors all over the internet that Joseph Gordon Levitt (pictured above) is going to be the new Batman. How utterly, utterly stupid. this can only mean that either Warner bros. has horribly miscast batman again or John Blake is still Batman. JGL is a great actor, but he's no Bruce Wayne/Batman and I'm not willing to accept anyone behind the cowl who isn't a member of the pre-existing comic book cannon Batman family. This will not be an angry flame JGL and Warner Bros. post though. I have actual points. Also, this may contain mild spoilers for The Dark Knight Rises. (Oh, and for those of you who will try to correct me, I know the name of the kid who got his report card stolen by Joker was named John Blake but with John Blake being such a common name and that kid not growing up to be like the JGL character, I call that a coincidence)
 

1: Nolan's Batman is DONE.

Nobody is arguing that Nolan's Batman films weren't great movies. That being said, they were not the definitive Batman films for me as a huge fan of Batman comics. I've never approved of making a "realistic super hero movie". If you're making a super hero movie, make a bloody super hero movie. That being said, Nolan had a great run with Batman (his choice for Batman was questionable, but I digress) and now that run is over. Any further Batman films (there will be more, Batman is bigger than both Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan) should be a separate continuity and should exist in a more fantastical world where both powered heroes and villains are present. Nolan always said that his Batman existed in a separate universe from super powered beings. Why are we trying to undo that statement? Also, John Blake shouldn't be wearing the cowl! Who is John Blake? I'm pretty much a Batman expert and I've never heard of John Blake. We'll get to that later though. the point is, Nolan's films are done. Bruce Wayne should be back in the cowl and the ending of The Dark Knight Rises should have no bearing on future Batman films. Let new directors and new actors create their own image of Batman. Why force Christopher Nolan's vision on the next director? Who's to say the next director doesn't have an even better vision of Batman?


2: JGL is not Bruce Wayne/Batman

This is what Bruce should look like

For this one, assume Warner Bros does do a completely new Batman universe, but casts Joseph Gordon Levitt as Bruce Wayne/Batman. JGL is a great actor. I loved him in Inception. I loved him in Lincoln. I loved him as John Blake in TDKR, but he's not Bruce Wayne. For starters, JGL is too young-looking. In Lincoln, JGL played Robert Lincoln who was 22 during the time period the movie was set in. JGL may be 31, but much like Stephen Amell on Arrow, he's young-looking and can pull off roles ten years younger than he is. while this is a good quality in actors, it's not a good quality in Batman. Bruce Wayne is supposed to be anywhere from 32-40 and he should have the maturely handsome James Bond look to him. He shouldn't look like a kid. Batman goes without saying as well. Cover up the top half of JGL's face. Is that what you want Batman's chin to look like? Now, with JGL being a young looking actor, you know who he would be perfect as? Adult Dick Grayson/Nightwing. He could pull of Nightwing (long haired or short haired) very easily. I would love to see JGL as Nightwing (especially if Tim Drake was his replacement as Robin) but he's no Bruce Wayne and he's really no Batman.


3: Outside of the Nolanverse, John Blake doesn't exist.

Sorry, he's not in any comics.

If JGL were to reprise his role as John Blake, I would be very angry. I probably wouldn't be alone in that anger either. One of my big problems with Nolan was that he ignored perfectly good back story and characters from the comics in favor of his own stuff. That being said, at least Bruce Wayne was Batman in his continuity. I can think of no bigger slap in the face to Batman fans than to have Bruce Wayne completely removed from the equation and instead have somebody who in 70+ years of continuity only appeared in one movie and wasn't ever trained by Bruce. John Blake doesn't have Bruce's story or his training/philosophy and he's a cop that was trained to use guns when necessary. what if John Blakeman carries a gun while he's in the suit (yes, I know that Batman carried a gun in his first few appearances in the 30's, but Batman has been anti-gun and against lethal justice for years and years now)? What if he busts a cap in the Joker instead of turning him over to the police? These are all serious concerns that will further detract from the identity of Batman. As if Batman not being Bruce, Dick, Tim or even Alfred wasn't bad enough.

Anyways, those are my major reasons why I'm against JGL being Batman. Feel free to agree or disagree. If you're up for discussion, leave a comment and I'll get to it ASAP. Until next time, keep your head down. You're in the line of fire!