Is bringing back Robin such a good Idea?

[Hell 2the yeah!]

If Warner Bros. brings back Robin to the Silver Screen, he should be Nightwing, and secondly, he should be fighting Batman. They should both view each other as unnecessary. Nightwing should view Batman as just another vigilante menace, and Batman should view Nightwing as an up-start rookie who's getting his panties into a bunch. That conflict, along w/ a villain running free to do as he pleased, because of the vigilante differences, would make a compelling story. The darker the better. Gritty realistic performances are the best!

[CConn]

...














































No. :)

[antmanx68]

I think thats actually a worse idea than having a 12 year old boy in bright red, yellow, and green going out on patrol with Batman.

[Robin91939]

If Warner Bros. brings back Robin to the Silver Screen, he should be Nightwing, and secondly, he should be fighting Batman. They should both view each other as unnecessary. Nightwing should view Batman as just another vigilante menace, and Batman should view Nightwing as an up-start rookie who's getting his panties into a bunch. That conflict, along w/ a villain running free to do as he pleased, because of the vigilante differences, would make a compelling story. The darker the better. Gritty realistic performances are the best!
That would destroy the spirit of both characters.



And as far as "is bringing back Robin such a good idea?"

Answer: Yes, so long as it is done properly. He should be included in some fascit and CAN be dont justice as well as dark and believable.

-R

[Caliber]

Robin should never be in a Batman again.

[Robin91939]

Robin should never be in a Batman again.
Wow, maybe the most ignorant post of the day.

:up:

-R

[Billy Shears]

I guess I'll partake in the ignorance: Robin should never be in another Batman movie. Thankfully, Nolan and Goyer have the good sense NOT to include Robin in the new trilology.

[DickGrayson1]

I guess I'll partake in the ignorance: Robin should never be in another Batman movie. Thankfully, Nolan and Goyer have the good sense NOT to include Robin new trilology.dude youre an A ONE MORON AND ROBIN WILL APPEAR IN A NEW BATFILM!!:up:

[GoldGoblin]

Do you people really think that Robin will be in this trilogy,Nolan and Bale hate him?

[Metropolis_Man]

Hmm, I'm somewhat inbetween. I think he could be done right. But in BF it just wasnt right. If they could incorporate him into the new movies and make it fit, then why not.

[CrimsonMist]

dude youre an A ONE MORON AND ROBIN WILL APPEAR IN A NEW BATFILM!!:up:

exactly! A new bat-film...just not a Nolan Bat-film.

[BatmanRules33]

exactly! A new bat-film...just not a Nolan Bat-film.

OWNED^:up:

[GL1]

If Warner Bros. brings back Robin to the Silver Screen, he should be Nightwing, and secondly, he should be fighting Batman. They should both view each other as unnecessary. Nightwing should view Batman as just another vigilante menace, and Batman should view Nightwing as an up-start rookie who's getting his panties into a bunch. That conflict, along w/ a villain running free to do as he pleased, because of the vigilante differences, would make a compelling story. The darker the better. Gritty realistic performances are the best!

Um, I don't know if you noticed, but Lucious and Alfred made begins for most people, ONE gritty performance is enough for any movie... it's like having two wolverines around... eugh...

As for Batman vs Nightwing? Hmm? Please no? While it may seem like a hip cool updating, it doesn't reflect in the slightest what Nightwing is about and loses the best parts of their relationship... and I HATE it when Batman says stuff like "The last thing we need is some vigilante running around..." Oy!

As for "is bringing back Robin such a good idea?" I submit to you that he never left... he's been holding things down in a decent comic since half of us were born... I would suggest we just chill and read some comics before we come talking about what Robin "is" and "can't do" and "does to batman"

Is that so much to ask? Read some comics on the character?

[Spidey-Bat]

Wow, maybe the most ignorant post of the day.

:up:

-R

You're post just beat that.

And I agree with CConn. Robin shouldn't be in a Bat-film. The movies are elseworlds and it's time we see how Batman would be without Robin the Boy Target.

[GOD90]

NO But if they do Jake Gyleenhaal :mad:

[Shawn Wayne]

Jake Gyleenhaal is in "Brokeback Mountain" where he plays a gay cowboy. Please reconsider....

[SG_Darkness]

Why would Nightwing be fighting Batman in a movie...
And how Begins ended up being, I don't want to see some little kid next to him. Leave Robin out of these new Bats flicks, they're getting it right so far!

[mjbull23]

If they do reestablish robin in the new franchise, they need to humanize him, and not just make him some side puppet with a bratty attitude like they did in the last two films...

Show me some of the more interesting dynamics of his relationship to batman, not just his defiance. Make the audience care about Robin. (That's going to be tricky to pull off)

[LostSon88]

I don't even think introducing the "boy wonder" into these movies is even plausable if were going to be realistic...if my memory serves me right, Bruce didn't encounter Dick until he was well into his mid to late 30s? In BB, Bruce had just celebrated his 29th Birthday (correct?) Why would a rookie Batman (give or take 2-3 years of experience by the sequel--unless it picks up where Begins left off) take on a 12-14 year old kid when he's still in the middle of his own issues?

Unless Goyer and Nolan anticipate their Batman trilogy to span 10-15 years, then not only do I think introducing Robin is crazy, but also unnecessary. Although a cameo of Dick Grayson would be a good tie-in to the next trilogy which will likely feature a new caped crusader. :cool:

[NoirMan82]

You guys are nuts, of course bringing back Robin is a good idea. Have you forgotten how dark and traumatic this kid's backstory is? They should make him older though, about 16 maybe. And portray him as Batman's capable backup instead of the whiny wuss-boy he was in the other films. Never forget that Robin has saved Batman's life on many occasions, as well as his sanity.

[David Ford, RPD]

You guys are nuts, of course bringing back Robin is a good idea. Have you forgotten how dark and traumatic this kid's backstory is? They should make him older though, about 16 maybe. And portray him as Batman's capable backup instead of the whiny wuss-boy he was in the other films. Never forget that Robin has saved Batman's life on many occasions, as well as his sanity.

Alfred does all of that, and better.

[SuperFerret]

I feel Robin is a necessary part of the Bat-mythology and should be included in the future.

[jtsteward]

No Robin!!

[cabel]

Dark Victory would be a comic to base Robin in the movie on

[hippie_hunter]

Robin should be in a future Batman movie. Just not in the next two films. Bring him in Batman 4

[Thot]

Nolan has said that Robin will not appear in the films he will be involved with. So we wil have at least three good ones!! Not that Robin can't work, it's just that Bats is finally being depicted the way most Bat-fans have always wanted, and that is done best when Robin isn't included.

[IrishLuck]

Robin should be in a Batman movie done RIGHT. And before you talk about bright yellow costume, look at the Tim Drake Robin's costume. That costume is pefect. You get a kid about 13 years old, martial arts and gymnastic background, and it would be perfect. Hell, make the killer of his parents be The Joker. It would work perfectly. My idea for a Robin Costume would be some sort of tight fighting fabric for the legs and arms. A rubber chestplate and a cape like Batman's. Get the Chris O'Donnell Robin out of you're brains. That is NOT the comics Robin.

[Slipping_Halo]

I see Robin in the Tim Drake style ninja outfit, only with red and green instead of all black, even though I'd prefer Dick Grayson to appear first. I definitely don't think it's a good idea to have the Joker kill his parents though. That was a big problem with the first movie. Not everything needs to be connected. I don't like the idea of Joker "creating" Two-Face either, but that's another story.

I recently read the actual first appearance of Robin back in Detective Comics in the 40's and even they got it right despite the mild camp that was prevalent anyway. Robin is a direct reflection of Batman: He's lost and has nobody, and it's Bruce's opportunity to take in and care for somebody who is in the exact position that he was in all those years ago. He has the chance to curb the boy's anger and resentment and channel it into something good. That little oath by candlelight is awesome and would make for a great scene between Bale and whomever they cast as Dick Grayson, so long as the cheese and triteness of it is filtered out, leaving only the core emotion and impact of something like that.

This, of course, is MANY movies into the series now. Batman can't possibly father or mentor anybody for at least three more movies. He's just learning himself. He's honing his skills as a detective and a crimefighter and needs the time alone to cement himself as THE pro. Robin will come along once Batman has gotten so good at what he does that his psychosis and habit is actually pulling him further and further into the dark side. He wants to be Batman more and Bruce Wayne less, he's becoming a workaholic about it, and it's taking a toll on his health-both physical and mental. That would be the perfect time to have Robin because that's what Robin's primary role is: to hold Batman back from going so far off the deep end that there's no sign of a shore anymore. Robin is the human side of Batman-the human side that he's slowly losing as his obsession with doing what he does grows bigger and bigger over time.

I don't think that Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan see all that in Robin. They kind of see it as a way to lighten Batman up and make him more kid-friendly, and while he DOES do that, it's become so much more. It's awesome storytelling if done correctly, which I'm sure David Goyer would if he wanted to continue writing for the series. Robin is underestimated, sadly, and not a lot of people really get how vital he is in keeping Batman more human than not.

Like I said, this is A LONG TIME after the events of Batman Begins. Once that's established, there's no way they can go wrong if they play it the way I've mapped out. That's a non-camp, important, interesting, and worthwhile Robin.

[lujho]

if my memory serves me right, Bruce didn't encounter Dick until he was well into his mid to late 30s?

Your memory serves wrong. Robin has always entered the story a year or two after Batman first arrives. Batman's in his mid-late 20s when he meets Dick, max.

[Alfie Luke]

Yeah, he encountered his little friend, mr. dick after loosing his beer belly from his early party years... oh, did I just say that? :p

[lujho]

I see Robin in the Tim Drake style ninja outfit, only with red and green instead of all black, even though I'd prefer Dick Grayson to appear first. I definitely don't think it's a good idea to have the Joker kill his parents though. That was a big problem with the first movie. Not everything needs to be connected. I don't like the idea of Joker "creating" Two-Face either, but that's another story.

I recently read the actual first appearance of Robin back in Detective Comics in the 40's and even they got it right despite the mild camp that was prevalent anyway. Robin is a direct reflection of Batman: He's lost and has nobody, and it's Bruce's opportunity to take in and care for somebody who is in the exact position that he was in all those years ago. He has the chance to curb the boy's anger and resentment and channel it into something good. That little oath by candlelight is awesome and would make for a great scene between Bale and whomever they cast as Dick Grayson, so long as the cheese and triteness of it is filtered out, leaving only the core emotion and impact of something like that.

This, of course, is MANY movies into the series now. Batman can't possibly father or mentor anybody for at least three more movies. He's just learning himself. He's honing his skills as a detective and a crimefighter and needs the time alone to cement himself as THE pro. Robin will come along once Batman has gotten so good at what he does that his psychosis and habit is actually pulling him further and further into the dark side. He wants to be Batman more and Bruce Wayne less, he's becoming a workaholic about it, and it's taking a toll on his health-both physical and mental. That would be the perfect time to have Robin because that's what Robin's primary role is: to hold Batman back from going so far off the deep end that there's no sign of a shore anymore. Robin is the human side of Batman-the human side that he's slowly losing as his obsession with doing what he does grows bigger and bigger over time.

I don't think that Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan see all that in Robin. They kind of see it as a way to lighten Batman up and make him more kid-friendly, and while he DOES do that, it's become so much more. It's awesome storytelling if done correctly, which I'm sure David Goyer would if he wanted to continue writing for the series. Robin is underestimated, sadly, and not a lot of people really get how vital he is in keeping Batman more human than not.

Like I said, this is A LONG TIME after the events of Batman Begins. Once that's established, there's no way they can go wrong if they play it the way I've mapped out. That's a non-camp, important, interesting, and worthwhile Robin.

:up:

Except for the "LONG TIME THING", I agree. I'd be just as happy for Robin to appear in film 2 as I would for film 4. That said, a Robin-free trilogy would be fine too.

I agree that perhaps Nolan isn't aware of the depth and nuances of the character and the importance of the relationship between him and Batman.

Eventually, the Lone Wolf needs a Cub.

[Slipping_Halo]

:up:

Except for the "LONG TIME THING", I agree. I'd be just as happy for Robin to appear in film 2 as I would for film 4. That said, a Robin-free trilogy would be fine too.

I agree that perhaps Nolan isn't aware of the depth and nuances of the character and the importance of the relationship between him and Batman.

Eventually, the Lone Wolf needs a Cub.


Absolutely. The only reason I think it should be a while before he shows up (certainly NOT movie 2) is because you can't mentor somebody if you're still a beginner yourself. At the end of Batman Begins, he's till quite an amateur. It's going to be a while before he's really got a grip on what he's doing and had it down pat. Whenever that is, which I think would be a few movies down the road (at least 2 or 3 more), then Robin can definitely show up and be relevant.

By the way, Lujho, do you have a bigger picture of the Batman in your avatar? I'd like to see it if you do.

[Everyman]

If Robin is introduce, |I think it should be much, much later, and certainly not before film four. And even then, since training takes time, why not first introduce Dick Grayson? Then, in a subsequent movie, you might introduce Robin. Let's not overcharge the franchise with characters.

That said, I am not a big fan of the character, although I know he can be developed well. I can watch a movie with Batman alone for a couple of times.

[ghost113]

They co0uld put robin in the next movie but he should be like 15, 16 years old.
but he should not show up in costume until the end of the movie.
also they should change the color scheme you can't hide in the shadows with those bright colors

[ghost113]

no you can't hide

[El Payaso]

One year later... No Robin.

[Zaphod]

Why shouldn't it be? Truth is, Robin can be and could be an excellent character if translated (say it with me now) accurately, faithfully and properly into a Batman movie, and not treated cheaply or as mere comic relief. This route was more or less wasted on Schumaceur, who wanted his movies to resemble the '60's Batman show' in the first place, but that is no reason for not giving the character a second chance as some people try to make it out to be, since you better be willing to discredit a second coming of a Movie!Two-Face if your equally willing to hold Schumaceur responsible for Robin not re-appearing in a new Batman movie. Robin doesn't suck because of Schumaceur, and Robin certainly doesn't suck because of his costume colour scheme and occasional light-hearty lines. The only reason he would suck is if he was left in the hands of unimagintive writers and filmmakers. If you just think Robin plain sucks because you dont particular care for his character, than fair enough, but be willing to say so rather than attempting to justify with mere rhetoric why he shouldn't appear in a movie for any other reason.

[Cyrusbales]

have robin, and let him get killed by the joker like he did in an ancient comic, just after the end of the campy comics era!

[batmaluco]

No.

[El Payaso]

Why shouldn't it be? Truth is, Robin can be and could be an excellent character if translated (say it with me now) accurately, faithfully and properly into a Batman movie, and not treated cheaply or as mere comic relief.

Cheap treatment and a comic relief were Robin's origin in comics. From that POV, he has been translated faithfully.

This route was more or less wasted on Schumaceur, who wanted his movies to resemble the '60's Batman show' in the first place, but that is no reason for not giving the character a second chance as some people try to make it out to be, since you better be willing to discredit a second coming of a Movie!Two-Face if your equally willing to hold Schumaceur responsible for Robin not re-appearing in a new Batman movie. Robin doesn't suck because of Schumaceur, and Robin certainly doesn't suck because of his costume colour scheme and occasional light-hearty lines. The only reason he would suck is if he was left in the hands of unimagintive writers and filmmakers. If you just think Robin plain sucks because you dont particular care for his character, than fair enough, but be willing to say so rather than attempting to justify with mere rhetoric why he shouldn't appear in a movie for any other reason.

Mh. Robin sucks as a character, beyond Tv series or Schumachers. Two-face, on the other hand, doesn't suck and we all know it was Schumacher who ruined it. Not the same case than Robin. Who needs to made up excuses to not to have Robin? We have like 66 years of reasons (suit and colors included.)

[El Payaso]

Crap. Double post.

[Zaphod]

Cheap treatment and a comic relief were Robin's origin in comics. From that POV, he has been translated faithfully.

Mh. Robin sucks as a character, beyond Tv series or Schumachers. Two-face, on the other hand, doesn't suck and we all know it was Schumacher who ruined it. Not the same case than Robin. Who needs to made up excuses to not to have Robin? We have like 66 years of reasons (suit and colors included.)

Robin is a decent character; he's introduction was characterised poorly since it was merely a gimmick to attract infant readers and reduce the grim-storytelling. However, Batman's original character was that of a killer-viglilante who spurted sexist one liners, and that original portrayal is also greatly disliked. 'Robin's Reckoning', 'Robin: Year One'? Both these story prove the characters potential, since he brings into view Batman's own dubiousness of character, tactics and devotion to crimefighting through different eyes, while bringing into consideration the Dark Knight's mortality. Keep Robin's costume (variation on Tim Drake design and only slightly darkened), and keep his occasional light-hearty ways, since Spider Man has them and we still feel for the predicament and grim dealings of his character. There is no reason why the character cannot work, unless you lack imagination.

[Matis17]

If Warner Bros. brings back Robin to the Silver Screen, he should be Nightwing, and secondly, he should be fighting Batman. They should both view each other as unnecessary. Nightwing should view Batman as just another vigilante menace, and Batman should view Nightwing as an up-start rookie who's getting his panties into a bunch. That conflict, along w/ a villain running free to do as he pleased, because of the vigilante differences, would make a compelling story. The darker the better. Gritty realistic performances are the best!Is bringing back Robin such a good idea? Maybe not but this idea is alot worse.

[Nirr]

AH robin, I never really liked Him... well besides in the teen titains BUT that's a whole another story.. I really don't see a Need for him Unless they Go tho All three robins In one movie Dick then in the next be becomes nightwing SO batmans Gets whats-his-face then In the (3rd movie with robin). whats-his-face dies and you get Tim in the 4th ....

[Ceb-Man]

Robin should be in a future Batman movie. Just not in the next two films. Bring him in Batman 4
agreed.

[Matis17]

AH robin, I never really liked Him... well besides in the teen titains BUT that's a whole another story.. I really don't see a Need for him Unless they Go tho All three robins In one movie Dick then in the next be becomes nightwing SO batmans Gets whats-his-face then In the (3rd movie with robin). whats-his-face dies and you get Tim in the 4th ....That's just moving way too fast.

[whiteAngelus]

i think robin could be done ok, i dont no anything about night wing but the idea of Him being competing with batman like someone described earlier i thought was good, Robin shouldnt come yet, he must have his own villian i.e his own final fight and kiss ass not just leave it to Batman, Batman must also depend on him at some point his sanity is a good idea I feel aspecially if Scarecrow is involved, Robin must be Dark, have a good back story and not just a circus boy he must have learnt stuff somewhere to make him dynamic he should never seem as Batman's sidekick but more of an equal and some might hate me but there should only ever be one robin, no lots of robins like the 2nd the 3rd etc, he should cameo as a person first probably around the 3rd 4th film and become robin later and I think it would be good for Joker to Kill Robin at some point because it will divide Batman against robin but always make Robin seem more than capable he should even start up without the Bat's help

[The Impaler]

Id bring him in as Nightwing, rather than Robin.

[molp]

i dont think robin should be in this trilogy but it would be a nice way to end it if at the end of the third one bruce takes in dick grayson and then have robin set up for the 4th one, if it gets made of course:batty:

[kingdomhearts]

I see Robin as a distraction. TPTB needs to evolve the character so that might take away from Batman's thunder again.
Let him have his own franchise if some wants Robin so badly.

[GL1]

I see Robin as a distraction. TPTB needs to evolve the character so that might take away from Batman's thunder again.
Let him have his own franchise if some wants Robin so badly.

TPTB evolved him a long time ago. Everyone here just seems to be ignorant of it, and apparently, they wish to remain so.

Cheap treatment and a comic relief were Robin's origin in comics. From that POV, he has been translated faithfully.

I don't think a Batman movie based on his first appearance would be called "faithful to Batman" by anybody. I beleive you inserted the word "origin" here in fallacy. Also, keep in mind, Batman would have been required to be Campy with or without Robin. If Robin had been invented before that time, he would have been switched to campy as well. The character has never been the issue because characters don't make decisions, writers do.

Mh. Robin sucks as a character, beyond Tv series or Schumachers. Two-face, on the other hand, doesn't suck and we all know it was Schumacher who ruined it. Not the same case than Robin. Who needs to made up excuses to not to have Robin? We have like 66 years of reasons (suit and colors included.)

This statement is untrue. I read about Robin in the comics, so it's very clear to me that Shumacher ruined it. It's clear that the case is the same. While this is a common assumption, it's not based on fact.

And 66 years of reasons? Gosh. Name one. And if you think the suit and colors are the problem, read recent issues of Robin where Robin is an AWESOME character, then watch "Batman and Robin" where Robin is a horrible character, both times without the traditional red,green,yellow thing.

[El Payaso]

I don't think a Batman movie based on his first appearance would be called "faithful to Batman" by anybody.

Even so, it would be.

I beleive you inserted the word "origin" here in fallacy

How? why? It was his origin back in 1940.

Your accusation of fallacy smells a lot like a fallacy.

Also, keep in mind, Batman would have been required to be Campy with or without Robin.

Maybe. But the fact is that Robin was the tool they used to make Batman campy. That's the whole point.

If Robin had been invented before that time, he would have been switched to campy as well.

If Robin had been invented before that time then Batman and Robin would have became campy before that time. Batman didn't became campy at one point with Robin being there by an amazing coincidence. Robin appeared specifically to add the campy touch.

The character has never been the issue because characters don't make decisions, writers do.

Is that so?

In fact writers made Robin originally a campy absurd character. So by himself or under the writers excuse, he's still campy.

This statement is untrue. I read about Robin in the comics, so it's very clear to me that Shumacher ruined it. It's clear that the case is the same. While this is a common assumption, it's not based on fact.

You say Robin was a cool character untill Schumacher took it?

And 66 years of reasons? Gosh. Name one. And if you think the suit and colors are the problem, read recent issues of Robin where Robin is an AWESOME character, then watch "Batman and Robin" where Robin is a horrible character, both times without the traditional red,green,yellow thing.

Basically Robin wears a ridiculous gaudy-colourful suit that includes green elf shoes and meat color panties, says 'holy' now and then and adds a gay/pedo vibe to the Batman concept.

In time, they changed the colors, the suit design, the words in his mouth, personality etc etc. So when they had this different character named Robin instead of the original, they offered a better product (and they did because the character was already there so why not? It's not like the character itself is inherently necessary like Gordon is).

But Robin still screams campy because most people remember who he really is. That's why Burton didn't use him and that's why Nolan said he won't use him. And that's why Schumacher did use him.

[7Hells]

Jake Gyleenhaal is in "Brokeback Mountain" where he plays a gay cowboy. Please reconsider....
lol:ninja:

[GL1]

Even so, it would be.

We disagree, Batman's origin isn't representative of everything that Batman is and can be. Representing a small section is simply not the same as representing the entirety.

Your accusation of fallacy smells a lot like a fallacy.

You inserted the word origin into an arguement in which it was not relevant, in my estimation. Later in this post you explain why you do that.

Maybe. But the fact is that Robin was the tool they used to make Batman campy. That's the whole point.

But that's also incomplete. Batman's entire attitude and M.O. changed, and would have changed regardless. Robin was simply a part of a solution to a problem, and not a deciding factor in any way whatsoever.

If Robin had been invented before that time then Batman and Robin would have became campy before that time. Batman didn't became campy at one point with Robin being there by an amazing coincidence. Robin appeared specifically to add the campy touch.

I disagree. Dark child sidekick characters have been done before, there's no reason that Robin couldn't have done/been that, if the writers had wanted. It's not a coincidence, but it's still a writer and not the character.

In fact writers made Robin originally a campy absurd character. So by himself or under the writers excuse, he's still campy.

He was campy, just like *was* campy Batman.

You say Robin was a cool character untill Schumacher took it?

Ah, good point. Clarification: He was a cool character in the comics at that time

Basically Robin wears a ridiculous gaudy-colourful suit that includes green elf shoes and meat color panties, says 'holy' now and then and adds a gay/pedo vibe to the Batman concept.

Hm. It's interesting you use present tense here, where it is not correct. I think that's the heart of our disagreement, you are still in the past. I believe comedians add a gay/pedo vibe to Batman more than anyone else.

In time, they changed the colors, the suit design, the words in his mouth, personality etc etc. So when they had this different character named Robin instead of the original, they offered a better product (and they did because the character was already there so why not? It's not like the character itself is inherently necessary like Gordon is).

Same thing they did with Batman. And no fictional entity can be inherently essential. All characters, especially comic book ones with 40+ years of history, are better products with different words in their mouths and different personalities from the origional. Typically with better costumes too.

But Robin still screams campy because most people remember who he really is. That's why Burton didn't use him and that's why Nolan said he won't use him. And that's why Schumacher did use him.

And here is our main disagreement. Here is why you use present tense verbs to refer to the past. I don't think we'd say that being a winged-Punisher type character is "Who Batman really is." You seem to be equating the meta-reason for Robin's origin with "Who he really is," yet you don't do this for any other characters, and neither does anyone else. So, somehow, this character I read is magically "not really Robin" and the one who appeared in 1938 is because... because you say so?

My statement is this: The character which you dislike, the character in question, is not "Who Robin Really Is," but rather "Who Robin Is Perecieved To Be," or at worst "What Robin Represents" though I would stipulate he only represents that to the uninformed.

Just as there's more to a person than why their parents conceived them, there is more to a character than what they were created for. All characters evolve over time, Robin is no different.

In a media where character concepts change often and easily, resting multiple characters' identity on a single iteration strikes me as shortsighted. At the very least, it seems to be oblivious to 20+ years of comics.

I understand many people feel this way, but it is still illogical, and I expect better from comic book fans.

[El Payaso]

Aw, man. Who has the energy for this anymore.

[Cyrusbales]

I do, but not for robin!

[El Payaso]

^ Same as Nolan :D


Well, I owe all of you a reading and a reply.

[Cyrusbales]

I personally don't get the massive bummage of Nolan and BB, am I missing something?

[El Payaso]

The what of who and what? Am I missing something?

[GL1]

Aw, man. Who has the energy for this anymore.

Oh, thank God! :up: I was so scared to click on this thread. Whew!

[TheJuice]

Introducing Robin into the TDK would be suicide for the film. Even if it was done right, casual audiences would probably reject it because of the horror of the Joel Schumacher films.

[Kaizer]

I feel Robin is a necessary part of the Bat-mythology and should be included in the future.

Agreed, Batman/Bruce needs someone else to interact with other than just Alfred, Gordon, Fox and a new love-interest for every film...

[El Payaso]

^ Oddly enough, SuperFerret didn't include any reason for that statement.

I must ask, what's the real need for Batman to have someone else to interact with, aside from 4 interesting characters, some gansgsters and some villiains?

Oh, thank God! I was so scared to click on this thread. Whew!

My work is done.