Robin

[Marginal Man]

I know that Robin is an unpopular canidate for a movie character but I've been thinking lately I would like to eventually see him turn up on film. I know that on paper he seems too colorful, too childish, maybe even too gay (in the actual homosexual sense of the word) but seriously we're talking about a comic book here... on a comic book movie chat forum! Sure, his outfit has been outdated for years (his 90s tights look should have been the 70s update) but I think the idea of Robin is still significant in the Batman movie universe now more than ever. Look past the bright green and red costume, the "holy gosh Batman" persona, and the fact that bringing a child into a war on crime is ridiculous. Ok yeah, it's hard to look past those things but lets look at the big picture here.... Robin IS a part of the universe whether you like it or not. I mean you can't write out Alfred, the costume, the cave, the villains, or even the women.

So why is it so easy to write out Robin? I mean at the time Robin seemed pretty relevant when he was invented so why hasn't anyone thought of maybe updating the entire idea of Robin? Oh wait, Frank Miller hit the nail on the head with Dark Knight Returns in 1986 and made HIM a GIRL We live in different times in 2006 however and a re-casting a man with a woman seems pretty passe, if not down right sexist for womens sake. So the answer isn't really isn't clear how to solve the problem but I think that is a good thing. We should be shocked when our trusty filmaker and his brother hopefully finishing the rest of a great saga of the dark knight really blow us away with the definitive Batman AND Robin story by the end of the series and give true fans everything that the comics had to offer on screen in a few films. A re-invention of the Dick Grayson saga shouldn't be too hard if you combine the primative Bob Kane stories and combine them with the reality of a modern day definition of family. I'm not talking about over haul here, I just want a relavant update on the conception of a side-kick and hopefully respectable and practical crime fighting armor (not a costume).

Lets get creative here and think of the absolute way to convey Robin on screen without being blasphemous, rehashed, unneccisary, or ignored. I mean the Joker should be just as much of a ridiculous and difficult of a Batman icon as Robin to put in the modern world so let's really dig deep down here to figure out the answer to the greatest movie riddle of all time. Shumauker please stay away from this thread.

[OtepApe]

I am not opposed to having Robin in the flims eventually, but to me Batman should be on his own for the time being. If anyone can get him right, it's Nolan but I just want a Batman movie right now.

[Dark Guardian]

Robin was invented to make Batman more family friendly in a time when the Batman we know today would have been considered way too dark. He is unnecessary and does not deserve a spot in further movies. If Nolan could do it and pull it off effectively, I would be ok with it, but don't tell me Robin has a right to be in these movies. He never fit completely with the Batman universe for the simple reason that he shouldn't have existed in it. Bob Kane didn't approve and certainly didn't have a hand in creating Robin. That was DC's way of getting more parents to approve comic books. He was a marketing tool, nothing more and nothing less. The Batman wouldn't endanger a child in his quest. Its his life and no-one elses, period. He made a vow to his parents and no young punk who thinks he's worthy or has nothing to lose should be put in to try and help Batman. The Batman doesn't need a partner/sidekick/anything.

[Chris Wallace]

That's pretty much how I feel. I was against him being introduced in the first series, just b/c I felt his presence would diminish the Dark Knight's whole mystique. To a degree I was right, although it wasn't just him.

[Turtletron2.0]

I dont know, it could work, however--- im not the biggest batman fan there is . i have been told that the old comics were told through the eyes of robin as if you or the reader were robin. Is this true? and wouldn't that help robin's case in the movie?

[Chris Wallace]

I didn't read the earliest of the early stories, but I was led to believe that in those days, Batman came across like the reader's parent. That may be where you got that from. But I don't think that would help him at all.

[Chris Wallace]

I didn't read the earliest of the early stories, but I was led to believe that in those days, Batman came across like the reader's parent. That may be where you got that from. But I don't think that would help him at all.

[GL1]

Robin was invented to make Batman more family friendly in a time when the Batman we know today would have been considered way too dark. He is unnecessary and does not deserve a spot in further movies. If Nolan could do it and pull it off effectively, I would be ok with it, but don't tell me Robin has a right to be in these movies. He never fit completely with the Batman universe for the simple reason that he shouldn't have existed in it. Bob Kane didn't approve and certainly didn't have a hand in creating Robin. That was DC's way of getting more parents to approve comic books. He was a marketing tool, nothing more and nothing less. The Batman wouldn't endanger a child in his quest. Its his life and no-one elses, period. He made a vow to his parents and no young punk who thinks he's worthy or has nothing to lose should be put in to try and help Batman. The Batman doesn't need a partner/sidekick/anything.

*claps* Wow. You made *all* the old points in one breath! Proud of you, let me give you all the old reasons why these points are irrelevant.

1) Batman was invented to dole out Punisher-style justice with guns, something the Batman we know would never do. What the characters were invented to do hardly matters at this point. Welcome to 2006.

2) They are all imaginary characters. Robin has the same rights/entitlements as Batman, Catwoman and Joker: none.

3) Bob Kane didn't approve of a lot of things going on in Batman today. So? Do you ask your momma before you do everything? Creators are not always authorities, unfortunately.

4) If you think Batman Begins is anything more than a marketting tool, you need to do some more research.

5) Batman gets help all the time. Lucious Fox, James Gordon, Alfred and Rachel come to mind. They all played parts in Begins that Robin typically fulfilled... Batman needs a Robin... if they split him up between five different characters, (including the kid with the bright red shirt, Ha!) fine, but it's obvious that Batman needs assistance... eyes and ears in the street... he's just one man.

[Chris Wallace]

I remain skeptical of Robin. I tend to think that if not for him, there NEVER would've been a campy Batman portrayal. However, if they did something similar to what I saw on "The Batman" the other day, it could work.

[GL1]

Hmmm... first time I heard something good about "The Batman." I'll have to check it out.

Regardless, I understand the skepticism. Truth be told Robin IS the tool of choice for Camping up Batman, whether used by 60s TV show writers, Joel Schumaker or DC editorial for his debut. It's an easy association to make. The truth is, however, that DC editorial decided to lighten up Batman before Robin was invented, Schumaker decided to stray from dark Batman from the gate and it's always been writers deciding to make Batman lite. Robin is a tool, and never the catalyst.

On the other hand, I, and apparently you now, have seen often times when writers use Robin as an effective dramatic tool, both solo and as a partner to Batman, best as an understudy the way a young Padawan runs errands for his Jedi Master. The precedent for a good solid and very dark Robin is there, and I think over time, as the Shcumaker fades from the mind and the Robin of today gets more exposure we'll see the Robin that I read about from month to month begin to takeover the mainstream from Burt Ward. Perhaps it'll be another decade before Robinphobic Batman fans are ready to see him in the mass media... but it'd still be great.

[Chris Wallace]

Hmmm... first time I heard something good about "The Batman." I'll have to check it out.

Regardless, I understand the skepticism. Truth be told Robin IS the tool of choice for Camping up Batman, whether used by 60s TV show writers, Joel Schumaker or DC editorial for his debut. It's an easy association to make. The truth is, however, that DC editorial decided to lighten up Batman before Robin was invented, Schumaker decided to stray from dark Batman from the gate and it's always been writers deciding to make Batman lite. Robin is a tool, and never the catalyst.

On the other hand, I, and apparently you now, have seen often times when writers use Robin as an effective dramatic tool, both solo and as a partner to Batman, best as an understudy the way a young Padawan runs errands for his Jedi Master. The precedent for a good solid and very dark Robin is there, and I think over time, as the Shcumaker fades from the mind and the Robin of today gets more exposure we'll see the Robin that I read about from month to month begin to takeover the mainstream from Burt Ward. Perhaps it'll be another decade before Robinphobic Batman fans are ready to see him in the mass media... but it'd still be great.
1. I assure you it's the first time I ever said anything good about "The Batman". I watched it one time & didn't care for it. But I walked in on my kid watching it this past Saturday & they were doing Robin's origin. It was VERY faithful to the comics & it was suitably dark.
2. For the record, I liked Robin in Batman Forever-I just think they took some wrong turns. but I agree that he's more the tool than the catalyst.
3. I have seen good uses of the character, which is why I'm skeptical & not dead-set against.

[chosen1]

An Adoption. ( Just hear me out b4 you throw stones )

I will be brief because blood has been shed over this topic. Dick Grayson. I believe in the next film taking a small amount of time to put an adoption seen of Bruce taking in Dick would be a SMART thing to do. Why? Bruce is 30 years old. You cant just throw dick grayson in a movie to be come robin at the same age. Fact: Bruce raised dick grayson for a number of years before begining his training. This way post nolan films if they were to introduce robin in wont be like they just throw him in there. Have him adopt a 13 year old boy very quick but good sequence just to get it over with. with about the same amount of screentime 5-7 minutes as that little boy had in batman begins. Then through out nolans sequels see him mature a little the next film so your not taking away from the character of Batman its still all about batman.

Very important Side Note: Just because there is an adoption in Batman 2 The Dark knight DOES NOT MEAN there has to be a robin in batman 3 or 4 for that matter.

[Chris Wallace]

Now that you're braced for the stoning;
slowing down the transition from ward to sidekick may not be a bad idea.

[Chris Wallace]

Now that you're braced for the stoning;
slowing down the transition from ward to sidekick may not be a bad idea.

[fabman]

i think a b:tas style robin would work in nolan's world, nothing else.

[Chris Wallace]

I could sooner accept Robin than Batgirl.

[El Payaso]

1) Batman was invented to dole out Punisher-style justice with guns, something the Batman we know would never do. What the characters were invented to do hardly matters at this point. Welcome to 2006.

Yes, he did in B89 and B:TDKR and he did wonderfully. As you say, it depends on the writer.

4) If you think Batman Begins is anything more than a marketting tool, you need to do some more research.

For the fans it's a lot more than that. Are we going to care for what execs think?

5) Batman gets help all the time. Lucious Fox, James Gordon, Alfred and Rachel come to mind. They all played parts in Begins that Robin typically fulfilled... Batman needs a Robin... if they split him up between five different characters, (including the kid with the bright red shirt, Ha!) fine, but it's obvious that Batman needs assistance... eyes and ears in the street... he's just one man.

No. batman doesn't need a Robin. You see, they are all imaginary characters. Batman has the same necessity of Robin as Two-Face, Catwoman and Joker: none. Characters sidekick's necessities have never been the issue because characters don't make decisions, writers do.

But as you say, Batman has help enough in Gordon, Alfred and Fox to ruin the whole concept with such a defective concept as Robin.

An Adoption. ( Just hear me out b4 you throw stones )

I will be brief because blood has been shed over this topic. Dick Grayson. I believe in the next film taking a small amount of time to put an adoption seen of Bruce taking in Dick would be a SMART thing to do. Why? Bruce is 30 years old. You cant just throw dick grayson in a movie to be come robin at the same age. Fact: Bruce raised dick grayson for a number of years before begining his training. This way post nolan films if they were to introduce robin in wont be like they just throw him in there. Have him adopt a 13 year old boy very quick but good sequence just to get it over with. with about the same amount of screentime 5-7 minutes as that little boy had in batman begins. Then through out nolans sequels see him mature a little the next film so your not taking away from the character of Batman its still all about batman.

Very important Side Note: Just because there is an adoption in Batman 2 The Dark knight DOES NOT MEAN there has to be a robin in batman 3 or 4 for that matter.

Now how does a single millionaire with a womanizer reputation achieve to adopt a 13 y.o. boy? The day that happens, Michael Jackson will be the happiest guy on Earth. That screams pedo all the way.

Not to mention that Bruce can't be responsible for a kid's education being busy all night and all day. By night in a career that can end his life (leaving the boy orphan once again) and training the underage kid to risk his life and have a life out of law.

[chosen1]

Yes, he did in B89 and B:TDKR and he did wonderfully. As you say, it depends on the writer.




Now how does a single millionaire with a womanizer reputation achieve to adopt a 13 y.o. boy? The day that happens, Michael Jackson will be the happiest guy on Earth. That screams pedo all the way.

Not to mention that Bruce can't be responsible for a kid's education being busy all night and all day. By night in a career that can end his life (leaving the boy orphan once again) and training the underage kid to risk his life and have a life out of law.

Hmmmm. Now how did ALFRED do that very same thing w/ even a younger child named............ Bruce?

you sir, need to wise up!

[El Payaso]

Hmmmm. Now how did ALFRED do that very same thing w/ even a younger child named............ Bruce?

you sir, need to wise up!

Alfred was a Wayne family's long time trusted employee. Probably was even legal; Thomas Wayne probably stated in his last will and testament that Alfred was the one to take charge of Bruce if no one else (Martha or any other relative) was alive or available. Alfred was almost part of the family. Bruce and Dick has no relatuionship at all, nor are they distant relatives or anything. Not the same case by far.

I even remember in some old 70's comics that was some uncle (Philip?) the relative that took charge of Bruce.

Please, please, if you're gonna give tips, follow them first.

[Chris Wallace]

Alfred was a Wayne family's long time trusted employee. Probably was even legal; Thomas Wayne probably stated in his last will and testament that Alfred was the one to take charge of Bruce if no one else (Martha or any other relative) was alive or available. Alfred was almost part of the family. Bruce and Dick has no relatuionship at all, nor are they distant relatives or anything. Not the same case by far.

I even remember in some old 70's comics that was some uncle (Philip?) the relative that took charge of Bruce.

Please, please, if you're gonna give tips, follow them first.
"I give a damn, because a great man once entrusted me with what was most precious to him in the whole world."

[chosen1]

Alfred was a Wayne family's long time trusted employee. Probably was even legal; Thomas Wayne probably stated in his last will and testament that Alfred was the one to take charge of Bruce if no one else (Martha or any other relative) was alive or available. Alfred was almost part of the family. Bruce and Dick has no relatuionship at all, nor are they distant relatives or anything. Not the same case by far.

I even remember in some old 70's comics that was some uncle (Philip?) the relative that took charge of Bruce.

Please, please, if you're gonna give tips, follow them first.

Yes sir and why cant Bruce take in dick and alfred raise him while bruce is fighting crime.

[Chris Wallace]

Yes sir and why cant Bruce take in dick and alfred raise him while bruce is fighting crime.
In some incarnations, that had been the original plan.

[El Payaso]

Yes sir and why cant Bruce take in dick and alfred raise him while bruce is fighting crime.

Because children need a mother? Because it is ilegal to risk underage boys lives like that? Because since Dick is underage that would be manipulation? Because no judge would think a bachelor millionaire playboy is a good choice to raise a kid by himself or in worst of cases, a better choice than a normal family? Because some millionaire adopting a child would start such an scandal that Bruce's life would be ruined by press and papparazzis surrounding his house? You name it.

[Chris Wallace]

Because children need a mother? Because it is ilegal to risk underage boys lives like that? Because since Dick is underage that would be manipulation? Because no judge would think a bachelor millionaire playboy is a good choice to raise a kid by himself or in worst of cases, a better choice than a normal family? Because some millionaire adopting a child would start such an scandal that Bruce's life would be ruined by press and papparazzis surrounding his house? You name it.
You missed one; Bruce is notoriously flaky & irresponsible. He disappears for 7 years & upon his return, he does the hotel stunt, brings his own birthday party to a screeching halt in a drunken haze, & then burns his own house to the ground. Oh-and surreptitiously ousts the man who looked after his company all those years. (The public doesn't know the whole truth, but Bruce can't prove what he knows.) Yeah, that's who you want looking after a traumatized pre-teen.

[GL1]

No. batman doesn't need a Robin. You see, they are all imaginary characters. Batman has the same necessity of Robin as Two-Face, Catwoman and Joker: none. Characters sidekick's necessities have never been the issue because characters don't make decisions, writers do.

But as you say, Batman has help enough in Gordon, Alfred and Fox to ruin the whole concept with such a defective concept as Robin.

I'm glad we agree on so many pionts.

The point we agree on is: Batman needs someone to do labwork for him, drive his Batmobile, pull his injured butt out of the fire and so on. He needs fieldwork done, an apparently, according to Nolan, he needs a little kid in a red shirt to give gadgets to. These are all roles that Robin has traditionally filled for years. They are necessary for Batman to have and Robin does them.

On the contrary, in the comics, Gordon has never driven the Batmobile, Lucious does not make house calls for Wayne and Batman has never called Alfred for Backup in the field. These are Robin's jobs. They've been split up between multiple people out of Robinphobia, but Robin is there... in different parts. I could be persuaded that I was stretching, but there's a kid in a red shirt, wearing that same red shirt on seperate days that's present during both conflicts with Scarecrow, the minor villain.

There are few relevant aspects of Robin that aren't in Begins, split up between several people.

There are relevant points to be made in the technical aspects of an adoption. The only real problem is Bruce's recent antics, which in turn damages Alfred's credibility to raise someone else. Everything else is easily dealt with. Alternately, Dr. Leslie could be added to the cast and she could adopt Dick.

As for all that risking and coersion stuff, I would hope that it'd be at least a movie if not two before Dick Grayson could become Robin, on any level... he should be a supporting cast member, like the rest, at all times.

[chosen1]

Because children need a mother? Because it is ilegal to risk underage boys lives like that? Because since Dick is underage that would be manipulation? Because no judge would think a bachelor millionaire playboy is a good choice to raise a kid by himself or in worst of cases, a better choice than a normal family? Because some millionaire adopting a child would start such an scandal that Bruce's life would be ruined by press and papparazzis surrounding his house? You name it.

So if your a judge and a child who has just lost his parents and has no other family. You would put him in a foster home where a number of things could happen than have him w/ a billionaire who had experienced the same trauma and the child would have everything he needs?

[Chris Wallace]

Truth be told, Bruce isn't exactly the ideal parent. He's too scarred himself to help anyone else deal w/their pain. Putting on a costume & beating the crap out of people may be what helps him cope, but he shouldn't encourage it in others.

[El Payaso]

The point we agree on is: Batman needs someone to do labwork for him, drive his Batmobile, pull his injured butt out of the fire and so on. He needs fieldwork done, an apparently, according to Nolan, he needs a little kid in a red shirt to give gadgets to. These are all roles that Robin has traditionally filled for years. They are necessary for Batman to have and Robin does them.

On the contrary, in the comics, Gordon has never driven the Batmobile, Lucious does not make house calls for Wayne and Batman has never called Alfred for Backup in the field. These are Robin's jobs. They've been split up between multiple people out of Robinphobia, but Robin is there... in different parts. I could be persuaded that I was stretching, but there's a kid in a red shirt, wearing that same red shirt on seperate days that's present during both conflicts with Scarecrow, the minor villain.

As you can see in Begins, Nolan and Batman don't need the red shirt boy at all. You write that character out of the movie and not only it stays the same but it's even better. The boy was a (sort of) stupid gimmick all Hollywood blockbusters must have, so kiddies feel they're in the movie or fans can argue to death whether his name was Dick grayson or not. Robin was the same kind of stupid gimmick in comics and cartoons and for the same reasons and all the same, you can write it out and everything goes better.

As you say, several interesting characters are doing things that a lame character like Robin did before. Good move by Nolan; the point remains the same: Batman doesn't need Robin and in worst of cases, he doesn't need him anymore.

Now, Nolan did all this oput of Robinphobia? How can we be sure if he insisted in adding the red shirt boy?

There are relevant points to be made in the technical aspects of an adoption. The only real problem is Bruce's recent antics, which in turn damages Alfred's credibility to raise someone else. Everything else is easily dealt with. Alternately, Dr. Leslie could be added to the cast and she could adopt Dick.

And now we need yet another character to make an already useless character to be possible and plausible.

As for all that risking and coersion stuff, I would hope that it'd be at least a movie if not two before Dick Grayson could become Robin, on any level... he should be a supporting cast member, like the rest, at all times.

Too many troubles. It makes looks more and more distant the Robin real "necessity."

So if your a judge and a child who has just lost his parents and has no other family. You would put him in a foster home where a number of things could happen than have him w/ a billionaire who had experienced the same trauma and the child would have everything he needs?

First of all, what I would do has nothing to do here since it would be a judge who determines what's best for a 13 y.o. kid according to the law, not some everyday convo.

I, for sure, wouldn't trust a drunk millionaire who's unable to have a semi-stable relationship, lives alone and burns his house now and then. A real judge? I doubt it even more. Unless he was extremely corrupt and Bruce Wayne was determined to use corruption, which would be totally against his very principles; you don't fight corruption being corrupt or using corruption.

[Chris Wallace]

I love this debate. Y'know why? Because there's validity on both sides. Whatever the pro side says, the anti side can make just as strong an argument. I'm pretty much neutral, so I can enjoy it better.

[chosen1]

Truth be told, Bruce isn't exactly the ideal parent. He's too scarred himself to help anyone else deal w/their pain. Putting on a costume & beating the crap out of people may be what helps him cope, but he shouldn't encourage it in tohers.

Does the judge know how scarred he is? or does he know how much money he gives to charity and that his family is known for being good people despite his rurmoured reputation?

[Chris Wallace]

Probably not. That is why this is such a worthwhile debate.
I'm reminded of a remark made by Stan Lee, who said that he always hated the idea of a sidekick b/c it's child endangerment of the highest order.

[chosen1]

Probably not. That is why this is such a worthwhile debate.
I'm reminded of a remark made by Stan Lee, who said that he always hated the idea of a sidekick b/c it's child endangerment of the highest order.

I understand that. But lets considered his age. Bruce would take him in at 13. couple year go by. Dick stumbles upon bruces secret. Begins training and heads out in cosume at age 17 at the earliest fights crime w/ him. for a number of years. Gets tired of the way he does things. Fights him and leaves when he graduates college at 24. Then becomes nightwing.

When your 18 you can go to war right?

[Chris Wallace]

17 w/parental consent.

[chosen1]

17 w/parental consent.

there you go.

I dont know why some people are seeing robin as a kid when he is fighting along side batman. I see him as a senior in high school fully grown and can handle business.

[Chris Wallace]

Because he was introduced as a kid. And hiring a 25-year-old to play him like they did in 1995 isn't the best route to go either; it kinda looks like Bruce is taking on a man-toy rather than a boy-toy.

[chosen1]

Because he was introduced as a kid. And hiring a 25-year-old to play him like they did in 1995 isn't the best route to go either; it kinda looks like Bruce is taking on a man-toy rather than a boy-toy.

I agree thats why I came up w/ this

I believe in the next film taking a small amount of time to put an adoption seen of Bruce taking in Dick would be a SMART thing to do. Why? Bruce is 30 years old. You cant just throw dick grayson in a movie to be come robin at the same age. Fact: Bruce raised dick grayson for a number of years before begining his training. This way post nolan films if they were to introduce robin in wont be like they just throw him in there. Have him adopt a 13 year old boy very quick but good sequence just to get it over with. with about the same amount of screentime 5-7 minutes as that little boy had in batman begins. Then through out nolans sequels see him mature a little the next film so your not taking away from the character of Batman its still all about batman.

Very important Side Note: Just because there is an adoption in Batman 2 The Dark knight DOES NOT MEAN there has to be a robin in batman 3 or 4 for that matter.

[Chris Wallace]

In the comics, to be fair, it wasn't THAT many years before Dick started his training. He didn't move in at 13 & put on the yellow cape at 18. And if he's staying w/Bruce for a while & doesn't question where his guardian goes at night, that'd seem a little goofy. It doesn't have to be years & years. But it does have to negate the whole "toy wonder" perception & every other stigma that has pulled Robin down over the years.

[Hades]

No, no Robin.

He's a gateway character. Once we have him, we'll have Batgirl, and then who the hell else knows.

[Chris Wallace]

No, no Robin.

He's a gateway character. Once we have him, we'll have Batgirl, and then who the hell else knows.
That is my biggest fear. Last time he proved a gateway not only to Batgirl (who to me just says, "Yeah I'm supposed to be this fearsome, mysterious figure of the night but ANYBODY can put on my costume & do what I do.") but to the campiness the franchise was intended to put to rest once & for all. If we can get Robin w/o revisiting that nonsense then fine.

[Chris Wallace]

And DO NOT point out that the animated series had both Robin & Batgirl and it did fine. The animated series has proven capable of a lot of things that movies fail to do, time & time again. Why? Because the makers of the cartoon don't seem to really care about the uninitiated, which is who the movie studios are chiefly concerned with.

[El Payaso]

Does the judge know how scarred he is?

If he read the newspapers about how Bruce burnt his own mansion, then yes.

or does he know how much money he gives to charity and that his family is known for being good people despite his rurmoured reputation?

So Bruce is actually "buying" the kid, or his right to adopt the kid. Because if another guy with no mioney to give would try to adopt him, then the judge will have no reasons based in philantropism.

The rest of the debate is useless since it would be unrealistic and silly to have Bruce Wayne adopting Dick.

[Chris Wallace]

Which goes to my previous argument. He has cultivated an image that makes him seem an even more unfit parent than he already truly is.

[Bullseye]

I think Nolan had somewhat thoughts of introducing Robin into this Batman franchise, but Nolan later dismissed the notion of having Robin in a sequel. And really, does Robin need to be in TDK or the third movie? I don't think so. Batman already has an adequate partnership with Gordon and Dent will be joining them.

[chosen1]

Alright I'm done with this topic. El payaso my hats off to you sir, you made excellent points. You have my respect. :up:

[El Payaso]

Alright I'm done with this topic. El payaso my hats off to you sir, you made excellent points. You have my respect. :up:

http://www.mindyourownwebsite.com.au/media/images/img_hand_shake.jpg

And you have mine, c1. It mustn't be easy to have to argue with such a insensitive character as myself and still being respectful. :up:

[afan]

As I see it the Robin issue boils down to only one question.......

Can a respectable and serious film be made involving a relationship between an adult and a child?

The answer based on the history of film, seems to be a resounding yes. Many films (and also literary works) have marvelously succeeded when based on this premise, including the fateful collision course of an unconnected adult and child.

So why then should the story of The Batman be exclusive. If handled properly the Dick Grayson / Robin saga would be appropriate, serious and successful.

[GL1]

As you can see in Begins, Nolan and Batman don't need the red shirt boy at all. You write that character out of the movie and not only it stays the same but it's even better. The boy was a (sort of) stupid gimmick all Hollywood blockbusters must have, so kiddies feel they're in the movie or fans can argue to death whether his name was Dick grayson or not. Robin was the same kind of stupid gimmick in comics and cartoons and for the same reasons and all the same, you can write it out and everything goes better.

Really? These are the motivations of all Batman producers of the past? You know this from... production notes? The point was that if you "write out Robin" you have to recreate other characters to do his job for him, including to bring comic relief (Fox, Alfred), to run minor Bat errands when he can't be in two places at once (Gordon) and to fish his fat out of the fire when he gets sucker punched (Alfred), provide an emotional anchor to his family (Alfred).

This is what Robin does, this is what his character has always done and these things can't be written out, whether you have a red shirt kid or not. Whether you want to appease fanboys or children or not. These are things that Robin has always done and they, in every incarnation of Batman i've seen, must be done. If you choose not to use Robin for whatever reason, then you have to rewrite other characters "out of character" to do them.

As you say, several interesting characters are doing things that a lame character like Robin did before. Good move by Nolan; the point remains the same: Batman doesn't need Robin and in worst of cases, he doesn't need him anymore.

Batman doesn't need anybody unless he's written to need them. As far as meta-textually, Batman needs villains and Batman typically needs alllies, neer moreso than in Begins. Robin qualifies as an ally.

We can call anyone lame out of hand. Catwoman's lame. Scarecrow is lame. Penguin is EXTRA-lame. Heck, I'm lame! Doesn't mean they're not good characters when done right, which we've seen. Of course they're lame when not done right... Batman is lame when not done right. Being lame is lame! Ha! Lame.

Now, Nolan did all this oput of Robinphobia? How can we be sure if he insisted in adding the red shirt boy?

Well, the two times I've heard him talk about Robin, he seemed pretty uninformed on Robin's age and role in the Bat-family. And Bale, who gets much of his Batman from Nolan expresses a similar "Oh, no! Not Robin!" As if Burt Ward will come to your house, tie up your family and demand you add bright neon colors to your Batman production. It's just silly, people's reactions to Robin. He's a character, and from what I've read, a compellig one. The pretend Robin has power in and of himself, that he can't be redefined is just plain rediculous.

And now we need yet another character to make an already useless character to be possible and plausible.

Useless character? There are unused characters, there are characters that don't fit with your plan, there are untalented writers, but there are no useless characters. That's just an amazing oversight. I'm shocked.

Too many troubles. It makes looks more and more distant the Robin real "necessity."

Too many troubles to add a supporting character to the cast? To have an overarching storyline to a franchise??? Wow...

While I'm sure there are superior story ideas to mine, or, more likely, they need to be developed and sharpened, there's no basis to call the character useless.

Again, I understand the fear of Robin, especially for people who don't read comics, but it's simply not logical.

[Ixion]

Make Dick Grayson about 14-16, have Batman/Bruce feel responsible for not saving his parents, and invent some history between Bruce and Dick's father that doesn't exist in the comics and it could work. Perhaps Robin could only team with Batman one time, when Batman is trying to bring in whoever killed Dick's parents, then hang up the cape or whatever and heads off to college or something, but he should be featured.

If the whole concept of Robin didn't work or people didn't want it, he wouldn't have been around for the past 60+ years and been part of pretty much every incarnation of Batman there has ever been, and featured of some of the best Batman stories out there. Robin/Dick Grayson is as important to the Batman mythos as Alred or the Joker, he should be in there.

[DGrayson]

I have a question, I was recently re-reading all star batman and robin (I know there is not much to read) but I bought the robin cover for issue number one and my question is: would people be mad if they include robin with the original suit (yes i'm serious about the little shorts) I mean no pixie boots or modify the suit a little but keep the green shorts and the character won't be changed much.

Another idea is if they have him in the original costume for the circus scenes and then change the costume ala batman or the modern robin.

So what do people think?

[Chris Wallace]

I have no desire to see the shorts.

[El Payaso]

^ like in you want Robin to take the shorts out? Mwahahhahahaha

[El Payaso]

Edit

[Chris Wallace]

Let me rephrase; I have no desire to see a bare-legged Robin. plus, in the movies, a big part of Batman's costume is about protection. If 2/3 of your body is exposed, what's the point?

[Spider-Fan83]

Okay, I was bored and was playing around with some random manips, and made this of robin, (yes i used BF,B&R robin, no I didn't like him as robin) this is in no way, in suport of robin being in the movie, but, anyway here it is
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/5880/newrobinsxo7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
it still look alil off but, its a start, on it being inproved lol

original pic
http://www.waposdecine.com/chrisodonnell/co16g.jpg