Christian Bale Rules Out Robin For Batman 3 (and beyond)

[Hunter Rider]

http://www.slashfilm.com/


Posted on Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008 at 12:47 pm by: Hunter Stephenson (http://www.slashfilm.com/author/hunter-stephenson/)



http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/darkknight3en8.jpg

Several weeks ago, rumors circled offline once again that Robin would appear in the sequel to The Dark Knight. It reminded me of the “rumor waves” last year when everyone in the industry suddenly discovered The Long Halloween storyline and held it up as the script to Christopher Nolan’s second Batman sequel. According to StarPulse (http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2008/07/02/batman_bale_says_no_to_robin_), Christian Bale not only considers Robin lame, he has threatened to remake The Machinist as a documentary if the character crosses his path…
“If Robin crops up in one of the new Batman films, I’ll be chaining myself up somewhere and refusing to go to work.”
Some fans will be blinded by a premature warm happiness after reading, “one of the new Batman films,” but Nolan has insisted this a trilogy. No matter, we are of the agreement that not only should Robin be dismissed, the word “robin” in general should be banned from this franchise. It’s not dark enough, nor does it embolden comparisons to The Godfather 2, Heat (http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/07/01/10-reasons-why-i-loved-the-dark-knight/), and an “extraordinary cinematic revolution” (http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/07/01/the-dark-knight-an-extraordinary-cinematic-revolution/)spelled out by 400,000 lit firecrackers. Actually, that last one is worthy of Robin. We josh.

[Venom 1988]

I have no words to say except they should read Dark Victory :o

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t258/spider_figi/batmandarkvictory.jpg

[Rezzo]

Well I'm glad Nolan and Bale feel the same about the issue cause I for one don't want to see Robin in Nolan's Batman universe.

[storyteller]

I'd love to see robin in nolans batman universe. Robin has greatly evolved beyond the "HOLY RUSTED METAL BATMAN". The kid can be just as serious and badass as his adult counterpart. The stigma of Adam west tv show and the goofy sidekicks of the era have have harder to clean then what it did to their bosses.

[Jahan]

I have no words to say except they should read Dark Victory :o

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t258/spider_figi/batmandarkvictory.jpg

Apparently, Dark Victory is Bales fav book (well, thats Wikipedia for you)
So its either a ruse or its true.
Id go for the latter

[Pauluz]

I always hated Robin. So, I'm happy! :D

[Microchip]

Me too. Batman's little orphan life companion should stay far, far away from this franchise. If he needs backup, he's already got it in Gordan, and I can't see why you'd need Robin in a more serious, darker Batman anyways.

[Two-Face]

If WB wants Robin in the third one then Nolan & Co are out?



I have nothing against Robin but I don't want him.

[Rockbottom]

Pretty sure WB would take Nolan and Bale over Robin any day.


...Who wouldn't?

[Crook]

Clearly Bale knows nothing about the character if he goes as far to make that joke. There's a difference in the character not fitting your preference, but implying he's lame or worthless is entirely another matter.

I have a feeling Bale's only knowledge of Robin is from the Adam West show, or the stereotype of the jolly sidekick. Shame.

[Ferd]

I for one am happy about this bit, it's not the first time he's gone on record as saying as much. I don't see Robin having a place in the Nolan-verse of Bats.

[buff17]

I kinda think Bale is just saying that at this point to say it. Maybe trying to throw us off. I have a feeling that we will at least get a hint of Robin in the 3rd film. Something about Robin to me, just brings a sort of "light" in to Bruce's darkest. Maybe some sort of hope, something they could be explored in later films.

Honestly though, I trust in Nolan and Bale to bring us the goods. With or without Robin.

[TLH]

I can't stand Robin, so thank god that Bale/Nolan and Co. are against the character.

[Batman137]

No Robin!!!!!

[terry78]

I really don't think that's Bale's choice to make. What comic fan can honestly say Robin is a one note character? You should know fully well what he's brought to the universe, and if you don't, do some research like you would for a ****ing term paper, tonight. BTAS was able to give us a believable Robin, so it's not rocket science.

[Leenie]

I don't want to see Robin anywhere near Nolan's Batman movies.

I have nothing totally against Robin, but I have always preferred Batman doing his thing by himself.

[Dark Globe]

I want Nightwing. A twisted Nightwing.

[Saint]

Sigh; it's so depressing that so many people dismiss Robin. Schumacher does him poorly, and suddenly the entire community decides that the only way he can be done is the wrong way. Is this selective ignorance a disease? Am I at risk?

Robin, just like Batman, is as good or bad as you make him, and as tonally appropriate as you make him. He's an integral part of the Batman mythos, and has been written in ways that suit the modern Batman for years and years. His presence will not make the film any less dark, any more campy, or any of the other nonsense you people spew. Any writer or filmmaker worth his salt can make Robin work.

[terry78]

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/thumb/4/4a/Robin_v.1_1.jpg/350px-Robin_v.1_1.jpg

[Venom 1988]

Apparently, Dark Victory is Bales fav book (well, thats Wikipedia for you)
So its either a ruse or its true.
Id go for the latter
Then how the heck can he not see how Robin can work?? In that he never really left Wayne Manor (except for Batman's "test" to scare the **** out of Zucco). The rest of the time he was just training and doesn't officially become Robin until the last couple of pages.

[fabman]

He said in an interview that Dark Victory was one of his fav Batman comics. Anyway, why do y'all want Robin? I prefer to see Batman alone and if the lil' guy never ever appears on the big screen again... why not? Let's keep him in the comics, but leave the Dark Knight alone on the big screen! Maybe in part 10, when they've run out of ideas... ;)

[Sawyer]

Sigh; it's so depressing that so many people dismiss Robin. Schumacher does him poorly, and suddenly the entire community decides that the only way he can be done is the wrong way. Is this selective ignorance a disease? Am I at risk?

Robin, just like Batman, is as good or bad as you make him, and as tonally appropriate as you make him. He's an integral part of the Batman mythos, and has been written in ways that suit the modern Batman for years and years. His presence will not make the film any less dark, any more campy, or any of the other nonsense you people spew. Any writer or filmmaker worth his salt can make Robin work.

Heres how I feel on the subject: If Nolan wants to introduce Dick Grayson in the future, I'm fine with that. But just as Dick Grayson. No way in hell do I want to see Batman standing atop a building with Robin trailing behind him. Introduce the kid, foreshadow Robin and leave it at that.

[turtlefocker]

I think he should be solo for at least one more movie, maybe have a hint at "The Flying Grayson's" at the end of Batman 3.

[Crook]

Heres how I feel on the subject: If Nolan wants to introduce Dick Grayson in the future, I'm fine with that. But just as Dick Grayson. No way in hell do I want to see Batman standing atop a building with Robin trailing behind him. Introduce the kid, foreshadow Robin and leave it at that.
That'd be absolutely pointless. That's like introducing Selina and never showing/developing her into Catwoman.

If they don't want Robin, fine. Don't bother with Grayson then, just for the sake of it. I'd be much more comfortable with a team that actually understands the character.

[terry78]

I don't get why it's a problem. He's going to end up with Robin at some point. Even if this is the "Nolan-verse", a term I hate even got coined, he's still Batman, and every Batman ends up with Grayson as his ward at some point.

[FlawlessVictory]

Bale's Batman is too young and still relatively new to the scene so it's much too early to add Robin, IMO. Robin should only be introduced when Batman is much, much, much older and it becomes increasingly more difficult for him to do the things he used to. Then Robin could become an asset. Otherwise, he would just get in the way. :o

So, I agree with Bale, keep him out!

[Crook]

Batman WAS young when he picked up Grayson. I don't get why that keeps being brought up.

:huh:

[FlawlessVictory]

Batman WAS young when he picked up Grayson. I don't get why that keeps being brought up.

:huh:

I realize that, but IMO I think it would work better if Batman is much older when he takes him in. I'd prefer to see Batman solo on the scene for a long time.

[Hunter Rider]

I'm like a tarts draws as far as this issue is concerned.

[terry78]

I'm like a tarts draws as far as this issue is concerned.

You're gonna have to speak the king's english to get that point across, buddy. :o

[DiFabio]

Robin could work in Nolan's universe without looking out of place and corny. Especially if it's handled tastefully like Batman The Animated Series. I've always viewed that interpretation as being definitive. Instead of being portrayed as a wise cracking, "gay", sidekick, Dick Grayson was established as Bruce's "son" and ally.

I'm not into the idea of a "Batfamily", and I completly dislike the idea of having Batgirl, Tim Drake, Jason Todd, Batwoman, Batmite etc. But I don't see why Robin, or atleast Dick Grayson can't be introduced. In TAS he was a young man who attended college when he fought crime, not a kid. Robin could be just as "dark" as Batman it all depends on how he's portrayed.

I don't see why Nolan and Co. would shun the idea of having Robin. You would think Nolan would be up to the challenge of placing Robin in a grounded "realistic" setting. That's exactly why he felt he had to do the Dark Knight. He came in to interpret his idea of the Joker, and suceeded. With a few minor tweaks to the origin story i'm sure he could make one hell of a Batman and Robin film. Dick Grayson is esentially Bruce Wayne anyway. Both of their parents are slain in front of them by a criminal etc. Nolan could make some powerful, psychological drama i'm sure. Nolan and Warner Bros. would sure have balls if they went as far as naming a future film "Batman and Robin", and corrected all their wrongs. I'd love to see that.

It's a shame Robin is so looked down upon. Don't get me wrong I love Batman going solo on his war on crime, but Dick Grayson's Robin is just as important as Bruce Wayne's Batman and Harvey Dent's Two Face, and The Joker, and Gordon, and Alfred etc. In the right hands any character can work.

[drillmaster]

I dont want Robin.

However a scene where Joker (Not gonna happen so substitute in another villain) beats some kid pretending to be Batman with a crowbar could work and give us Nolan's version of Jason Todd.

[Antrax255]

What about Nightwing or Red Hood?

[BobJM]

I don't like Robin, never have and probably never will. But what I can't stand is this blatant disregard for such a pivotal character in the character's history.

Nolan and Bale, in their interviews regarding Robin, come off as highly-conceited as if they had almost created the character of Batman and regret the day they created a character like Robin. It's sort of slap in the face to Bob Kane by constantly trashing the Boy Wonder. I can see if they are constantly making fun of a joke character like Cluemaster or something silly like that but Robin was and still is a major part of Batman and is included in many of the stories that Nolan references (Dark Victory, anyone?).

[Sawyer]

That'd be absolutely pointless. That's like introducing Selina and never showing/developing her into Catwoman.

If they don't want Robin, fine. Don't bother with Grayson then, just for the sake of it. I'd be much more comfortable with a team that actually understands the character.

Yeah, you're probably right. Then heres how I feel about it....

No Robin!

[Cunning Stunts]

Many valid points can be made both ways for introducing Robin.

One, Bruce Wayne is closer to and cares more for Dick Grayson probably more than he cares for anyone else. Also, Dick matured Batman from a 100% crime-fighting monster, into a more father-like figure for Gotham City.

On the other hand, bringing a ten-year old child into play is not the brightest option for The World's Greatest Detective... Especially when putting the ten-year old child into a very flamboyant, bright suit.

The best way I can see this scenario happening is Dick being adopted by Bruce (at an age higher than ten, I think... 16 minimum), and while Bruce is out, Dick rampages around Gotham as Robin, trying to find and help Batman, much as he does in Dark Victory (if I'm remembering correctly). Once he finds Batman, he'd be trained for years, and allowed to help Bruce as Nightwing.

Oh, and one more thing. If Frankie Muniz is cast, I'm boycotting the film.

[Darkknight14]

No one would be dumb enough to cast Muniz, or Shia or anyone like that. Robin could work, but as it has been said, it has to be done by the right people that understand the character. Unfortunately, the person that seems to understand the Batman mythos well enough to do it right on the big screen cant stand the idea of bringing Robin in. But I do agree he will be brought in one day, I just hope he's done well, because if he's done wrong again..well..he's pretty much screwed as far as the big screen goes, if he isnt already.

[Cunning Stunts]

No one would be dumb enough to cast Muniz, or Shia or anyone like that. Robin could work, but as it has been said, it has to be done by the right people that understand the character. Unfortunately, the person that seems to understand the Batman mythos well enough to do it right on the big screen cant stand the idea of bringing Robin in. But I do agree he will be brought in one day, I just hope he's done well, because if he's done wrong again..well..he's pretty much screwed as far as the big screen goes, if he isnt already.

I thought that too, but rumors are going around that Nolan explicity said that Muniz would be his #1 option.

[Sawyer]

I thought that too, but rumors are going around that Nolan explicity said that Muniz would be his #1 option.

He was kidding.

[Cunning Stunts]

He was kidding.

Praise Allah.

[batman44]

Sigh; it's so depressing that so many people dismiss Robin. Schumacher does him poorly, and suddenly the entire community decides that the only way he can be done is the wrong way. Is this selective ignorance a disease? Am I at risk?

Robin, just like Batman, is as good or bad as you make him, and as tonally appropriate as you make him. He's an integral part of the Batman mythos, and has been written in ways that suit the modern Batman for years and years. His presence will not make the film any less dark, any more campy, or any of the other nonsense you people spew. Any writer or filmmaker worth his salt can make Robin work.

yes:up:

[Sawyer]

Praise Allah.

Did you genuinely believe that Christopher Nolan would ever consider casting Frankie Muniz as Robin?

[GregComicFan]

I still think there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with introducing Dick Grayson. It only makes perfect sense that at some point in Batman's career that he would run across another young child, whose tragic past (parents killed before his eyes), reminds him of himself... and he takes the boy in as his ward, feeling he can, somehow, someway, invoke the best in the boy, and help him work through his dilemma....or perhaps to give him the life Bruce never had, and to prevent him from seeking revenge.....

THAT'S A SOLID STORYLINE FOR BATMAN 3.

The red suit. The boy wonder. The dynamic duo... "Robin"...THAT ISNT!

[Nightwing1977]

No Robin please. We already got him in 2 movies. I prefer Batman solo on films for now. He can work in Nolan's films, but I think he just prefer to use Batman alone than having a kid join along with him.

[omerhead]

I would rather see Catwoman as Batman's sidekick instead of Robin.

[TheBlueMcCoy82]

if Robin never shows up in the new movie series, I'm fine with that. I like the solo stories of Batman better anyway.

[nightwing2010]

I have no words to say except they should read Dark Victory :o

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t258/spider_figi/batmandarkvictory.jpg i agree i dont get why bale is such an arrogant pompous ass about robin, he claims he loves dark victory(a very robin centric story) then makes a moronic statemebt like this? hes a Jackass Dark Victory is essential a Nolan filkm with ROBIN IN IT!!!! hes a Major part of the Mythos WB dont LET Bale Ruin this Franchise by excluding the CHARACTER! I EMPLORE U!

[matrix_ghost]

JOBLO has a interested colun where they talk about certain topics which hollywood should consider. With TDK's release they also had something about robin.
The gay part did have me lolling ...hard :woot:

http://www.joblo.com/cmon-hollywood-167
C'mon Hollywood #167 Jul. 1, 2008


Source: Joblo.com's Cool Columns by: Sturdy





... leave Robin out of Batman!
by Sturdy

I’ve read rumors that the third Nolan-directed Batman film might introduce Bats’ trusty sidekick Robin. I don’t know if this is true or not, or how much of a role Robin would play in the film, but I want to go on record now as saying I think it’s a horrible idea. Again, I have no idea what Nolan has planned and common sense says trust the guy to do whatever he wants, but I just can’t see any way the character of Robin would work in Nolan’s Gotham City.




For starters, I don’t think the character of Robin has ever worked, whether it be on film, TV or in the comics. He’s always seemed a little awkward and annoying. I guess you could make an argument for the old Batman TV show, but that was a different time and a much different type of Batman. Obviously, the Schumacher Robin was horrible. I think when you get into the comics, Robin changes the tone and feel of the story. For some reason, I can’t take Batman as seriously when he has Robin around. Let’s face it; Robin is not a cool character. Even if you go with a darker version of Robin, he’s still just a boy gymnast that likes to wear tights.




If I told you a story about a handsome, young, boy gymnast that moved in with an attractive, wealthy, single, older man, what would be the first thing you would assume? Exactly. That’s kind of my point when it comes to Batman and Robin. Their connection always feels forced and slightly homoerotic. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, I just don’t want that in Nolan’s Batman. That’s better left to a different type of movie in a completely different type of genre. Maybe one of those you would have to order under a fake name.




I would venture to say that if you got together all of today’s best writers and filmmakers and locked them in a room, they wouldn’t be able to come up with a Robin storyline that worked. The only possibility I could see is if you started from scratch with the two characters and began a whole new franchise. I think you’d have to create a separate world and have a completely different Batman. Nolan has crafted such an amazing character with his Batman that I just can’t see him being able to add Robin into the fold without ruining what he’s created.





I would love to hear a scenario in which this would work because I can’t come up with anything. Maybe, and I mean maybe with Bruce Wayne going to the circus in the very last scene of the third film. That could possibly work, but definitely not in a major role. Nolan has denied Robin will make an appearance, but rumors are popping up and that has me worried. Lets allow BATMAN AND ROBIN to be the last time we see Robin on film.


While i'm personally not a big fan of robin ( hit and miss character for me) , i do like the origin of Robin the Darkl Victory. However , given the dark world that Nolan created i think there may be only 1 robin fit for that world.

Dick Grayson

[nightwing2010]

[quote=GregComicFan;15177689]I still think there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with introducing Dick Grayson. It only makes perfect sense that at some point in Batman's career that he would run across another young child, whose tragic past (parents killed before his eyes), reminds him of himself... and he takes the boy in as his ward, feeling he can, somehow, someway, invoke the best in the boy, and help him work through his dilemma....or perhaps to give him the life Bruce never had, and to prevent him from seeking revenge.....

[nightwing2010]

is christian bale an idiot? did he see thye ROAD TO PERDITION? mix THAT WITH DARK VICTORY AND THATS EXACTLY HOW ROBIN COULD WORK IN NOLANS FILMS!! if nolan wont do it THEN GET SAM MENDES TO DIRECT BATMAN!!!

[Cunning Stunts]

Did you genuinely believe that Christopher Nolan would ever consider casting Frankie Muniz as Robin?

I simply believed it to be a rumor. Didn't know if it was true or not.

[ShadowBoxing]

Honestly, go to Hell Nolan and Bale. Robin is so important to the Batman character. It's Batman's first attempts at piecing together a makeshift family after the loss of his own. Something so essential in his development. To dismiss it as both light or unnecessary...well, I guess now we have a second round of people directing Batman movies that have no business with the character.

[Cunning Stunts]

Maybe Bale's just pulling our legs with his attitude toward Robin? I guess we won't know until it happens.

[REDophile]

Before starting TDK, I remember Nolan admitting that he would never include Robin as long as he directed. Other than citing the campy interpretations of the character, he also said that Dick Grayson is a little boy in his universe.
Regardless, I have a hard time believing that Bale would say such a thing, he seems like a very nice guy in real life. But there was that speech at the MTV movie awards about the "bloody nipples." I agreed with him about that though.

[spideymouse]

Me too. Batman's little orphan life companion should stay far, far away from this franchise. If he needs backup, he's already got it in Gordan, and I can't see why you'd need Robin in a more serious, darker Batman anyways.
He also apparently has a whole legion of bats as his "backup". :yay:

[Keyser Soze]

Honestly, go to Hell Nolan and Bale. Robin is so important to the Batman character. It's Batman's first attempts at piecing together a makeshift family after the loss of his own. Something so essential in his development. To dismiss it as both light or unnecessary...well, I guess now we have a second round of people directing Batman movies that have no business with the character.

The first being, who, Schumacher? And hmm... the introduction of what character signalled the start of that downward spiral? The film that almost killed Batman as a viable screen franchise was called "Batman & ???"....

In the comics, Robin serves a crucial role - both Dick Grayson and Tim Drake are great characters in their own right. In the films, especially with the tone set up in Nolan's films, I just don't see how the character could work.

[Keyser Soze]

is christian bale an idiot? did he see thye ROAD TO PERDITION? mix THAT WITH DARK VICTORY AND THATS EXACTLY HOW ROBIN COULD WORK IN NOLANS FILMS!! if nolan wont do it THEN GET SAM MENDES TO DIRECT BATMAN!!!

Hello again SpiderFreddie. :whatever:

[Two-Face]

Some people here need to calm down, yes Robin is important to Batman world but Nolan & Co don't need to use him if they don't want to. I'm happy in which they decide to go with the franchise.

[terry78]

Me personally, I disagree with their choice, as a fan. It's their flick, so they can do what they want, but many a writer has been able to utilize the Boy Wonder without adding camp or kitsch, so it seems like a challenge they'd be more than up for.

[Paste Pot Pete]

It's very unfortunate that Bale seems so stubbornly set against the idea of Robin.

I agree with most of his and Nolan's ideas on the character and the series, but they are way off when it comes to Robin.

There's no problem in not liking the character and preferring to keep him out of the series, but Bale seems to be getting downright disrespectful when it comes to Robin. There has been a lot of very talented writers and artists that put a lot of fantastic work into that character, going right back to his creation. To dismiss all that as campy garbage is to give a big middle finger to all of those creators, who at the same time you seem to revere for their work on the big bad dark Batman. It's a bit hypocritical.

It's not like Robin was some late-in-the game bad idea addition. He's been around only a year less than Batman himself! You don't endure for that long if you suck that bad.

This series is going to need new life for a third film, or especially a fourth film. Forget the villains; there are only so many places you can the Batman character - Begins showed the naive beginner, TDK will show the transition into the grizzled vet doomed to be Batman forever - the only place for the third film to go, without meandering, is to begin that surrogate family building. It's called character development.

[Mandalore464]

Well, Robin IS part of the Batman mythos whether people like it or not. But I don't think Bale's been disrespectful of the character, or maybe I haven't read the interview in question, cause I don't read everything.

Basically what he said was that with the take Chris Nolan took on the Batman story, Robin would be out of place. It's, well, again, a problem of realism I think. How can you expect people to believe that someone like Batman would allow a teenager to go out with him at night?

Maybe some writers could pull it off. I know I couldn't, but then again I'm not paid to do so.

Also, if Robin was introduced in the Nolan verse, it would require a lot of modifications that would, well, not make him Robin anymore. I'm not talking makeup instead of permawhite here, I'm talking adult Robin, wearing a very dark outfit, maybe with a cowl on to better conceal his identity... That kind of changes.

And then we'd read everywhere "Thanks for Robin but that's not Robin, not faithful to the comics, too drastic changes, feck the realism...". I mean seriously, be careful of what you ask for, cause there's no way you're gonna get comics Robin in a Nolan film.

And although I would deal with it because of how important he is to the general Batman storyline, I really have no interest in the character and the franchise is better-off without him so far.

[Batteen87]

Do you guys want a crappy version of Robin in the third movie? Because that's exactly what it would be. Nolan doesn't care for the character and it would be another Venom situation.

[sdc10]

I personally believe these films just do not need robin in them. Whats so great about them is the interaction between Batman and the villains. Half of the movie would have to be taken up just by introducing robin, i.e. family killed followed by him getting trained and so forth. I think that would just take away from the movie.

[Microchip]

Nolan and Bale have turned Batman credible again. If they feel that Robin isn't the right direction for the franchise, then I believe them. If we get to Batman 4, maybe. But there's still enough to happen without the guy for another movie at least.

[NinjaTurtleFan]

I agree with Joblo.com that Robin just wouldn't work in a Nolan film unless you make Bruce/Batman like he is in Frank Miller's All-Star Batman & Robin, a real grumpy, peevish, hardassed-bastard who treats Robin not as an heir or little boy but a whipping post whom he can bark out orders to and slap around. Robin however knows Bruce is only doing this to prepare him physically and mentally for the dangers of his life.

I would want that. Make it dark, like make it where Alfred and us question Bruce's motives or parenting. Sometimes we see Bruce become abusive and cruel, almost making us want to hate it, it isn't till the end where we forgive him as an audience, Robin becomes the man or Boy Wonder we want him to be, and Bruce forgives himself for his actions.

[Paste Pot Pete]

Well, Robin IS part of the Batman mythos whether people like it or not. But I don't think Bale's been disrespectful of the character, or maybe I haven't read the interview in question, cause I don't read everything.

Basically what he said was that with the take Chris Nolan took on the Batman story, Robin would be out of place. It's, well, again, a problem of realism I think. How can you expect people to believe that someone like Batman would allow a teenager to go out with him at night?



Um...because people have been "believing" it for 70 years?

People will buy anything you put out there when it comes to Batman, I don't care how realistic this series is supposed to be. When you say the word "Batman", 99% of audiences automatically put aside their disbelief and expect a wild ride.

There are very few things a Batman movie couldn't do, at least with any filmmaker worth their salt.

Believe it or not, but it wasn't Robin or Mr. Freeze that destroyed the last series. It was awful, awful writing. Anything can be done, if done well.

[Microchip]

Well, not in the established new franchise. I can't see Ivy, Croc or Freeze in there without some extreme character rewriting. Its kind of like when Marvel goes nuts and have aliens, robots and clones running here there and everywhere in Iron Man. However, after the Iron Man film, they wouldn't be able to put these in the next movie, no matter how they dressed it up, they've already established that as something that won't happen.

Robin probably would work if done right. But if Nolan doesn't want it, I can't see it happening, and I don't think enough people want it that badly that he should try.

[Venom 1988]

Well, not in the established new franchise. I can't see Ivy, Croc or Freeze in there without some extreme character rewriting. Its kind of like when Marvel goes nuts and have aliens, robots and clones running here there and everywhere in Iron Man. However, after the Iron Man film, they wouldn't be able to put these in the next movie, no matter how they dressed it up, they've already established that as something that won't happen.

Robin probably would work if done right. But if Nolan doesn't want it, I can't see it happening, and I don't think enough people want it that badly that he should try.

Croc is easy. Hesis just a deformed thug with a skin disease. And technically Croc is already in this franchise, hes in Gotham Knight.

[spideymouse]

Well, not in the established new franchise. I can't see Ivy, Croc or Freeze in there without some extreme character rewriting. Its kind of like when Marvel goes nuts and have aliens, robots and clones running here there and everywhere in Iron Man. However, after the Iron Man film, they wouldn't be able to put these in the next movie, no matter how they dressed it up, they've already established that as something that won't happen.

Robin probably would work if done right. But if Nolan doesn't want it, I can't see it happening, and I don't think enough people want it that badly that he should try.
Yeah... Raimi didn't want Venom, but people wanted it badly enough that he was forced to try, and look at the result.

[Two-Face]

Yeah... Raimi didn't want Venom, but people wanted it badly enough that he was forced to try, and look at the result.

SM2 is better than SM3... I don't want Nolan to be forced into something he doesn't want to do.

[Microchip]

SM2 is better than SM3... I don't want Nolan to be forced into something he doesn't want to do.

Exactly what I meant.

Croc is easy. Hesis just a deformed thug with a skin disease. And technically Croc is already in this franchise, hes in Gotham Knight.

I haven't seen that actually, I wasn't aware it was part of the same universe. And I've only ever seen Croc in the HUSH comic, where he's pretty much a dinosaur in a trenchcoat. If that's not how he normally is, I suppose he could work.

[wootbaby]

I'd love to see robin in nolans batman universe. Robin has greatly evolved beyond the "HOLY RUSTED METAL BATMAN". The kid can be just as serious and badass as his adult counterpart. The stigma of Adam west tv show and the goofy sidekicks of the era have have harder to clean then what it did to their bosses.

there's definitely a way to make Robin awesome on screen... particularly Dick Grayson. grayson is the "world's greatest acrobat" and using live motion as a medium as opposed to flat panel in comics the potential to make the action/fight scenes with robin sooooo cool exists in movies in a way you couldn't convey in comics.

the best physical embodiment of Robin is ironically an ASIAN actor named Tony Jaa. He's about the size of an adult Nightwing and he too is the world's greatest acrobat. Look how this guy moves, he's untouchable exactly the way Dick Grayson would be in a fight. Towards the end of this clip (http://youtube.com/watch?v=0hbirAmaI7o) from Ong Bak is a scene where tony literally runs down the alley ON the shoulders and heads of the bad guys before they can react. This is the type of energy and dynamism of Robin that's never been shown, and why audiences would connect with him. What's NEVER been captured on film is the idea that this man is the greatest human (non-enhanced) embodiment of spiderman... but since he's human you dont use CGI you use the sickest human stunts possible using walls, furniture, other ppl as props.

now do you cast some asian dude for a batman movie? no obviously no one wants that but that's the type of energy robin character could bring if properly utilized on screen. imagine a movie where robin is jumping over ppl and bouncing off walls as a distraction while batman moves in from the shadows and just CRUSHES dudes

that's talking about action--what insipid audiences looking at a summer movie would like. thematically Robin has always been problematic in the Batman universe. it's always been problematic and frankly inconsistent for batman who knows better than anyone the danger and emotional dehabilitation that crime-fighting entails. he would NEVER subject a kid to the same life. sure bruce wayne might take care of Dick and Tim and dozens of kids like em and find families and schools for them but he'd never bring them so close... the chance of collateral damage would be a price too high for a "protector" like him would ever pay. even the writers know this: batman would never want robin to exist... that's why there's always a duex ex mechanism for how robin actually breaks down that barrier... something stupid like how he "finds" the batcave or he steals hubcaps off the batmobile...

robin was created SOLELY to sell comic books to kids in the 40s after the success of Billy Batson. and he has ALWAYS existed to serve as the foil for batman, in everything from demeanor to bright costume, fighting style, personality etc. the poster above talks about how a "dark robin" is cool. hell no how is that cool? a dark robin is even lamer than a bright fruity robin (which is damn lame already). a "dark" robin basically is a "mini" batman... basically giving up on the Robin character and deciding the only way to make him workable is to retool him into a mini batman.

that is lame... either DO NOT HAVE the character (best choice) but if you're determined to have the character then retain the thematic elements of it, imploding the character and reinventing him is lamer than anything else. Even the very concept of Nightwing is basically giving up on Robin and writers making the best of it by creating a entirely new character.

Then what? instead of just batman, or batman & robin now you have 2 dark brooding batmen. why the hell do you need TWO batmen in a batman comic? you dont... that's why nightwing had to leave town or you get a new robin.

the same dynamic exists for any batman movie... you do not need robin as "heir" or backup batman. IF he exists he MUST exist as a foil to batman... he will NEVER grow up to be batman. where does something like that fit in Nolan's universe? no where

[Microchip]

God, I hate Robin. If they reinvent him as being Asian, whatever. Go right ahead. He certainly needs some reinventing. Theres a picture earlier in this thread where he's kneeling in front of Bats with his cape pulled over his face. Looks like an idiot. That guy can NOT be menacing.

[Venom 1988]

I haven't seen that actually, I wasn't aware it was part of the same universe. And I've only ever seen Croc in the HUSH comic, where he's pretty much a dinosaur in a trenchcoat. If that's not how he normally is, I suppose he could work. Yea as of lately they basically made Croc into a Knock off Lizard.

[wootbaby]

God, I hate Robin. If they reinvent him as being Asian, whatever. Go right ahead. He certainly needs some reinventing. Theres a picture earlier in this thread where he's kneeling in front of Bats with his cape pulled over his face. Looks like an idiot. That guy can NOT be menacing.

lol NO im not talking about making him asian. I'm saying

1) he's never logicially fit into batman's universe... EVER... he certainly doesn't need to be in Nolan's batman
2) but if you MUST have Robin in a movie, make him robin, not a totally different character who happens to be named Robin. there are aspects of the character you could leverage through proper fight choreography to make him cool even if he's a total foil to batman (aka gay tights)
3) robin is even lamer in TV and movies than he is in comics because so far directors have had no idea how to use him (other than as mechandising)

[The Joker]

As much as I like Robin, I can't say I'd be disappointed if he was omitted from future movies.

[Rezzo]

Not sure if this was posted.



Should Robin Appear In A Batman Movie? Comic Legend Jeph Loeb Defends The Boy Wonder (http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/07/03/should-robin-be-in-batman-comic-legend-jeph-loeb-defends-the-boy-wonder/)

The Internet fan community (http://joblo.com/cmon-hollywood-167) is in agreement: Do not, under any circumstances, put Robin anywhere near Christopher Nolan’s Batman universe, a world grounded in reality, where the laws of physics apply to hero and villain alike, where bullets wound and punches bruise. An acrobatic little kid in tights? Do it and I walk, Christian Bale even reportedly said recently (http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/07/02/christian-bale-rules-out-robin-for-batman-3-and-beyond/).

Which is a little ironic, considering that one of Bale’s favorite Batman comics (http://batman.ugo.com/movies/batman_begins/bale.asp) is “Dark Victory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_Dark_Victory),” by fan-favorite creators Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale. And who do you think appears as a critical character in “Dark Victory”? (Hint: He wears a red and yellow costume.)

So how do you reconcile the two disparate viewpoints?

“Take the time to tell the story properly,” Loeb told MTV News. “There is a story of Dick Grayson and how he becomes Robin that is extremely moving and very helpful.”

In the events of Loeb’s “The Long Halloween,” which preceded “Dark Victory” and served as a partial inspiration for “The Dark Knight,” the main characters are all left alienated and alone, bereft of even a little hope. It’s Robin’s presence that can change that for Bruce, Loeb argues, creating a father/son dynamic that can mirror Wayne’s relationship with his own dad. In short, Robin can teach Bruce how to be more human, Loeb insisted.

“It’s all about building the relationship between Bruce and Dick. Dick hates Bruce. He doesn’t understand why it is that he needs to do this and Bruce doesn’t understand why he’s doing it either because he’s not a parent. He doesn’t know how to be a parent,” Loeb said. “And together, they make each other better people. So that for me would be the next step.”

But for all the fans already crying out in horror just at the thought of it, Loeb isn’t actually talking so much about Robin as he is about Dick Grayson. In fact, the best Robin story might not actually have “Robin” at all.

“I wouldn’t let him become Robin until the third act, if that. I think that’s the other problem when you tell that story is that there’s this rush to put him in a costume by the end of the first 20 minutes and in that case I think it’s a disaster,” Loeb said. “So if you look at ‘Dark Victory’ Tim and I went nine out of twelve chapters before you even started to talk about putting him in a costume and he doesn’t put the costume on until the last chapter of that book.”

[ShadowBoxing]

The first being, who, Schumacher? And hmm... the introduction of what character signalled the start of that downward spiral? The film that almost killed Batman as a viable screen franchise was called "Batman & ???"....

In the comics, Robin serves a crucial role - both Dick Grayson and Tim Drake are great characters in their own right. In the films, especially with the tone set up in Nolan's films, I just don't see how the character could work.
Straw Man. Robin had nothing to do with the downward spiral of that series, and you know it. Schumacher thought comics were joke books for children, and his films mirror that belief. This has absolutely nothing to do with the character of Robin, his potential in a realistically toned series, or his importance to the mythos.

If Nolan has a problem with Robin then quite frankly, he has his head up his ass and Bale is licking it. The only reason they are saying this is because they think they are appealing to the fanbase; getting rid of something we don't want. I've got news for you though, as cheesey as Robin started out he's stayed with the series since year four, even with new boy wonders dawning the mask. If you think he has no place in Nolan's films then you're wrong. It's not an opinion, you're wrong. Robin IS part of the story, he has been done in a realistic and dark tone several times over, and he has been adapted successfully into perhaps the best adaptation of a superhero to date: BTAS.

Just because Schumacher f--ked it up that makes him a bane upon the Batman franchise; what kind of bullcrap logic is that? Marvel f--ked up Hulk but I didn't see them taking away his purple pants. James Bond has had several flops but I didn't see his golden gun or Aston Martin disappear from future installments. Nolan again, is just trying to curry favor with fanboys, and he is not thinking about the importance of the character.

[copywrite]

I think Bale might have been a bit sarcastic in his comment about Robin. I definitely doubt he would quit if Robin were introduced.

[ShadowBoxing]

I think Bale might have been a bit sarcastic in his comment about Robin. I definitely doubt he would quit if Robin were introduced.
Well, he might. Remember he almost played Robin in Batman Forever.

[Crook]

Actually, he denies that rumor in the recent GQ interview.

[The Shadow]

http://www.slashfilm.com/


Posted on Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008 at 12:47 pm by: Hunter Stephens“If Robin crops up in one of the new Batman films, I’ll be chaining myself up somewhere and refusing to go to work.”

He can go ahead and refuse to go to work for all I care, he aintnothin special. Get someone else to play Batman, preferabley better than Christian Bale.

[AgentGraves!]

look when you get to the bones of it...

the HISTORY of it all...

Robin was introduced to lighten up The Dark Knight and was also introduced to give a reason for KIDS to start reading Batman comics...

at a time when Batman "became too dark for young readers"

I respect the history and the idea behind robin. I do...

but in all accounts, Robin is the neon lights to the Batman's shadow.

I've got no problem with Robin in the books - none

but in the films, Yeah, that's a problem...

and

let's look at it this way thanks to the ass who suggested that Batman is a ped'file. (way back in the days)

it's in the back of everyone's mind. that the bat is keeping the boy for his own spandex adventures in between the satin sheets. and with Kiddy Sh*** making News all over again as it seems to do every 4 to 6 years something big comes out

we are in a time where every corner you turn there is some sort of kiddy porn crap out and about

the poly's out in texas
that poor poor girl out in VT.

throwing in a young boy in bright colors into this dark world the Nolans' and Goyer have created wouldn't be a good idea...

and lets remember something else too...

THE LAST TIME WE GOT A ROBIN LOOK WHAT HAPPENED!!!!


Just accept it, somethings Just Should Not be translated into film from comic books.

[ShadowBoxing]

Robin was introduced to lighten up The Dark Knight and was also introduced to give a reason for KIDS to start reading Batman comics...

at a time when Batman "became too dark for young readers"

I respect the history and the idea behind robin. I do...

but in all accounts, Robin is the neon lights to the Batman's shadow.
And that's kind of the point. Batman can't be doom and gloom all the time, he just can't. He spiral out of control and kill himself. This idea of a hapless loner is nice and all, but somewhere down the line the character actually has to progress and move somewhere. It's been a classic motif in literature for centuries for the orphaned hero to reconcile his grief by creating the make-shift family. If Robin is the light to Batman's dark then he truly serves a significant purpose.

And how come this is an issue now with Robin, and not with Alfred, who Goyer essentially stuck in there for little for than sarcastic wit and comic relief. Or what about the fact that really, without Robin, Batman sounds really awkward making light of situations like he did countless times in Batman Begins. Batman doesn't make jokes, but Robin does, and deep down we realize watching that kid makes jokes is what's keeping Batman from putting a bullet in his head.

Also, in reality, it's important for the creation of his villains. Robin becomes a catalyst for Joker's obsession. Joker looks at Robin with envy and jealousy, further fueling his obsession with the Batman. You act as though general audiences will never accept him, yet the character now...who you dismiss as "an attempt to lighten things up"...seriously has stuck around now since Batman's fourth year, and has stuck with the book even when it was at it's darkest tone. Dark Victory, Death in the Family, Batman Beyond, the Brian Azzerello runs, and even Frank Miller have all utilized Robin, and they're even darker and grittier than the Nolanverse. Nolan can't adapt Robin? Give me a f--king a break.
THE LAST TIME WE GOT A ROBIN LOOK WHAT HAPPENED!!!!BTAS did Robin and it was fine, and that show was a serious adaptation of the comic.

[Crook]

So, the top 3 reasons Robin should not be in this film according to you:

1) Robin is the neon light to Batman's shadow

2) Brings back the pedo vibe

3) Look at what happened last time


Well I must say that's a fantastic argument. :funny:

[ShadowBoxing]

Ten bucks says Nolan will eat his words when Captain America adapts Bucky and no one has any problem with it.

[Crook]

Truthfully, audiences don't "get" or "want" anything until it's already been delivered properly. I have no doubt this is the case here.

[OSM]

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/thumb/4/4a/Robin_v.1_1.jpg/350px-Robin_v.1_1.jpg
That doesn't count. Bolland drew it. Bolland can make ANYTHING badass. Give the man a sketch pad and put a block of cheese in front of him and ask him to draw it.

A few seconds later you got the most BAD ASS looking block of cheese ever.



But yea, no Robin in Nolan's movies please.

[Mandalore464]

Um...because people have been "believing" it for 70 years?


Um.. I specifically mentioned the Nolan verse. I don't know what it has to do with the 70 years of comic books... Nolan wants to make things look real, that's his choice and his problem. I'm just saying that Robin as he appears in comic books doesn't fit this choice.

[Majik1387]

Has Bale forgotten that he auditioned for Robin in the past?:o

[Mandalore464]

Try to understand... Some people here aren't saying Robin just can't be in a Batmovie. Some people, like myself, are only saying that the only Robin you'd get from Nolan would NOT be Robin, cause the character as he is in the comics (bright-coloured kiddo whose purpose is to make Batman understand he has to lighten up) simply will not happen in that specific verse.

As said before, Robin IS a tremendously important part of the Batman mythos and I have no problem with that. Just not in NOLAN's verse. Cause that wouldn't be Robin.

Bring back Robin whenever a director takes over from Nolan and gets away from his "realistic" take on the mythos. Doing it before is pointless and would look ridiculous, unless the character is modified to the point that he isn't himself anymore.

Although I have no interest in him, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with him appearing in a decent Batmovie. Just not in this particular one. Let's wait for a couple of years before we suggest his return on screen.

[Crook]

Has Bale forgotten that he auditioned for Robin in the past?:o
He didn't. He denied those rumors.

Um.. I specifically mentioned the Nolan verse. I don't know what it has to do with the 70 years of comic books... Nolan wants to make things look real, that's his choice and his problem.
Except that there's nothing "unreal" about Robin's presence in the story and his relation to the characters. It's fine if it doesn't fit people's tastes, but it's very much in line of what Nolan would consider plausible, from an emotional and thematic sense alone.

[Two-Face]

He can go ahead and refuse to go to work for all I care, he aintnothin special. Get someone else to play Batman, preferabley better than Christian Bale.


That makes me laugh.... :funny:


I rather have Bale as Batman than Robin in Batman movies.


If Bales quits then you have Oldman, Caine & Nolan quiting, I don't want them leaving of Boy Wonder. You need recast for their roles.

[souvlaki]

I'm slightly conflicted on this. On the one hand I think Nolan could do an amazing job adapting Robin if he chose to. On the other hand I believe a case can be made for why he doesn't need to appear in the third film. For one, going by modern day continuity Robin appeared somewhere around Batman's third year (anyone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this). By the time Dick Grayson was introduced in Dark Victory, over half of Batman's rogue gallery had already appeared in some form or another. There are plenty of Robin-less Batman stories to tell. Unless there is some huge gap between the second and third movie I'd guess the third film will take place at some point during Batman's second year. If Nolan doesn't want to put Robin in his films, fine. No sense in forcing him into something he's not interested in.

[Mandalore464]

Except that there's nothing "unreal" about Robin's presence in the story and his relation to the characters. It's fine if it doesn't fit people's tastes, but it's very much in line of what Nolan would consider plausible, from an emotional and thematic sense alone.


I personally don't believe that a guy like Bruce Wayne would put a kid's life on the line by allowing him to go out at night and fight armed criminals while wearing a green and red outfit, and nothing else than a domino mask to conceal his identity.

This is not realistic, there's no way it could be realistic, there's no way it's happening in a Nolan movie.

Then of course, maybe it could work with a 20-25 year old, dressed in dark colours, with a cowl or mask that won't let any of his features show. Is that the Robin you want? I for one wouldn't mind, but I'm sure that a lot of people here would then go and whine about how far from the comic books Robin this one is.

[Keyser Soze]

Straw Man. Robin had nothing to do with the downward spiral of that series, and you know it. Schumacher thought comics were joke books for children, and his films mirror that belief. This has absolutely nothing to do with the character of Robin, his potential in a realistically toned series, or his importance to the mythos.

If Nolan has a problem with Robin then quite frankly, he has his head up his ass and Bale is licking it. The only reason they are saying this is because they think they are appealing to the fanbase; getting rid of something we don't want. I've got news for you though, as cheesey as Robin started out he's stayed with the series since year four, even with new boy wonders dawning the mask. If you think he has no place in Nolan's films then you're wrong. It's not an opinion, you're wrong. Robin IS part of the story, he has been done in a realistic and dark tone several times over, and he has been adapted successfully into perhaps the best adaptation of a superhero to date: BTAS.

Just because Schumacher f--ked it up that makes him a bane upon the Batman franchise; what kind of bullcrap logic is that? Marvel f--ked up Hulk but I didn't see them taking away his purple pants. James Bond has had several flops but I didn't see his golden gun or Aston Martin disappear from future installments. Nolan again, is just trying to curry favor with fanboys, and he is not thinking about the importance of the character.

I find it ironic how you seem to take such delight in mocking fanboys. You're posting on Superhero Hype. We're all fanboys. It's just that the anti-Robin crowd are the fanboys who don't want Nolan to risk screwing up a winning formula with a tonal 180, to shoehorn in a character who the majority don't even want to see in this series.

I like Robin, in the comics, in the cartoons. But I like Clayface and Mr. Freeze too, and I think they'd be totally out of place in this current series of Batman films.

[ShadowBoxing]

I find it ironic how you seem to take such delight in mocking fanboys. You're posting on Superhero Hype. We're all fanboys.
Wow, when you don't have anything else to go on resort to that old classic...
It's just that the anti-Robin crowd are the fanboys who don't want Nolan to risk screwing up a winning formula with a tonal 180, to shoehorn in a character who the majority don't even want to see in this series.Dark Victory is a tonal 180? Nope...it's actually more dark. Robin doesn't change the tone at all, in fact he logically progresses Nolan's own character.
I like Robin, in the comics, in the cartoons. But I like Clayface and Mr. Freeze too, and I think they'd be totally out of place in this current series of Batman films.Except, and here is the kicker skippy, no one has made a good argument why he'd be out of place. At all, considering time and again the character of Robin has been placed in a realistic setting, done with excellent dramatic effect, enhanced the character of Batman, and been handled in a dark and serious tone. So to lump that character in with Clayface, who has superpowers which border on fantasy, is idiotic.

[Keyser Soze]

Except, and here is the kicker skippy, no one has made a good argument why he'd be out of place.

I thought the argument was pretty self-evident. When you read any of the stuff about "The Dark Knight" aspiring to be a crime epic in the vein of "Heat" or "The Godfather", when you see the very grounded tone they're going for in the clips we've seen so far. Then you imagine a crime-fighting kid in a yellow cape and a bright red costume thrown in there.

You talk about repititions of tired old arguments, yet you continue to cling on to "Dark Victory", a book which doesn't in fact feature ROBIN until the very end, and then it does kinda feel out of place with what has preceded. I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen someone reiterate that "the films are not the comics", only for it to fall on deaf ears.

[Keyser Soze]

I'm not saying Robin should NEVER EVER EVER be in a Batman film. If Nolan could come up with a convincing way to make him fit into his version of the Batman universe, I could most likely be won over. But as it stands I'm doubtful about how it could work. It seems like a big gamble, especially since bringing in Robin seems like it would essentially mean losing Nolan and Bale. I for one don't think it's a gamble worth taking.

[ShadowBoxing]

I thought the argument was pretty self-evident. When you read any of the stuff about "The Dark Knight" aspiring to be a crime epic in the vein of "Heat" or "The Godfather", when you see the very grounded tone they're going for in the clips we've seen so far. Then you imagine a crime-fighting kid in a yellow cape and a bright red costume thrown in there.
You're trying to make a stark contrast where one doesn't exist. Perhaps I could say the same thing about another character. Here watch: When you read any of the stuff about "The Dark Knight" aspiring to be a crime epic in the vein of "Heat" or "The Godfather", when you see the very grounded tone they're going for in the clips we've seen so far. Then you imagine a purple suited, maniacal clown in there.

That seems pretty retarded too, doesn't it. See, instead of using some sort of false argument about your expectations of Robin, let's actually look at the character. Is the character always a kid in spandex man panties and a bright yellow cape? No, in fact we've moved past that even in the comics. I don't see why fanboys piss and moan about Robin being in yellow tights, yet seem to have little problem with switching Batman to a Robocop suit. I'd say it's a pretty safe assumption that given the same costume designers who gave us the TDK suit, we wouldn't get a panel for panel translation of the Robin costume.
You talk about repititions of tired old arguments, yet you continue to cling on to "Dark Victory", a book which doesn't in fact feature ROBIN until the very end, and then it does kinda feel out of place with what has preceded. I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen someone reiterate that "the films are not the comics", only for it to fall on deaf ears.Yet the films are ABOUT the comics. See that problem. If the films are not the comics you've just made the perfect argument to through out Batman himself. He's not remotely realistic. Not his style of crimefighting, not his ability to magically find criminals, not even his suit...most of that is highly exaggerated...so really unless you think "Batman" should last one film so we can all see Bruce get shot and go "wow, well it's not the comics", then Robin should be included.

Films are supposed to represent the mythos. Robin arguably is more important to that than even Joker, and definitely more important than Two-Face. And as for "Dark Victory", now you're just being combative. Robin held a very important place in that story, if you've actually read it instead of just looked at the pretty pictures. Batman's life was spiraling out of control, much like it is in TDK, and Robin comes in and provides the only shred of sanity Bruce has left, in effect saving him. So yeah, it's a tad more important to the story than some out of place element thrown in at the end.

[Mandalore464]

Here watch: When you read any of the stuff about "The Dark Knight" aspiring to be a crime epic in the vein of "Heat" or "The Godfather", when you see the very grounded tone they're going for in the clips we've seen so far. Then you imagine a purple suited, maniacal clown in there.



This is different. First of all, the Joker is an adult. And as you say, he's maniacal. actually let's just call him crazy. It makes sense that he would dress crazy. The guy's nuts.


I'd say it's a pretty safe assumption that given the same costume designers who gave us the TDK suit, we wouldn't get a panel for panel translation of the Robin costume.


That's obvious. Actually, it's even safe to assume that IF Nolan was including Robin in his take of the mythos, the character would have little or nothing to do with Robin in the first place, apart from his name maybe. I think he might even not wear the famous domino mask, but something that conceals more of his face instead. And then again, I wouldn't mind, if it's written correctly.

But if you guys want Robin as you know him in the comics, well, you'd better forget it. Not happening with Nolan. Maybe with the next one.


Yet the films are ABOUT the comics


The films and the comics are two different media dealing with the same myth. The fact that Batman originated in comic books does not make the film about said comic books. The films are about the myth, just like the comic books are. They can co-exist and be completely unrelated.


If the films are not the comics you've just made the perfect argument to through out Batman himself. He's not remotely realistic.


Actually, and this is especially true since Batman Begins, I always thought that any rich guy suffering from a severe childhood trauma earned at the sight of his parents bathing in their own blood could become Batman. Of course a lot of what's happening is exaggerated. But Batman is a nutcase. I could definitely see a nutcase doing something that nuts.

[ShadowBoxing]

That's obvious. Actually, it's even safe to assume that IF Nolan was including Robin in his take of the mythos, the character would have little or nothing to do with Robin in the first place, apart from his name maybe. I think he might even not wear the famous domino mask, but something that conceals more of his face instead. And then again, I wouldn't mind, if it's written correctly.

But if you guys want Robin as you know him in the comics, well, you'd better forget it. Not happening with Nolan. Maybe with the next one.



Well, I think I can resign myself to a new take on the character consider no single Nolan character yet isn't a new take.

I think with Robin, the aspect of his character that is essential and fits within the Nolanverse is he is Batman's replacement...eventually, and he reaffirms that Batman is both a legend and more important than the Bruce Wayne who carries it. But Robin is a progression. I'd consider anyone who thinks some kid should be thrown out in a bright orange costume in a film to be both unimaginative and uninformed. Robin doesn't even start out that way in the comics. First you establish Dick Grayson, and his talent as an acrobat, then you establish him as Bruce's ward/adopted son, then you have him find out about the cave, then you have him start training...ya'know like Bruce himself. He doesn't need to be Bruce's sidekick in the traditional sense, he doesn't even need to be with Bruce everytime he goes out...again, this isn't the case in the comics. But as he trains, and as he learns he can become a greater asset to Bruce, and eventually become a full time sidekick.
Actually, and this is especially true since Batman Begins, I always thought that any rich guy suffering from a severe childhood trauma earned at the sight of his parents bathing in their own blood could become Batman. Of course a lot of what's happening is exaggerated. But Batman is a nutcase. I could definitely see a nutcase doing something that nuts.
I think you mistake my meaning. The idea of someone wanting to become Batman isn't unrealistic, the character itself is. The idea of a one man war on crime is absurd because even with a Bruce Wayne sized pocket book you simply would not have the time nor the ability to ferret out crime and fight it. For example, how would Batman find a mugging for example? Would he just wander around bad parts of town on a rooftop, that doesn't really seem plausible. Sure someone like that might come across one or two isolated incidents, but in the end, the way Batman is suppose to work doesn't make sense.

[Mandalore464]

I think you mistake my meaning. The idea of someone wanting to become Batman isn't unrealistic, the character itself is. The idea of a one man war on crime is absurd because even with a Bruce Wayne sized pocket book you simply would not have the time nor the ability to ferret out crime and fight it. For example, how would Batman find a mugging for example? Would he just wander around bad parts of town on a rooftop, that doesn't really seem plausible. Sure someone like that might come across one or two isolated incidents, but in the end, the way Batman is suppose to work doesn't make sense.


Ok. It's true that you can't expect to rid a city of all its criminals by just patrolling the streets and preventing two or three rapes every night. Although the idea that some martial art expert could come and kick my butt while I'm mugging some old people would definitely make me think twice about doing it, and this is an important part of why Batman is Batman. He also prevents crime by just, well, being around.


First you establish Dick Grayson, and his talent as an acrobat, then you establish him as Bruce's ward/adopted son, then you have him find out about the cave, then you have him start training...ya'know like Bruce himself. He doesn't need to be Bruce's sidekick in the traditional sense, he doesn't even need to be with Bruce everytime he goes out...again, this isn't the case in the comics. But as he trains, and as he learns he can become a greater asset to Bruce, and eventually become a full time sidekick.


See, I really wouldn't have a problem with that kind of take on Dick Grayson, especially if, say, he starts out as Nightwing immediately, after years of intense training in the Batcave.

But I just think that it's not what other people on these boards are waiting for when they say they want Robin in the franchise. So all I'm really saying is, if there's any way to include him in the next one in a believable and well-written manner, by all means, do it. Just don't expect him to be the Robin you want (not talking about you here Shadow Boxing, I understood your position).

[The Overlord]

I don't get why it's a problem. He's going to end up with Robin at some point. Even if this is the "Nolan-verse", a term I hate even got coined, he's still Batman, and every Batman ends up with Grayson as his ward at some point.

The problem is Robin always makes Batman look creepy and irresponsible, first a grown man hnaging out with a 13 year old in tights is creepy and second does anyone find it strange that while batman's costume is design for sleath, Robin is light up a a christmas tree, he's decoy boy.

Kid sidekicks are so 1940s, even Stan Lee thought they were lame.

And that's kind of the point. Batman can't be doom and gloom all the time, he just can't. He spiral out of control and kill himself. This idea of a hapless loner is nice and all, but somewhere down the line the character actually has to progress and move somewhere. It's been a classic motif in literature for centuries for the orphaned hero to reconcile his grief by creating the make-shift family. If Robin is the light to Batman's dark then he truly serves a significant purpose.

And how come this is an issue now with Robin, and not with Alfred, who Goyer essentially stuck in there for little for than sarcastic wit and comic relief. Or what about the fact that really, without Robin, Batman sounds really awkward making light of situations like he did countless times in Batman Begins. Batman doesn't make jokes, but Robin does, and deep down we realize watching that kid makes jokes is what's keeping Batman from putting a bullet in his head.

Also, in reality, it's important for the creation of his villains. Robin becomes a catalyst for Joker's obsession. Joker looks at Robin with envy and jealousy, further fueling his obsession with the Batman. You act as though general audiences will never accept him, yet the character now...who you dismiss as "an attempt to lighten things up"...seriously has stuck around now since Batman's fourth year, and has stuck with the book even when it was at it's darkest tone. Dark Victory, Death in the Family, Batman Beyond, the Brian Azzerello runs, and even Frank Miller have all utilized Robin, and they're even darker and grittier than the Nolanverse. Nolan can't adapt Robin? Give me a f--king a break.
BTAS did Robin and it was fine, and that show was a serious adaptation of the comic.

BTAS Robin was college aged.

Its Nolan, if he doesn't want to doesn;t, make your own movie if you want Robin, Nolan deserves some creative freedom here.

I tell you why its unrealistic, becuase it makes batman look irresponsbile, he's dealing with dangerous manics armed to the teth every day and he is brining in a kid dressed like a christmas tree in to help him? That is so irresponsible.

Please batman should relate better to other adults (Alfred, Gordon) then a 13 year old kid.

[Ollo]

I was intrigued by the idea of having Robin in the sequel, but I do ultimately agree with what the article notes - his implementation just couldn't have been dark enough for these type of films.

[ShadowBoxing]

Its Nolan, if he doesn't want to doesn;t, make your own movie if you want Robin, Nolan deserves some creative freedom here.

I tell you why its unrealistic, becuase it makes batman look irresponsbile, he's dealing with dangerous manics armed to the teth every day and he is brining in a kid dressed like a christmas tree in to help him? That is so irresponsible.

Please batman should relate better to other adults (Alfred, Gordon) then a 13 year old kid.But Batman isn't the one who "brings him in". He never did. Dick Grayson falls in his lap because Batman, who we all know at heart can't leave people to die, won't stand by and see this kid orphaned by the people he has sworn to stop.

Batman is that outward expression of young Bruce wanting a man like the one he has become to come in and save his parents. Robin is a failure on his part, because Bruce sits idly by in a crowd, unable to react in time to save a child from--losing his parents. It's Grayson's own want of revenge that drives him to take on the Robin mantle, all the while Bruce trying to persuade him otherwise, because deep down Bruce doesn't want anyone else to be like him.

Also, Dick is highly skilled. So quit painting him as just some helpless target. He is an ace acrobat, even beyond Batman himself. Dick also comes from humble surroundings and was taught the hard way how to defend himself. It is the height of absurdity for you to suggest that Bruce taking him in to care for him was irresponsible. He wasn't looking for a partner, he found one.

[The Overlord]

But Batman isn't the one who "brings him in". He never did. Dick Grayson falls in his lap because Batman, who we all know at heart can't leave people to die, won't stand by and see this kid orphaned by the people he has sworn to stop.


Batman is that outward expression of young Bruce wanting a man like the one he has become to come in and save his parents. Robin is a failure on his part, because Bruce sits idly by in a crowd, unable to react in time to save a child from--losing his parents. It's Grayson's own want of revenge that drives him to take on the Robin mantle, all the while Bruce trying to persuade him otherwise, because deep down Bruce doesn't want anyone else to be like him..

And Bruce still didn't just call child services, because....

Seriosuly if batman didn't want Robin as a side kick, he could have tried a lot harder than that to stop it from happening.


Also, Dick is highly skilled. So quit painting him as just some helpless target. He is an ace acrobat, even beyond Batman himself. Dick also comes from humble surroundings and was taught the hard way how to defend himself. It is the height of absurdity for you to suggest that Bruce taking him in to care for him was irresponsible. He wasn't looking for a partner, he found one.

I don't care if he is an ace acrobat, you put a 13 year old in a get up like that and he would be dead in week, the only reason that doesn't happen in the comics is because of character shields. Heck after Jason Todd, batman havng rbins in the comics just seems completely irrepsonsible.

[ShadowBoxing]

And Bruce still didn't just call child services, because....
...Because when he saw his parents die he realized that Robin was him and he could let him go without a family because he saw what path that leads a person down...I already explained that.
Seriosuly if batman didn't want Robin as a side kick, he could have tried a lot harder than that to stop it from happening.
He didn't encourage him to do it, he didn't buy him a costume, he didn't even agree to train him. Robin went out on his own and sought revenge against the killer of his family. Have you ever actually read Batman: Year Three or Dark Victory...I guess not.
I don't care if he is an ace acrobat, you put a 13 year old in a get up like that and he would be dead in week
Seriously, you have your head in the clouds if you think Bruce would last a day as Batman. I don't care how expensive the batsuit is.
the only reason that doesn't happen in the comics is because of character shields. Heck after Jason Todd, batman havng rbins in the comics just seems completely irrepsonsible.
Jason Todd was killed by the fans because he was unpopular. People saw him as an arrogant brat who was simply a placeholder until Dick got back to his senses, and they voted him dead via a call center set up during the "Death in the Family" arc. Jason Todd was also not that good of a fighter, as stated time and again in the comics.

[The Overlord]

...Because when he saw his parents die he realized that Robin was him and he could let him go without a family because he saw what path that leads a person down...I already explained that..

And that makes Bruce a qualified parent?

Heck from what i have read Batman isn't a very good parent and a foster family is a better environment for children than anything Bruce can provide. It seems like Bruce isn't being very resposible there.

...
He didn't encourage him to do it, he didn't buy him a costume, he didn't even agree to train him. Robin went out on his own and sought revenge against the killer of his family. Have you ever actually read Batman: Year Three or Dark Victory...I guess not...

I did read Dark Victroy and still doesn't change the Bruce taking Dick as as ward is very shakey in the first place.

...
Seriously, you have your head in the clouds if you think Bruce would last a day as Batman. I don't care how expensive the batsuit is....

True, but at least he wouldn't be putting a 13 year old at risk.

...
Jason Todd was killed by the fans because he was unpopular. People saw him as an arrogant brat who was simply a placeholder until Dick got back to his senses, and they voted him dead via a call center set up during the "Death in the Family" arc. Jason Todd was also not that good of a fighter, as stated time and again in the comics.

Yet Batman kept him till he "died", he never thought to call child services or something. Robin as concept just makes bruce looks irrepsonsible, clearly he is not suited to be a parent and its something he should have realized a while ago.

[ShadowBoxing]

And that makes Bruce a qualified parent?

Heck from what i have read Batman isn't a very good parent and a foster family is a better environment for children than anything Bruce can provide. It seems like Bruce isn't being very resposible there.
Then you haven't read very much. He raised Dick, Tim and Barbara and they turned out more than fine. Dick is perhaps now regarded as one of DC's greatest heroes. In Infinite Crisis Batman himself admitted Dick was the greatest man he knew, he even silenced Earth-2 Superman when he asked "is Dick a better man on your world".

If anything Bruce is a very qualified parent, but in the eyes of society and in the eyes of those who know his secret. If anything he is the ideal parent for someone like Dick. Dick provides Bruce with sanity and a friend with whom he can relate, Bruce provides Dick with the discipline and wisdom he needs in life. Without Bruce, Dick easily would have ended up in a juvenile hall, or worse: prison.
I did read Dark Victroy and still doesn't change the Bruce taking Dick as as ward is very shakey in the first place.
Not really, it makes perfect sense with the motivations of the characters. What's Bruce vow: he wants to make a world where no child is forced to watch their parents' murder. He fails, he not only fails himself, he fails in front of a crowd of spectators because he can't simply swoop down and reveal Batman to the world. So he atones by taking in that child and giving him a second chance at a normal life.
True, but at least he wouldn't be putting a 13 year old at risk.
1) It's Dick's choice to put himself at risk

2) It doesn't make a difference. If I can accept a grown man not getting shot and killed when that's the obvious outcome, I could accept Robin.

3) Why does every damn fanboy keep throwing out 13 and 12 like that's the age we would be forced to use. They aged Batman 6 years in Begins, he's supposed to be 24 when he starts, you can age Dick as well. Make him 15 or 16, and there are certainly 15 and 16 year olds capable of defending themselves...you want proof...come watch Golden Glove matches. They have teenagers that age who could fight rings around adults.
Yet Batman kept him till he "died", he never thought to call child services or something.
Why the hell would Batman call child services after he's given the kid a home? Do you even know Jason Todd's origin? Apparently not.
Robin as concept just makes bruce looks irrepsonsible, clearly he is not suited to be a parent and its something he should have realized a while ago.
Why? Dick was successful. He didn't take Tim willingly, Tim figured out his identity, along with Dick's. He was forced to take in Tim, and surprise, surprise, Tim turned out to be the second world's greatest detective. He seems like a damn good parent to me.

[NoirMan82]

I always laugh when people say Batman seems irresponsible for having Robin around. Did anyone watch Batman Begins? He killed a ton of ninjas, savagely beat thugs, resulting in the shooting of one, destroyed millions of dollars in public property, nearly killed several police officers, and nearly killed himself on numerous occasions. I'd say Bruce is already a little irresponsible.

The thing is, Batman never threw Dick out there for the hounds. Dick wanted his own justice, and Batman gave him an avenue to do so. Without Batman, Robin would have been some vigilante thug beating criminals to death, or getting killed himself. Now Robin, or Nightwing, is one of the greatest crimefighters in the world. Even Sherlock Holmes needed a Watson. Batman needs a Robin.

The story of Robin is the defining epicenter of the Batman mythos. We learn so much about the character through his interactions with Robin. I would go so far as to say Batman is sort of hollow without him. There's only so far Batman's characterization can go before he gets a little boring. After 'The Dark Knight' where can you really take Batman? All it takes is 2 films for his character to be fully fleshed-out. You throw Robin into the mix and that's at least 2 films of material there. See what I'm saying?

Personally, I would be happy if I never saw Robin in Nolan's franchise, but Dick Grayson has to be there in some capacity. There seems like no way around it. Eventually people will ask "where's Robin?", because that's the crux of the Batman epic. If you don't at least hint towards Dick becoming Robin people will soon get pissed. After all, Robin is actually up there in the pantheon of superhero's everyone knows, somewhere after Spider-Man and before Wonder Woman. The character has millions of fans that would love to see him finally done correctly by a visionary like Nolan.

[The Overlord]

Then you haven't read very much. He raised Dick, Tim and Barbara and they turned out more than fine. Dick is perhaps now regarded as one of DC's greatest heroes. In Infinite Crisis Batman himself admitted Dick was the greatest man he knew, he even silenced Earth-2 Superman when he asked "is Dick a better man on your world"..

You after dick told Bruce go to screw himself after a while?

Because it seems his emotional distance and blunt manner just pissed Dick after a while.


If anything Bruce is a very qualified parent, but in the eyes of society and in the eyes of those who know his secret. If anything he is the ideal parent for someone like Dick. Dick provides Bruce with sanity and a friend with whom he can relate, Bruce provides Dick with the discipline and wisdom he needs in life. Without Bruce, Dick easily would have ended up in a juvenile hall, or worse: prison."..

Do you really think the general audience will bruce was responsible for having a 13 year fight crime with him or do you just want just make a movie for fan boys?



Not really, it makes perfect sense with the motivations of the characters. What's Bruce vow: he wants to make a world where no child is forced to watch their parents' murder. He fails, he not only fails himself, he fails in front of a crowd of spectators because he can't simply swoop down and reveal Batman to the world. So he atones by taking in that child and giving him a second chance at a normal life..

So fighting clown seral killers so more of normal life than just gorowing up in a foster home?


1) It's Dick's choice to put himself at risk...

Because 13 year olds are competent to make that decision


2) It doesn't make a difference. If I can accept a grown man not getting shot and killed when that's the obvious outcome, I could accept Robin....

I doubt the general audience would think it responsible on batman's part.


3) Why does every damn fanboy keep throwing out 13 and 12 like that's the age we would be forced to use. They aged Batman 6 years in Begins, he's supposed to be 24 when he starts, you can age Dick as well. Make him 15 or 16, and there are certainly 15 and 16 year olds capable of defending themselves...you want proof...come watch Golden Glove matches. They have teenagers that age who could fight rings around adults...

So what, you still think the general public would think Golden Glove matches are partenal responsible?



Why the hell would Batman call child services after he's given the kid a home? Do you even know Jason Todd's origin? Apparently not....

Pre crisis or Post crisis origin?


Why? Dick was successful. He didn't take Tim willingly, Tim figured out his identity, along with Dick's. He was forced to take in Tim, and surprise, surprise, Tim turned out to be the second world's greatest detective. He seems like a damn good parent to me.

The fact is its Nolan's movie and her has proven himself a good film maker, if he doesn''t think Robin fits, that's his creative decision and say that's more important than appeasing robin fanboys.

[NoirMan82]

You after dick told Bruce go to screw himself after a while?

Because it seems his emotional distance and blunt manner just pissed Dick after a while.



Do you really think the general audience will bruce was responsible for having a 13 year fight crime with him or do you just want just make a movie for fan boys?




So fighting clown seral killers so more of normal life than just gorowing up in a foster home?



Because 13 year olds are competent to make that decision



I doubt the general audience would think it responsible on batman's part.



So what, you still think the general public would think Golden Glove matches are partenal responsible?



Pre crisis or Post crisis origin?



The fact is its Nolan's movie and her has proven himself a good film maker, if he doesn''t think Robin fits, that's his creative decision and say that's more important than appeasing robin fanboys.

Why do you keep saying "Robin Fanboys" like it's the word n***er? The character has only been around for 60 years, it's a little nromal if people like him. I think people who have such a limited scope and understanding of the character are why there are so many reservations about introducing him. If people loved Spider-Man, why not Robin? Robin is essentially a Spider-Man without powers that works with another crimefighter. If people line up in drove to see Harry m-f'ing Potter, why would they have a problem with Robin? When you really think about it, Batman is a far more ridiculous concept than Robin himself.

[the_monk]

Let me start my entry into this thread by stating 2 things.

1) I'm not a comic-book reader.
2) I'm not going to state my opinion on the Robin character.

I think people are getting all worked up here about nothing. The simple fact of the matter is that the Robin character would not work in the context of these films. Not necessarily because he's a teenager and would get killed, and not necessarily because of the costume.

The simple reason is because Nolan has spent a considerable amount of time building up the character of Bruce Wayne. What type of character has he developed? One of extreme loneliness and complexity. One that would never allow himself to have any kind of sidekick, be it Robin, Batgirl, or anyone else for that matter. He already feels guilt and anger. Why would he let someone else into his world? It would completely kill all the work they've done building up the duality of Batman and Bruce Wayne.

This is also Bruce Wayne's journey, not just Batman's. If they get away from this idea, then the very keystone of the plot is removed and the series collapses under its own considerable weight.

[omerhead]

Check out the Jeph Loeb defends Robin thread.

[Keyser Soze]

You're trying to make a stark contrast where one doesn't exist. Perhaps I could say the same thing about another character. Here watch: When you read any of the stuff about "The Dark Knight" aspiring to be a crime epic in the vein of "Heat" or "The Godfather", when you see the very grounded tone they're going for in the clips we've seen so far. Then you imagine a purple suited, maniacal clown in there.

That seems pretty retarded too, doesn't it. See, instead of using some sort of false argument about your expectations of Robin, let's actually look at the character. Is the character always a kid in spandex man panties and a bright yellow cape? No, in fact we've moved past that even in the comics. I don't see why fanboys piss and moan about Robin being in yellow tights, yet seem to have little problem with switching Batman to a Robocop suit. I'd say it's a pretty safe assumption that given the same costume designers who gave us the TDK suit, we wouldn't get a panel for panel translation of the Robin costume.

As you yourself later state, both Batman and The Joker were adjusted to fit into Nolan's take on the Batverse. Setting aside the costumes, Batman's still a dark, principled vigilante crimefighter, The Joker is still a murderous psychopath, and Robin is still a child who fights crime. When I think of hardened armed criminals flip-flopping and getting KOed by a kid it brings up images of "Home Alone" or "3 Little Ninjas".

Either that, or you skew early Robin far older than he should be, making him some petulant emo teenager, then it's "Batman Forever" all over again.

Yet the films are ABOUT the comics. See that problem. If the films are not the comics you've just made the perfect argument to through out Batman himself. He's not remotely realistic. Not his style of crimefighting, not his ability to magically find criminals, not even his suit...most of that is highly exaggerated...so really unless you think "Batman" should last one film so we can all see Bruce get shot and go "wow, well it's not the comics", then Robin should be included.

This argument is facetious, and holds no water. I said "the films are not the comics", not "real life is not the comics". With "Batman Begins", Nolan spent a lot of time creating a world that Batman could exist in. However, within the boundaries of this world, I don't see it being a place that Robin could exist.

Films are supposed to represent the mythos. Robin arguably is more important to that than even Joker, and definitely more important than Two-Face.

No one's denying that Robin is an important character. I'd say he's one of the last two central characters of the Batman cast yet to be adapted for this series, the other being Catwoman. But if I had to choose one to make the cut in the third film, it'd be Selina, because I could see her being a more interesting foil for Bruce in the next chapter of this story, I could see her fitting into Nolan's Batverse better. With Robin, I'd need to be sold on it. But if neither Nolan or Bale have the inclination to do the selling, I'm not going to be broken up about it. They've managed one perfectly good film without Robin, and it seems like they've pulled off another great one without him too. I'm not actively against his inclusion in the films, but I can totally understand why Nolan and Bale wouldn't want him, and I definitely don't think he's essential to the films.

And as for "Dark Victory", now you're just being combative. Robin held a very important place in that story, if you've actually read it instead of just looked at the pretty pictures. Batman's life was spiraling out of control, much like it is in TDK, and Robin comes in and provides the only shred of sanity Bruce has left, in effect saving him. So yeah, it's a tad more important to the story than some out of place element thrown in at the end.

I'm not being combative, I'll leave that to you. I'm just stating the truth. Yes, DICK GRAYSON has a prominent role in the story, and I'd even argue that "Orphans" is one of the best single chapters of a Batman story Jeph Loeb has ever written. But I specifically capitalised ROBIN, because ROBIN literally doesn't debut until the very end, being a general nuisance to the assembled supervillains in the Batcave.

[Saint]

As you yourself later state, both Batman and The Joker were adjusted to fit into Nolan's take on the Batverse. Setting aside the costumes, Batman's still a dark, principled vigilante crimefighter, The Joker is still a murderous psychopath, and Robin is still a child who fights crime. When I think of hardened armed criminals flip-flopping and getting KOed by a kid it brings up images of "Home Alone" or "3 Little Ninjas".

Either that, or you skew early Robin far older than he should be, making him some petulant emo teenager, then it's "Batman Forever" all over again.

If the writers are talentless hacks, certainly. Otherwise? No.

[ShadowBoxing]

If the writers are talentless hacks, certainly. Otherwise? No.Exactly. Why is there this perpetual assumption that writers would be, oh I dunno, creative enough that they could actually adapt the character in a realistic and dark tone.

[Keyser Soze]

If the writers are talentless hacks, certainly. Otherwise? No.

The Nolans are probably talented enough to adapt Robin to these films - as I've repeatedly said, I could be sold on Robin with the right execution. But if they don't have the inclination to do so, I'm more interested to see where they take the series instead.

[Saint]

I'm not challenging your preference for Nolan's movies. You posted a false dilemma: either Robin is a ridiculous child or a Batman Forever brat. This is only true for talentless hacks. I was only responding to the dilemma you proposed, which, frankly, I feel is ridiculous.

[NoirMan82]

I think people are getting a little miffed because it seems like others are attacking the validity of the character as opposed to his place in the franchise. I feel like the films are moving in progression that has to lead to the emergence of Richard Grayson. Robin comes in on the Batman mythos at the point in time where Batman is being consumed by his one man fight against crime. TDK deals totally with that theme. After that, well, it seems like Batman doesn't have a lot of growth left as a character. I vouch for Robin on that alone. After TDK, there's not much more you can put Bruce through alone, besides new villains, but that gets old fast. It's a big reason Robin was brought in for Batman Forever, but it too bad that the movie took him in an awful direction.

[Keyser Soze]

I'm not challenging your preference for Nolan's movies. You posted a false dilemma: either Robin is a ridiculous child or a Batman Forever brat. This is only true for talentless hacks. I was only responding to the dilemma you proposed, which, frankly, I feel is ridiculous.

I didn't mean to suggest that these are the only two ways Robin can be portrayed. What I meant is that these are the two biggest pitfalls that it would be all too easy for the character to fall into on the big screen. I don't think the character of Robin himself is a ridiculous kid or a petulant teen (well, maybe Jason Todd), I just think it would be a difficult job to translate him to the screen successfully in a way that doesn't fall to one extreme or the other, even for talented writers. If they felt they were up to the challenge, I'd be all for seeing how they go about it. But if they're not interested in that aspect of Batman, I wouldn't want it forced on them to the detriment of whatever film they DO have planned.

[kyuubijavi1]

If Robin appears I always thought of him as not having a role in the next movie but being hinted at for being the successor for Batman as a sign for bats to have some one to pass on the mantle later on then in the 4th establish him as a character 5th show them fighting with it ending on bad terms 6th have him come back as Nightwing to show he isn't going to follow in his mentors footsteps but still holds onto his ideals

[wootbaby]

And that's kind of the point. Batman can't be doom and gloom all the time, he just can't. He spiral out of control and kill himself. This idea of a hapless loner is nice and all, but somewhere down the line the character actually has to progress and move somewhere. It's been a classic motif in literature for centuries for the orphaned hero to reconcile his grief by creating the make-shift family. If Robin is the light to Batman's dark then he truly serves a significant purpose.

no. you have it backwards, it's BRUCE WAYNE (what's left of him) that needs that sort of anchor not Batman. The entire point of Batman is what happens to a MAN when he is entirely given up to vengance and retribution... he's a force of nature... no remorse, no emotions, no pity, no regrets. He's somehow more than a man (without the weaknesses of a man) but also somehow less of a man (the emotions and things that make life worth living and connecting to other people).

of course throughout the batman comics there's the danger that Batman will lose his remaining connection to Bruce Wayne and with him what's left of his humanity but the entire point is that a normal man CANNOT DO what batman does... there is a price to be paid and it's a price paid in the blood of Batman's humanity. The idea that you can somehow become a "weekend Batman..." crippling dudes at 5Am then come home and unwind and play with your son at 11AM counting on the kid to make your life "normal" is crazy. If anything it would be the other way around, the kid living with you would become unhinged (as various incarnations of Robin sometimes seem to be)

As for Dick, Bruce Wayne would absolutely take him under his wing. He would see he was taken care of, schooled, and probably a family to adopt him. He'd maybe become his "sponsor" and see him when he could and by all means possible keep him THE FAR FUK AWAY FROM BATMAN. But he'd NEVER let him live above the batcave or become so close to him. Think about it, maybe bruce does need anchors in his life (a role RACHEL plays in the movie ergo you dont even need Dick) but what he needs is an anchor to NORMALCY. It doesn't even make sense that having some 12 year old kid with you while you're out busted heads and hurting people would somehow MAKE YOU MORE HUMAN. If anything it's distancing both yourself and the kid from any sense of normalcy. Batman would NEVER want Robin to exist... Batman basically exists for the purpose that no other kid ever has to go through what he did... so no other "Batman" is ever needed to exist... yet he would himself CREATE that kid? makes NO sense and it's always been a huge weakness in batman ethos... something no writer wanted but the editor$$$ at DC forced upon them/

Robin arguably is more important to that than even Joker, and definitely more important than Two-Face. And as for "Dark Victory", now you're just being combative. Robin held a very important place in that story, if you've actually read it instead of just looked at the pretty pictures.

Robin represents the ultimate failure for batman. He symbolizes what he never wanted... the world to create another BEING like him through violence. Not only has he failed in that, it's almost as he himself has a hand in creating its legacy... a "second generation" of himself... seemingly not only will Batman be unable to save gotham in his lifetime he's created a legacy of vengence and violence that will continue through Robin and his other "heirs" into perpetuality.

Batman's dream would be for NO Robin to EVER exist and Dick Grayson to have as normal, boring, productive and uneventful life as possible. If what you say is true that Robin is somehow the most important representation of batman mythos (which is not correct imo) it would be the foreshadowing of Batman's ultimate FAILURE. He will NOT be successful, Gotham will NOT be saved and the cycle of violence will continue despite whatever his efforts are.

[LegendaryCaleb]

Well I'm glad Nolan and Bale feel the same about the issue cause I for one don't want to see Robin in Nolan's Batman universe.
i agree.

[Nightwing1977]

Nolan and Bale have turned Batman credible again. If they feel that Robin isn't the right direction for the franchise, then I believe them. If we get to Batman 4, maybe. But there's still enough to happen without the guy for another movie at least.

Same here. If they don't want Robin, then they don't. No need for some to be an ass & bash Nolan/Bale for not wanting him. It their film, their choice. If other don't like it, then they should shut up & go read the comics or watch the cartoons.

SM2 is better than SM3... I don't want Nolan to be forced into something he doesn't want to do.

Same here. If fans demand they put Robin in when Nolan don't want to, it will harm the movie.

And it funny some bash other who don't want Robin as "fanboys", but they complain not getting Robin in the film like one. Talk about hypocrite. :hehe: :hehe:

[Apollo]

they should just go straight to nightwing.

[Two-Face]

No way, if Nolan has to use Dick Grayson he has to explain his origin like he did with Batman.

[DACrowe]

At first I was against Robin being in these, but then I looked at Dark Victory again. He can work like that. Batman after TDK and the loses he's about to sustain will be at his darkest and grimmest. He'll lose faith and will resign himself as the Dark Knight without any humanity left, to the point of horrifying Alfred. He'll begin distancing himself from Gordon, etc.

Then he sees himself in Grayson after Grayson's parents are murdered like his. He adopts Grayson as his own and eventually trains the boy when he and Batman have a confrontation. That leads to Grayson getting his revenge on Zucco and at the end Robin can help in some small way and the end is Batman has for the first time in the trilogy brought a momentary respite of peace to Gotham City and knows he is making a difference for the better and now, even if he is knowingly committed to this endless crusade for the rest of his life, at least he is not alone.

[JokerLedger]

This is what I wrote in the other thread.

Some people don't understand or can't accept the fact that both Nolan and Bale don't want Robin in their movies. It's simple as that. That doesn't mean he won't show up somewhere down the line but as long as Nolan is at the helm, we won't be getting him and I'm with Bale on this 100%.

Yes, Robin is essential to the character of Batman like many say but not at the early stages of where Chris' films take place so right now, he is totally irrelevant to the trilogy. The only character that comes to mind right now that can impact both Bruce and Batman in the next movie is the introduction of Selina Kyle.

Right now we're dealing with the beginnings of Batman. We got his origin and now with TDK we're getting his realization. I don't know what the third movie will be about but Bruce Wayne is a character that is still being developed. The focus should stay on him rather than deal with the origin of a freaking child sidekick.

Let the next director and creative team tackle Robin and stop bothering Nolan & co.

[DACrowe]

1. If Nolan doesn't want to use him, I'm fine with that. SM3 shows what happens when you force a character down an artist's throat.

2. I think most people who says Robin fits like a glove for the third have read Dark Victory. If you've read the unofficial "Batman origins trilogy," it goes Year One (heavily influenced his arc in BB), TLH (heavily influences his and Harvey Dent's arcs in TDK) and DV. So the arc is already there. But if Nolan doesn't want to go that way, that's fine.

3. What makes you think there will be a "next creative" team? :p Seriously, fans seem to think their movies will go on forever. I have a hunch Batman 3 will be the last time we see Batman in a solo movie for a LONG time (though he'll probably show up in JL if WB ever gets that together).

I'm done. ;)

[Majik1387]

Here's my thing on the whole Robin thing. I just hate when the fanatic fanboys here say that Robin won't work onscreen at all in Nolan's new univere. To me that's just a ******** reasoning for writers who can't think of a good way of writing the character. Though, I am not one to want Robin in the movies right now, right away. I understand that it is Batman's early years, but that doesn't mean Robin can't ever fit down the line of movies, cuz let's face it, even if Nolan leaves after TDK or the 3rd movie, that won't mean that the Batman movies are done for.

[JokerLedger]

I love Dark Victory, it's one of my favorite graphic novels and I'm very well aware of how brilliant Robin is handled throughout. I think when we refer to 'Nolan's universe' we're thinking in terms of his trilogy. Assuming that a new director will come in to tackle the fourth film and beyond, we won't be in 'Nolan's universe' anymore. The foundations may have been set and may very well be a part of the new continuity but it won't be Nolan's vision. Kind of like the transition from Burton to Shumacher only not as extreme.

3. What makes you think there will be a "next creative" team? Seriously, fans seem to think their movies will go on forever. I have a hunch Batman 3 will be the last time we see Batman in a solo movie for a LONG time (though he'll probably show up in JL if WB ever gets that together).

Assuming that there will be a new director, he'll drag his friends and partners with him to bring his vision to the screen.

[8Diagrams(WU)]

Robin doesnt fit in these movies but dick grayson maybe. The idea of putting a minor on harms way is not happening. They could take the dick grayson character and make him nightwing as the energy filled martial artist/acrobat. Someone mid 20s and thats only there to help on the side. It would have to be at least a reasonable situation with this character for it to work.

[Two-Face]

Or don't do it at all.

[Caladbolg]

“If Robin crops up in one of the new Batman films, I’ll be chaining myself up somewhere and refusing to go to work.” - Christian Bale


I love this guy lol

[Nightwing1977]

I love this guy lol

Same here. Bale got quite a crazy sense of humor. :hehe:

[Poetic Chaos]

If they don't respect the character, they're not the right creative team to bring him to the screen.

[omerhead]

Either way I'm ok with it whether there will be Robin in Nolan's Batman film or he won't be, if Robin is in it, that's ok because Nolan will portray the character dark and faithful to the comic books like Jeph Loeb did in Dark Victory and Bale might accept it that Robin will be in it whether he likes it or not.

[Two-Face]

If they don't respect the character, they're not the right creative team to bring him to the screen.

I'm sure they respect every character but maybe they don't want to use Robin. I want a good Batman film with Robin or without him.

[DACrowe]

What if they skip Dick Grayson and move on straight to Jason Todd?! :D

....

Wait, guys--it was a joke. You know, haha, funny? Now just put the torches and pitchforks down? Can't we all just get along?

<Runs for life>. :eek:

[JackBauer]

I'm sure they respect every character but maybe they don't want to use Robin. I want a good Batman film with Robin or without him.

If they do, they're doing a damn good job at hiding it.

[turtlefocker]

maybe he just said this so people will stop asking him about Robin.. that probably got annoying by the hundredth time he was asked.

[Sun_Down]

Bale's comments seem to be in bad taste, IMO. Robin as a character(s) is complex, interesting and deserving of a proper big screen adaptation. More than that, he is an important part of the Batman mythos.

Having said that, however, I don't see the need to include Robin in the near future (i.e. the third film) and I completely support the idea of keeping Batman as a lone vigilante at this point. There's just so much left to do with Bruce and I'd rather see him become more developed than introduce a new character to eat up screen time.

[wellsy]

the best physical embodiment of Robin is ironically an ASIAN actor named Tony Jaa. He's about the size of an adult Nightwing and he too is the world's greatest acrobat. Look how this guy moves, he's untouchable exactly the way Dick Grayson would be in a fight. Towards the end of this clip (http://youtube.com/watch?v=0hbirAmaI7o) from Ong Bak is a scene where tony literally runs down the alley ON the shoulders and heads of the bad guys before they can react. This is the type of energy and dynamism of Robin that's never been shown, and why audiences would connect with him. What's NEVER been captured on film is the idea that this man is the greatest human (non-enhanced) embodiment of spiderman... but since he's human you dont use CGI you use the sickest human stunts possible using walls, furniture, other ppl as props.
That clip is pretty good. Humour is cheap, but the choreography (when they weren't going to replay heaven) was neat.

Having read through this thread, I could see Robin working in the current continuity. Of course, this isn't a "Robin or bust" statement, or "anything but Robin" (both of which are utterly stupid IMO). The progression would be very, very easy.

I read in the Sydney Morning Herald Spectrum section from the 5th that Two Face is being portrayed as a vigilante without the principles of Batman. Essentially, he's like Batman, but totally unrestrained.

In the third film, Batman increasingly finds himself going down this path himself in his one man crusade. Bruce still plays the part of the playboy, but finds it harder and harder to hide his moral self-destruction. He and Alfred fight, Batman falls out with Gordon, and he's finding himself ever more isolated.

This is where the character of Dick Grayson comes in. Now there has been a suggestion made in another thread that Dick was a witness who needed protection since he'd seen something he shouldn't have, blah blah blah. That isn't what I'm getting at. In the end, he needs to be taken in, perhaps more by Alfred than Bruce. Dick rarely sees Bruce, and starts to wonder where he is all the time. One night, Dick wakes up from a nightmare and hears Bruce coming in.

He then discovers the Bat cave, and Bruce tells him to forget he ever saw it and tells Alfred to get rid of him. Alfred refuses, saying words to the effect that Dick will end up far worse off than him unless he gets some guidance, not to mention Bruce hasn't been holding up to his one-man crusade very well.

Initially, he'd be nothing more than the guy on the radio, keeping Batman informed of police radio, etc, and occasionally making a joke (nothing campy please). Eventually these jokes, as well as Dick's overall presence and determination to help in the crusade against crime, arrest Batman's decline into amorality, and provide a key point of difference between him and Two-Face.

Possibly one way to end the movie is that Gordon lights up the Bat signal. Dick tells Batman the signal's gone up, but Batman is busy and sends Dick, as Robin (of course, this is the very end of the movie).

In short, Robin acts as messenger rather than direct crime fighter. When he does fight, he only does so when the odds are already stacked in his favour (don't fight battles that you haven't already won, no?).

Intelligence and patience are really all a writer needs to bring in Robin and make it work.

[omerhead]

Skipping to Jason Todd/Robin with the post-crisis origin could work, also Jason Todd post-crisis is more aggressive and darker than the other Robin's in the comic books. Bale might find Jason Todd a cooler Robin.

[The Shadow]

They should merge the two franchises together so it'd be Batman Begins,Batman, The Dark Knight, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Batman and Robin,...... Then the next movies could have Nightwing in them. : )

[Keyser Soze]

What if they skip Dick Grayson and move on straight to Jason Todd?! :D

....

Wait, guys--it was a joke. You know, haha, funny? Now just put the torches and pitchforks down? Can't we all just get along?

<Runs for life>. :eek:

In all seriousness, I wouldn't object to them skipping Dick Grayson and going onto Tim Drake. For my money, Tim Drake is the best Robin. But then again, on the other hand, perhaps what makes him the best is that he's followed Grayson and Todd, and how he compares/contrasts with them, so I dunno...

[El Payaso]

I'm not surprised. There's no way Bruce Wayne wants to become a father and no way someone would give him Dick in adoption being single and having a strong reputation as womanizer, alcoholic and after burning his own house down.

Batman is anything but a family starter or a father firgure.

Apparently, Dark Victory is Bales fav book (well, thats Wikipedia for you)
So its either a ruse or its true.
Id go for the latter

I'd go for Bale knowing that what works in comics doesn't always work on movies.

Even in DV, Robin wears some green shorts and yellow cape. No way that could be seen or felt serious in a movie.

If they don't respect the character, they're not the right creative team to bring him to the screen.

The actual movies seem to diagree with that aseessment.

[BATS N' HORNETS]

i enjoy ROBIN & think that anyone who likes the nolanverse @ all, needs to acknowledge that the character could be done JUST AS GOOD AS BATMAN WAS....


Bale's refusal to do Robin, shows only that he cares about this project and he's probably following NOLAN like a german to a nazi &

IF HE REALLY CARED ABOUT BATMAN, HE WOULD HELP THE FILMMAKER's FIND A WAY TO INCLUDE SUCH A PIVOTAL PART OF THE BATMAN UNIVERSE

[El Payaso]

i enjoy ROBIN & think that anyone who likes the nolanverse @ all, needs to acknowledge that the character could be done JUST AS GOOD AS BATMAN WAS....


Bale's refusal to do Robin, shows only that he cares about this project and he's probably following NOLAN like a german to a nazi &

IF HE REALLY CARED ABOUT BATMAN, HE WOULD HELP THE FILMMAKER's FIND A WAY TO INCLUDE SUCH A PIVOTAL PART OF THE BATMAN UNIVERSE

He cares so much he's choosing not to ruin it.

[turtlefocker]

They should merge the two franchises together so it'd be Batman Begins,Batman, The Dark Knight, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Batman and Robin,...... Then the next movies could have Nightwing in them. : )


Most confusing statment I've ever heard...

[JackBauer]

I'm not surprised. There's no way Bruce Wayne wants to become a father and no way someone would give him Dick in adoption being single and having a strong reputation as womanizer, alcoholic and after burning his own house down.

Considering the fact that he knows what it's like to grow up without a father, it's not exactly a stretch to think he wouldn't want to see the same happen to Dick, especially when he could've prevented it. There could be tons of reasons for why he would want to guide Dick. Probably not now, but in the future, definitely.

Besides, you're talking as if Gotham wasn't a ridiculously crooked city with an easily bendable system.

Batman is anything but a family starter or a father firgure.

Yeah, that's why there is a "bat-family"... :whatever:

You may not like it, but as far as the comics are concerned (and they are the ultimate source of canon), Batman's pretty much made himself a surrogate family.

As far as the movies go, there's absolutely NO reason why, in time, he couldn't come to be a father figure.

Having him be a broody loner forever gets a little boring, to say the least.

I'd go for Bale knowing that what works in comics doesn't always work on movies.

I'd go for him being narrow-minded and ignorant on what Robin and his relationship with Batman's all about.

Even in DV, Robin wears some green shorts and yellow cape. No way that could be seen or felt serious in a movie.

And Batman wears black and grey spandex. But you don't see that on the screen, do you?

[Poetic Chaos]

The actual movies seem to diagree with that aseessment.

How?

[terry78]

See, the thing is...Bruce Wayne grows over time. That's how it's always been in every book. He has started out as the dark loner, and even when he has Grayson, he still takes on that persona of dark loner for the most part, since there has been many times where he'll tell Robin to back off due to the immense danger of something he's dealing with.

[El Payaso]

Considering the fact that he knows what it's like to grow up without a father, it's not exactly a stretch to think he wouldn't want to see the same happen to Dick, especially when he could've prevented it.

Exactly, him not having a father is why he wouldn't know how it's like to raise a kid.

If he wants to prevent orphans the bad experience he should be adopting tons fo them.

There could be tons of reasons for why he would want to guide Dick.

Yes, like not being there for him since he's Batman. Not providing the kid a normal life or a mother. Maybe exposing an underage's life to risks that not even him is certain to avoid successfully himself.

Great noble reasons all over the place.

Besides, you're talking as if Gotham wasn't a ridiculously crooked city with an easily bendable system.

Not for a man that has devoted his life to finish that very corruption. That's why he won't kill killers, that's why he won't take advantage and feed the very corruption he's trying to stop.

Plus it doesn't take out the fact that the kid is not going to have a normal life.

Yeah, that's why there is a "bat-family"... :whatever:

A concept in comics doesn't validate a thing. For the same reason, why not going with "batmyte" since there's one in comics.

You may not like it, but as far as the comics are concerned (and they are the ultimate source of canon), Batman's pretty much made himself a surrogate family.

If you didn't notice this franchise is not comics but movies and they're changing a lot from them already. So what happens in the comics is not mandatory for movies.

As far as the movies go, there's absolutely NO reason why, in time, he couldn't come to be a father figure.

Except that Batman is not a family man and he wouldn't twist an underage's life only to have a colorful partner whose life would be in constant danger.

Having him be a broody loner forever gets a little boring, to say the least.

Having him as a single father who puts his son's life in danger while using a colorful suit is quite ridiculous. That's why the best directors are avoiding Robin and Nolan is not the exception.

I'd go for him being narrow-minded and ignorant on what Robin and his relationship with Batman's all about.

He read Dark Victory so he knows.

And knowing he says No to that.

It's not about ignorance but knwoing what fits the character the way he is in movies.

[nolan's roll'n]

Good! I hate Robin.

[El Payaso]

How?

Because BB and TDK are proof enough that they do respect the character and they are the right creative team to bring Batman to the screen

[Caladbolg]

Agreed El Payaso.

Considering the fact that he knows what it's like to grow up without a father, it's not exactly a stretch to think he wouldn't want to see the same happen to Dick, especially when he could've prevented it. There could be tons of reasons for why he would want to guide Dick.

Man, they didnt even bother naming him Richard lol!

[terry78]

I suspect the ones that don't want Robin are these youngsters that haven't been reading the earlier books or been through most of the Bat-library.

[El Payaso]

Your suspicions are wrong. Here is me, 34 years old and a Bat-fan since 1979.

[wellsy]

I think really the problem is just that, as has been pointed out, Batman is in his early years in this Nolan trilogy. Nolan himself would be uncertain with how to handle Robin/Dick, and previous incarnations show how hard it is to actually provide a good adaptation of the character.

However, to rule him out entirely as Bale has I find to be ignorant. If it's a horrible adaptation, bring out the chains, but I don't want him to scuttle a good adaptation of the character (or any character for that matter). My previous post shows that it's possible to go down the route of Robin, but I'd prefer not to see that until after the 3rd movie (though a hint towards the Graysons would be nice in setting things up).

[ShadowBoxing]

Exactly, him not having a father is why he wouldn't know how it's like to raise a kid.
He had a father until he was twelve, and certainly knew him well enough by then to understand what it took to be a father.
If he wants to prevent orphans the bad experience he should be adopting tons fo them.
And, of course, as the story goes, he adopts quite a few. Between Tim and Dick, and then the rest of the Bat-family...but then...you're blatantly using false logic to oversimplify things as it stands. Batman never adopts Dick for that reason. First and foremost, he never adopts Dick as his ward until years later, after he's proven himself as Robin. He didn't want that kid, remember, he fell in his lap. He created Batman for one sole purpose: because he himself wished "Batman" was there to save his parents. We even see in Batman/Superman that given the chance, Batman himself steps in to save his own parents. Yet with Dick we see him paralyzed by fear, the fear to expose himself in a crowd, resulting in the death of Dick's parents. Certainly this is the perfect progression of the movie. Batman Begins is about Batman overcoming fear, and creating a guise to protect his family, now we see how that act bites him in the ass, and is really a result of that fear.
Yes, like not being there for him since he's Batman.
Yet he is there for him...so, that's not true.
Not providing the kid a normal life or a mother.
Try having a "normal" life after your parents are murdered. There was going to be nothing normal about Dick's life after that. Let's try an experiment, it's been done to death across America. Kid's parents dies so he goes and lives with foster parents, and surprise, nine times out of ten he becomes a deliquent. Batman is the structure Dick needs, because only Batman can truly understand him. Dick would've sought revenge on Zucko with or without Bruce's help, the only difference is Dick would've ended up in a bloody pool without him. Dick was poor, no one cared about him, and he didn't have a family, or any family for that matter, who would've taken someone like him in. Likely he would've sat in that foster home rotting, if not turning towards the streets.
Maybe exposing an underage's life to risks that not even him is certain to avoid successfully himself.
Dick chose that life, Bruce didn't choose it for him. Bruce can only prepare him for it as best as possible, and so he does. I hate this notion that, all of the sudden, Batman is a crappy teacher. Yes, Batman sucks so much at crime fighting that he could teach an already skilled youngster how to fight. Lord no.:whatever:
Not for a man that has devoted his life to finish that very corruption. That's why he won't kill killers, that's why he won't take advantage and feed the very corruption he's trying to stop.

Plus it doesn't take out the fact that the kid is not going to have a normal life.
Define "normal" for me please, because it's getting thown around like a used needle at a Lindsey Lohan party. Dick's life, by your definition, already isn't normal because he LOST HIS GODDAMN MOTHER AND FATHER DUE TO CRIME. What is "normal" about that, exactly?
A concept in comics doesn't validate a thing. For the same reason, why not going with "batmyte" since there's one in comics.
Straw Man. Batmyte is not a major character in the mythos. Robin has been around since Detective Comics #38, meaning he's only 11 issues shy of Batman's first appearance. He's been around, and he's still around
If you didn't notice this franchise is not comics but movies and they're changing a lot from them already. So what happens in the comics is not mandatory for movies.
No, but you'd like to think they'd keep some of the important elements, wouldyathink? Maybe we shouldn't include the Joker, or a Bat-themed costume, or even the Batcave, since all are rather silly when you think about them. They themselves have admitted turning to the comics for the movie ideas, so you can't have it both ways. If your going to adapt a character's story, namely Batman, it ought to be reflective of HIS ACTUAL story, and his story most definitely includes Robin.
Except that Batman is not a family man and he wouldn't twist an underage's life only to have a colorful partner whose life would be in constant danger.
You keep acting like Dick is taken in as his son, and that really, he wants to throw the football around with him. You're, again, misrepresenting the comics for your weak arguments benefit. Dick and Bruce are not "family", even Bob Kane himself admitted Dick was introduced to be Batman's Watson. Someone with whom Bruce could confide in, and bridge an understanding with. It was not done initially to "lighten up the book" (which was a kid's book before Robin came onboard) since it still kept it's original pulp feel. Dick is Bruce's better half, it's not his kid. Bruce doesn't joke, he sits there in his brooding and dark corner. Without Dick, he'd die alone and defeated. Dick actually shows him there is something worthwhile left in the world, because despite losing his own parents, Dick doesn't spiral down a path of alienation like Bruce does, nor does he socially cripple his life. Dick has people skills, he bridges friendships and is the light to Batman's incessant dark, and a character nor a movie can be dark all the time.
Having him as a single father who puts his son's life in danger while using a colorful suit is quite ridiculous. That's why the best directors are avoiding Robin and Nolan is not the exception.:huh:Riiiiiiggggghhtttttt, because Nolan, to date is the ONLY directed not to even consider Robin. Both the 1940, 1950, 1960, 1990 and Bruce Timm all decided to use Robin, and I'd say Timm has a wee bit better handle on the character than Nolan does.
He read Dark Victory so he knows.

And knowing he says No to that.

It's not about ignorance but knwoing what fits the character the way he is in movies.
Or it's about ignorance, and trying to act all high and mighty. Something they've done from the start.

[Soundwave88]

I always hated Robin. So, I'm happy! :D

hell ya brother!:oldrazz:

[El Payaso]

He had a father until he was twelve, and certainly knew him well enough by then to understand what it took to be a father.

Perfect. Then he has to know that a lonely crimefighter life risking your life with no female mopther presence is not healthy for an underage.

And, of course, as the story goes, he adopts quite a few. Between Tim and Dick, and then the rest of the Bat-family...but then...you're blatantly using false logic to oversimplify things as it stands. Batman never adopts Dick for that reason. First and foremost, he never adopts Dick as his ward until years later, after he's proven himself as Robin. He didn't want that kid, remember, he fell in his lap. He created Batman for one sole purpose: because he himself wished "Batman" was there to save his parents. We even see in Batman/Superman that given the chance, Batman himself steps in to save his own parents. Yet with Dick we see him paralyzed by fear, the fear to expose himself in a crowd, resulting in the death of Dick's parents. Certainly this is the perfect progression of the movie. Batman Begins is about Batman overcoming fear, and creating a guise to protect his family, now we see how that act bites him in the ass, and is really a result of that fear.

So Batman becomes the symbol of a human orphanage out of personal isues; a man that guides underages’ lives into a life of risk outside the law. That clearly ruins the dark solitary figure he’s meant to be. Batman and underages don’t mix unless he’s trying to find a succesor which should happen when he’s old enough and the kid is old enough to make an adult decision about his life.

Yet he is there for him...so, that's not true.

Sure, they go picnic every weekend and he takes him to chase criminals while starting his training. If it’s so, that’s both risking the child’s life while not being fully prepared (if he can ever be) and some solid reason for the police to chase Batman himself for perverting and risking underages.

Try having a "normal" life after your parents are murdered.

Totally possible. Even more compared to what Batman is supposed to offer to the kid.

There was going to be nothing normal about Dick's life after that.

Not risking his life every night and have a stepmother and stepfather is a good start.

Let's try an experiment, it's been done to death across America. Kid's parents dies so he goes and lives with foster parents, and surprise, nine times out of ten he becomes a deliquent.

Let’s try another one: a kid loses his parents, he puts some colorful underwear and a cape and goes to the street to chase criminals. 10 out of 10 die.

Batman is the structure Dick needs, because only Batman can truly understand him.

Are you saying we need people in weird costumes fighting crime outside the law in real world because foster parents don’t seem to be working and no one else will understand them?

Dick would've sought revenge on Zucko with or without Bruce's help, the only difference is Dick would've ended up in a bloody pool without him.

With Bruce’s help, being a costumed crimefighter, it is entirely possible for a boy to end up in a bloody pool. The kid has to be tought not to go after revenge.

Dick was poor, no one cared about him, and he didn't have a family, or any family for that matter, who would've taken someone like him in. Likely he would've sat in that foster home rotting, if not turning towards the streets.

Are you telling me that a kid that loses his parents have no healthier option in life but become an illegal crimefighter?

There are people and couples that care for those children. With them their lives won’tbe put in jeopardy night after night either in crime or crimefight.

Dick chose that life, Bruce didn't choose it for him. Bruce can only prepare him for it as best as possible, and so he does.

So if a kid decides to burn things up we better help him because he’s going to do it anyways and ultimately it’s his decision?

Bruce can be responsible only for his own decisioons. As for an underage he has no moral or legal meddling to do but to keep the boy’s life safe (which won’t happen being Robin).

I hate this notion that, all of the sudden, Batman is a crappy teacher. Yes, Batman sucks so much at crime fighting that he could teach an already skilled youngster how to fight. Lord no.

He can teach all he wants. But to people that are adult to decide, not to convince a child that costumes and personal fights are the way to raise him.

Define "normal" for me please, because it's getting thown around like a used needle at a Lindsey Lohan party. Dick's life, by your definition, already isn't normal because he LOST HIS GODDAMN MOTHER AND FATHER DUE TO CRIME. What is "normal" about that, exactly?

Normal as in no costumed personal crimefighter ouitside of the law, risking your life every night. Normal as in mother and father and a home.

And I know you know perfectly what I’m talking about

[El Payaso]

Straw Man. Batmyte is not a major character in the mythos. Robin has been around since Detective Comics #38, meaning he's only 11 issues shy of Batman's first appearance. He's been around, and he's still around

I’m only ruling out the “If it’s in comics then it’s ok.”

Robin might have been there for long years. It’s still not a good idea for movies. Specially the ones trying to take the character seriously.

No, but you'd like to think they'd keep some of the important elements, wouldyathink? Maybe we shouldn't include the Joker, or a Bat-themed costume, or even the Batcave, since all are rather silly when you think about them. They themselves have admitted turning to the comics for the movie ideas, so you can't have it both ways. If your going to adapt a character's story, namely Batman, it ought to be reflective of HIS ACTUAL story, and his story most definitely includes Robin.

It’s not about keeping the elements but to choose the good ones. Batsuit, batcave, batmobile defines Batman.

Robin defines anti-Batman.

You keep acting like Dick is taken in as his son, and that really, he wants to throw the football around with him. You're, again, misrepresenting the comics for your weak arguments benefit. Dick and Bruce are not "family", even Bob Kane himself admitted Dick was introduced to be Batman's Watson.

Please tell me what other relationship could be allowed between a single billionaire and a kid. Because if there’s another kind of legal bond between them Michael Jackson is giving the party of the century.

That said, if they’re not a family, Dick needs one.

Someone with whom Bruce could confide in, and bridge an understanding with.

You mean what he has with Gordon, Alfred, Dent and now Rachel.

It was not done initially to "lighten up the book" (which was a kid's book before Robin came onboard) since it still kept it's original pulp feel. Dick is Bruce's better half, it's not his kid. Bruce doesn't joke, he sits there in his brooding and dark corner. Without Dick, he'd die alone and defeated. Dick actually shows him there is something worthwhile left in the world, because despite losing his own parents, Dick doesn't spiral down a path of alienation like Bruce does, nor does he socially cripple his life. Dick has people skills, he bridges friendships and is the light to Batman's incessant dark, and a character nor a movie can be dark all the time.

Batman certainly needs some of that in his life. Robin is just a bad idea to give that to the character.

But so far the “light to Batman’s dark” sound very anti-Batman. The color on the black; the normality in the obssession. With that the core inner conflict of Batman deflates.

Riiiiiiggggghhtttttt, because Nolan, to date is the ONLY directed not to even consider Robin.

It’s not the only one. That’s why I said “the best directors.”

Both the 1940, 1950, 1960,

Certainly not the best versions of the character by far.

1990

Only Schumacher wanted Robin. Again, “the best directors.”

and Bruce Timm all decided to use Robin, and I'd say Timm has a wee bit better handle on the character than Nolan does.

Let me know when he’s directing a real action movie of Batman with all the problems of adaptation and believability it implies. Comics and cartoons resist Robin very well. Even I can enjoy a good story with Robin. But not on the big screen.

Or it's about ignorance, and trying to act all high and mighty. Something they've done from the start.

With great results so far.

[Poetic Chaos]

Because BB and TDK are proof enough that they do respect the character and they are the right creative team to bring Batman to the screen

I was talking about respect for Robin, that they clearly don't have, which makes them unfit to adapt him to films.

[Microchip]

Hopefully Dick Grayson'll show up in the first 2 minutes of the next film and proceed quickly to be messily devoured by cannibals so that he's out of this franchise for good. And Robin fans'll get to see him Nolanized, so they can stop complaining too. It's the only win-win solution I see.

[DV8]

Clearly Bale knows nothing about the character if he goes as far to make that joke. There's a difference in the character not fitting your preference, but implying he's lame or worthless is entirely another matter.

I have a feeling Bale's only knowledge of Robin is from the Adam West show, or the stereotype of the jolly sidekick. Shame.

Bale wasn't quoted as saying he was lame though . . . that was the writer of the article . . .

I think Bale is just having a little fun and working his charm w/ this rumor . . . the truth of the matter is there isn't room for Robin in this franchise, and I know that Robin can fit the tone in some aspects considering some of the past comics' story arcs; but we already had 2 Robin movies, a Joker movie and a Penguin/Christopher Walken movie . . . we need more BATMAN movies!!

plus Bale can't be all anti-Robin, afterall he auditioned for the role of Robin in Batman Forever ;)

[DV8]

Hopefully Dick Grayson'll show up in the first 2 minutes of the next film and proceed quickly to be messily devoured by cannibals so that he's out of this franchise for good. And Robin fans'll get to see him Nolanized, so they can stop complaining too. It's the only win-win solution I see.

hahaha . . .

[NoirMan82]

People are being so short-sighted with this issue it's a little sickening. Especially El Payaso. I respect you man, but you are severely skewering the matter at hand to fit your opinion. To say Robin doesn't work is almost a lie. The character has been around for over 60 years in various forms of media, I think he works just a little. Most people think of Robin as the "Holy ___" 60's version, that he hasn't been for decades, and they get the wrong idea about him.

I don't care what people say about Robin, he is no more ridiculous than a guy dressed up like a bat that fights a crazy man dressed up like a clown. If you think Robin is a bad character, Batman must be equally bad because they are cut from the same mold. If people like Alan Burnett and Bruce Timm made 2 incarnations of the character work, how not Nolan? Dick Grayson is not a character that can be ignored or tip-toed around. Batman gets very stale after a little while without Robin to zest things up. If I got another movie with the same ol' Bruce-Alfred dialog, I'd start getting itchy in my seat. The character has to go somewhere and the Robin orgin is one of the stops along the way.

[NoirMan82]

I’m only ruling out the “If it’s in comics then it’s ok.”

Robin might have been there for long years. It’s still not a good idea for movies. Specially the ones trying to take the character seriously.



It’s not about keeping the elements but to choose the good ones. Batsuit, batcave, batmobile defines Batman.

Robin defines anti-Batman.



Please tell me what other relationship could be allowed between a single billionaire and a kid. Because if there’s another kind of legal bond between them Michael Jackson is giving the party of the century.

That said, if they’re not a family, Dick needs one.



You mean what he has with Gordon, Alfred, Dent and now Rachel.



Batman certainly needs some of that in his life. Robin is just a bad idea to give that to the character.

But so far the “light to Batman’s dark” sound very anti-Batman. The color on the black; the normality in the obssession. With that the core inner conflict of Batman deflates.



It’s not the only one. That’s why I said “the best directors.”



Certainly not the best versions of the character by far.



Only Schumacher wanted Robin. Again, “the best directors.”



Let me know when he’s directing a real action movie of Batman with all the problems of adaptation and believability it implies. Comics and cartoons resist Robin very well. Even I can enjoy a good story with Robin. But not on the big screen.



With great results so far.

Take all your issues with the Batman/robin dynamic and apply them to the Alfred/Bruce Wayne dynamic. If you were hired instead of Bob Kane we may be discussing an Alfred: The Responsible Guardian movie instead. We'd get into big debates on how Alfred slapped that crazy crimefighting idea out of young Bruce's head. Or how about how Alfred sealed up the creepy old bat cave under the mansion. Or when Bruce wanted to learn martial arts? That righteous Alfred set him straight! Chess was a much less dangerous hobby for Brucey! Now look at Bruce! He's CEO of Wayne Interprises, and never has to worry about all the rampant crime infesting Gotham! Life is so good at the top. Oh, look at the paper. Some orphaned circus boy chased down the mobster who killed his family and murdered him in cold blood. If only he had an responsible guardian like Alfred around he'd be back on the trapeze instead of prison. Alack and alas, there was none.

Yeah, that story is a lot of fun....:whatever:

[El Payaso]

People are being so short-sighted with this issue it's a little sickening. Especially El Payaso. I respect you man, but you are severely skewering the matter at hand to fit your opinion. To say Robin doesn't work is almost a lie.

I say it doesn’t work on a serious Batman movie like what Nolan is doing. I quote myself: “Comics and cartoons resist Robin very well. Even I can enjoy a good story with Robin.”

The character has been around for over 60 years in various forms of media, I think he works just a little.

Agreed. Just a little. And mostly on comics and cartoons. 60 years around doesn’t make it a good idea for a movie.

I don't care what people say about Robin, he is no more ridiculous than a guy dressed up like a bat that fights a crazy man dressed up like a clown.

If the nature of the guy in a bat suit is lonely, tragic and dark and the guy in a clown make-up is crazy, psychopatic and ultimately sinister and then the boy in a yellow and red suit is supposed to help the first to fight the second then he’s quite an odd choice for a character in that story. Unnecessary.

If you think Robin is a bad character, Batman must be equally bad because they are cut from the same mold.

Unless Batman is a boy helping another costumed character to fight crime, I don’t see the same mold.

Costumed crimefighter is not the issue that I object. But a sidekick, an underage assistant in a colorful suit along the dark character. Now if we consider he’s also some kind of adoptive son of the dark tragic hero we can kiss the credibility and seriousness good-bye.

If people like Alan Burnett and Bruce Timm made 2 incarnations of the character work, how not Nolan?

Because, as I said, cartoons doesn’t have the same problems making a character credible and serious as live action movies.

Dick Grayson is not a character that can be ignored or tip-toed around.

In fact he is, he has and has been successfully in the best Bat-movies so far.

Batman gets very stale after a little while without Robin to zest things up.

In fact Batman’s last franchise started feeling stale as soon as Robin appeared. Coincidentally, the next step they took was bringing Batman back to his dark lonely nature without Robin and so far it seems they’re doing great.

If I got another movie with the same ol' Bruce-Alfred dialog, I'd start getting itchy in my seat.

I know you want Robin. That doesn’t mean Batm,an gets stale without him.

The character has to go somewhere and the Robin orgin is one of the stops along the way.

If the character has to go somewhere he has plenty to go before parenthood. Let’s see Two-face, the old friend that become a criminal, Catwoman the love-passion-hate in Batman’s life, his own demons, Gordon, Rachel, the impossibility of a normal life, etc etc.

Take all your issues with the Batman/robin dynamic and apply them to the Alfred/Bruce Wayne dynamic. If you were hired instead of Bob Kane we may be discussing an Alfred: The Responsible Guardian movie instead. We'd get into big debates on how Alfred slapped that crazy crimefighting idea out of young Bruce's head. Or how about how Alfred sealed up the creepy old bat cave under the mansion. Or when Bruce wanted to learn martial arts? That righteous Alfred set him straight! Chess was a much less dangerous hobby for Brucey! Now look at Bruce! He's CEO of Wayne Interprises, and never has to worry about all the rampant crime infesting Gotham! Life is so good at the top. Oh, look at the paper. Some orphaned circus boy chased down the mobster who killed his family and murdered him in cold blood. If only he had an responsible guardian like Alfred around he'd be back on the trapeze instead of prison. Alack and alas, there was none.

Yeah, that story is a lot of fun....:whatever:

Mnope. Alfred didn’t take Bruce and adopt him and guide his rage as a costumed crimefighter. Bruce made his choice alone and held it until he was an adult. Until then he had a regular childhood with grief, yes. Pain, of course. But not being the underage sidekick of a costumed adult who allows him to risk his life.

It was when Bruce was an adult that nobody could stop him from being Batman.

And as Batman he can’t adopt every orphan in order to give them a chance to be a justice symbol.

[JackBauer]

Mnope. Alfred didn’t take Bruce and adopt him and guide his rage as a costumed crimefighter. Bruce made his choice alone and held it until he was an adult.

Just like Dick did.

Until then he had a regular childhood with grief, yes. Pain, of course.

Just like Dick did.

But not being the underage sidekick of a costumed adult who allows him to risk his life.

It was when Bruce was an adult that nobody could stop him from being Batman.

You're completely dismissing the possibility that Dick, while still a child, can still be angry and brash enough to get the "revenge no matter what" thought in his head.

If Dick really sets his mind to that, it's not like adoptive parents can stop him from running out looking for revenge. And Bruce knows that, because he once felt like that himself.

And hell, if you take into consideration the whole revenge vs. justice theme from Batman Begins, it actually fits perfectly, because not only would Bruce be making sure that Dick would be able to handle himself, he'd be teaching the kid that difference.

Seriously, how the hell can people not see that?

[Zack Morris]

Imagine troubled Natalie Portman following Al Pacino around in Heat and helping him solve crimes. Robin in Christopher Nolan's Batman films would come off as slightly more believable than that.

[JackBauer]

Imagine troubled Natalie Portman following Al Pacino around in Heat and helping him solve crimes. Robin in Christopher Nolan's Batman films would come off as slightly more believable than that.

Hey, it worked with Léon. :D

Besides, it's apples and oranges. I know this must sound like heresy for the Nolan zombies, this is absolutely under no obligation to be as realistic as Heat. You think Batman Begins was as realistic as Heat?

It's called suspension of disbelief, people. It works quite well for movies based on comic books. Remember? This is based on a comic book! Shocker, I know. :whatever:

Hell, why do I bother?

[El Payaso]

Just like Dick did.

Really?

Ah well, if we’re talking of a 21 year old Robin then it starts to sound more plausible.

Still, Alfred never adopted Bruce and trained him to be Batman. Bruce did it on his own.

Just like Dick did.

Yes. Sadly, the rest is entirely different. Brcue wasn’t trained while being a kid.

You're completely dismissing the possibility that Dick, while still a child, can still be angry and brash enough to get the "revenge no matter what" thought in his head.

No, I’m not.

If Dick really sets his mind to that, it's not like adoptive parents can stop him from running out looking for revenge. And Bruce knows that, because he once felt like that himself.

Absolutely.

I’m talking about training him and taking him to the streets to fight criminals while he’s an underage. If he becomes an adult that can hold responsibility for his own person, actions and decisions, then he can become Robin if he wants it so much. As long as Batman is not encouraging him as an underage to risk his life for an obsession that could be passing.

Bruce knows that he needed a long training before becoming the crusader. He wasn’t fighting criminals as an underage as shouldn’t Robin.

And hell, if you take into consideration the whole revenge vs. justice theme from Batman Begins, it actually fits perfectly, because not only would Bruce be making sure that Dick would be able to handle himself, he'd be teaching the kid that difference.

And he’d be teaching Dick that a mature decision such as devoting and risking your life for something can’t be out of rage, without the proper training and being a kid.

Hey, it worked with Léon. :D

Besides, it's apples and oranges.

Yes, León a criminal, Batman a hero.

I know this must sound like heresy for the Nolan zombies, this is absolutely under no obligation to be as realistic as Heat. You think Batman Begins was as realistic as Heat?

I know it was very credible. And had no Robin.

It's called suspension of disbelief, people. It works quite well for movies based on comic books. Remember? This is based on a comic book! Shocker, I know. :whatever:

Adding a colorful boy as both a sidekick to Batman and an adopted child to Bruce Wayne (which could never happen, given Bruce’s reputation – not to mention Bruce wouldn’t want to be a father) is more of a suspension of taste.

[NoirMan82]

Really?

Ah well, if we’re talking of a 21 year old Robin then it starts to sound more plausible.

Still, Alfred never adopted Bruce and trained him to be Batman. Bruce did it on his own.



Yes. Sadly, the rest is entirely different. Brcue wasn’t trained while being a kid.



No, I’m not.



Absolutely.

I’m talking about training him and taking him to the streets to fight criminals while he’s an underage. If he becomes an adult that can hold responsibility for his own person, actions and decisions, then he can become Robin if he wants it so much. As long as Batman is not encouraging him as an underage to risk his life for an obsession that could be passing.

Bruce knows that he needed a long training before becoming the crusader. He wasn’t fighting criminals as an underage as shouldn’t Robin.



And he’d be teaching Dick that a mature decision such as devoting and risking your life for something can’t be out of rage, without the proper training and being a kid.



Yes, León a criminal, Batman a hero.



I know it was very credible. And had no Robin.



Adding a colorful boy as both a sidekick to Batman and an adopted child to Bruce Wayne (which could never happen, given Bruce’s reputation – not to mention Bruce wouldn’t want to be a father) is more of a suspension of taste.

You're really starting to confuse me, El. You're basically saying what was good for the goose isn't good for the gander. What Bruce did to undertake his mission to be Batman isn't good for Dick, because someone has to be super responsible for Dick, even though Alfred completely enabled Bruce to do everything he wanted in his crazy quest? That Bruce, perhaps the only human being around that understands Dick and can provide him with what he needs emotionally, financially, and spiritually, should let him rot in the corrupt foster service of Gotham (it is, read the Gotham Times)?

You've even disavowed the same story in other films that worked to a great degree. Leon was just a criminal, so that dynamic between him and Matilda only worked because of that? What about Lone Wolf and Cub? You're forgetting that these are movies, not the real world. And I know there's a realistic setting and yadd, yadda, yadda, but that can't limit what you portray, just how you portray it.

[Zack Morris]

Hey, it worked with Léon. :D



It worked for Leon, it wouldn't work for the Punisher. I agree with El Payaso; one is a criminal, one is a hero (and the Punisher is about the loosest definition of "hero" possible.)

There's also something inherently sad and interesting about a criminal passing down his craft, even though he knows he shouldn't, because it's all he has. Yet at the same time, Road To Perdition worked so well because O'Sullivan didn't want his child to turn out like him.

Besides, it's apples and oranges. I know this must sound like heresy for the Nolan zombies, this is absolutely under no obligation to be as realistic as Heat. You think Batman Begins was as realistic as Heat?

It's called suspension of disbelief, people. It works quite well for movies based on comic books. Remember? This is based on a comic book! Shocker, I know. :whatever:

Hell, why do I bother

Nolan has stated that Heat was an influence for TDK, which is why I used it as a comparison. Personally, I don't think these movies should stray too much farther than the new Bond series, as far as their connection to reality goes. An underage sidekick would take them way past that.

Finally, if it's based on a comic book, than why not Starro as the villain for the third movie?

1) He's faced Batman before.
2) A CGI Starro would look awesome.
3) Defeating an extra-terrestrial threat would be a great way for Batman to redeem himself in the eyes of Gotham's citizens.

[NoirMan82]

It worked for Leon, it wouldn't work for the Punisher. I agree with El Payaso; one is a criminal, one is a hero (and the Punisher is about the loosest definition of "hero" possible.)

There's also something inherently sad and interesting about a criminal passing down his craft, even though he knows he shouldn't, because it's all he has. Yet at the same time, Road To Perdition worked so well because O'Sullivan didn't want his child to turn out like him.



Nolan has stated that Heat was an influence for TDK, which is why I used it as a comparison. Personally, I don't think these movies should stray too much farther than the new Bond series, as far as their connection to reality goes. An underage sidekick would take them way past that.

Finally, if it's based on a comic book, than why not Starro as the villain for the third movie?

1) He's faced Batman before.
2) A CGI Starro would look awesome.
3) Defeating an extra-terrestrial threat would be a great way for Batman to redeem himself in the eyes of Gotham's citizens.

Starro was never a central character in the Batman mythos. Everyone who disagrees with Robin being in the franchise seems to be double talking. "It worked in Movie A, but it can't work for Batman", and that's just blind bias. A younger sidekick worked in films like The Professional, Road to Perdition, Matchstick Men, Reign of Fire, Star Wars, and so on. Now everyone's saying it can't work for Batman? It's ****ING BATMAN! After 70 years now are people going to start having issues with Robin, when it's pretty much been status quo longer than what most people have been alive?

Also if I here one more "endangering a youth" statement, I'll flip. These are comic book films, not a family court. It's not like Batman is throwing the guy out there with no training or means to defend himself. Besides, Robin has more god given talent than Bruce ever had. When I was 15 I defended myself against 5 thugs and walked away from it, are you saying Robin can't? To me the anti-robin argument is paper thin. So thin people are going of on crazy tangents that decades of history disagrees with. Either Robin is a witless kid, Bruce is an irresponsible prick, or somehow the legions of Bat-fans that have grown up with this character would now reject him because a film about a grown man dress up like a bat, jumping off rooftops is too realistic for him. Uhh, yeah, that makes sense.

[El Payaso]

You're really starting to confuse me, El. You're basically saying what was good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

I’m saying exactly the opposite. What Bruce did, Dick can do.

But Bruce wasn’t encouraged by an adult who dressed in a suit with a cape and a mask and wasn’t trained as a kid and put on the streets as an underage like Dick.

If Dick can have this desire to become a crimefighter and, just like Bruce, he can hold this desire over time and search a way by himself and travel to Himalayas or whatever the place is to provide himself a mentor and a training, then he’s free to do it.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

What Bruce did to undertake his mission to be Batman isn't good for Dick, because someone has to be super responsible for Dick, even though Alfred completely enabled Bruce to do everything he wanted in his crazy quest?

Alfred was responsible for Bruce; he didn’t encourage him to go to the streets to fight crime as an underage. Bruce did this on his own and started while being 18 or so. Before that he was too busy looking for revenge.

Bruce could go as far as to tell Dick that revenge won’t solve anything. But to train the kid and take him to the streets as an underage in not only ilegal but immoral.

That Bruce, perhaps the only human being around that understands Dick and can provide him with what he needs emotionally, financially, and spiritually, should let him rot in the corrupt foster service of Gotham (it is, read the Gotham Times)?

Thing is no one will give Dick to Bruce because of his reputation, he’s not marruied, he loves parties and women and to burn his own house up.

That said, I don’t think Bruce himself is looking for parenthood. I’m sure Dick is not the only one who Bruce could understand and provide what he needs emotionally, financially, and spiritually.

So what’s with the next kid whose parents were killed by gangsters? Adopt him too? Why not? Why would he adopt one but despise the next one?

That’s why the Bat-Orphanage doesn’t work. Batman is about to prevent more kids to lose their parents. For the consequences of crime there’s the philantropic wing of wayne Enterprises.

You've even disavowed the same story in other films that worked to a great degree.

No, I haven’t.

The idea could work fantastiuc with characters of a different nature.

Leon was just a criminal, so that dynamic between him and Matilda only worked because of that?

Amongst many many other things, yes. A criminal doesn’t necessarily care for what happens to an underage. Batman can’t overlook that.

And don’t forget there’s a romantic story between León and Matilda. We surely don’t want to go back to that for Batman.

What about Lone Wolf and Cub? You're forgetting that these are movies, not the real world. And I know there's a realistic setting and yadd, yadda, yadda, but that can't limit what you portray, just how you portray it.

In fact you can limit what you portray. That’s why Nolan won’t have Clayface or Bat-mite. Robin contradicts visually and conceptually what Batman is and why he is there for. In comics he can be fun and entertaining. In movies a kid ruins the seriousness of Batman and his lonely nature. The day Batman wants to start a family he better quit and get married.

[El Payaso]

After 70 years now are people going to start having issues with Robin, when it's pretty much been status quo longer than what most people have been alive?

Issues with Robin started decades ago. After decades of it Burton decided to rulke out the character and 20 years later Nolan is doing the same.

Also if I here one more "endangering a youth" statement, I'll flip. These are comic book films, not a family court. It's not like Batman is throwing the guy out there with no training or means to defend himself.

Batman himself got far more training durting his life. He was a grown up man when he finally put the suit on.

That said, it is not if Robin can or can’t defend himself. It’s the fact that an adult allowed him to put his life in danger. Batman does that, he goes to jail.

Besides, Robin has more god given talent than Bruce ever had.

That Bruce doesn’t know. To put an underage life in danger is ilegal and immoral no matter if he has talent or get lucky enough to survive.

When I was 15 I defended myself against 5 thugs and walked away from it, are you saying Robin can't? To me the anti-robin argument is paper thin.

You surviving one fight at 15 is paper thin. No adult encourage you to do that and make a career out of that. That’s the big difference.

So thin people are going of on crazy tangents that decades of history disagrees with.

Crazy tangent is to say that morals and laws are something Batman shouldn’t care for.

Either Robin is a witless kid, Bruce is an irresponsible prick, or somehow the legions of Bat-fans that have grown up with this character would now reject him because a film about a grown man dress up like a bat, jumping off rooftops is too realistic for him. Uhh, yeah, that makes sense.

The character is uneccessary and goes against what Batman is and is there for. Inside of the Batman fiction a Bruce Wayne adopting a kid and putting him on the streets to fight crime doesn’t make sense.

[NoirMan82]

Issues with Robin started decades ago. After decades of it Burton decided to rulke out the character and 20 years later Nolan is doing the same.



Batman himself got far more training durting his life. He was a grown up man when he finally put the suit on.

That said, it is not if Robin can or can’t defend himself. It’s the fact that an adult allowed him to put his life in danger. Batman does that, he goes to jail.



That Bruce doesn’t know. To put an underage life in danger is ilegal and immoral no matter if he has talent or get lucky enough to survive.



You surviving one fight at 15 is paper thin. No adult encourage you to do that and make a career out of that. That’s the big difference.



Crazy tangent is to say that morals and laws are something Batman shouldn’t care for.



The character is uneccessary and goes against what Batman is and is there for. Inside of the Batman fiction a Bruce Wayne adopting a kid and putting him on the streets to fight crime doesn’t make sense.

I think I finally see where you're coming from, El. But I think it's because you misinterpet what Batman and Robin is about. In retcon Batman didn't really adopt Dick, he was a material witness in the murder of his parents and Bruce just provided him a safe and temporary place to live out of guilt and empathy. We agree on one thing, Batman never wanted Robin. Bruce isn't out to be Dick's dad or his best friend, just his mentor.

While in the care of Bruce it became obvious that Dick was out for vengance. He wanted justice, just like Bruce did, but Dick was willing to run off into the night to find that justice. Training, or no training; Bruce or no Bruce. He was alot more wild and reckless than Bruce was at that age. Of course Bruce saw the vengance that raged inside the boy and he sympathized with it, how could he not? Batman gave him a path, a focus for that potentially destructive rage inside Dick. He tutored him, trained him, and when BATMAN thought Dick was ready, he became Robin.

Let's get one thing really clear. Bruce Wayne is not a responsible person. If he was, he would have become a cop or homocide detective. He wouldn't dress like a bat and maim criminals every night. He wouldn't cause untold property damage in Gotham city. Bruce is unhinged, and he is a living id. Bruce Wayne would have no issue with allowing Robin to fight crime. Does that make it right? No. But Bruce allows it. I think you're starting to forget Batman isn't quite sane.

Also, here's a story about how well the adoption service in America works. A woman I saw on the Steve Wilkos Show adopted over 41 children, one of whom was wrongfully imprisoned for child molestation for 10 years. The woman proved herself to be irresponsible numerous times, but that state allowed her to adopt a child 41 times! Knowing this, how unrealistic would it be for a billionaire to be allowed to do it once? And like I said, Bruce isn't out to be Dick's dad. It takes years for him to officially adopt him. Bruce is merely a benefactor to Dick in the public's eye. He doesn't want to adopt every orphan, he just wants to help Dick. They are two men on the same mission, and Batman is making sure Robin does the mission right.

I think your issue, El, is that you're assuming certain factors about Robin and Bruce Wayne instead of researching a little. You're posing yourself as the authority on the matter. " The character is uneccessary and goes against what Batman is and is there for." That's what you said, right? But who are you to presume that when, in fact, that has been part of the character for so long? You, in a bit of arrogance I think, are saying that dozens of creators over decades of history are wrong.

Batman isn't Frank Castle. He isn't a heartless machine of vengence. Is he dark? Yeah. Withdrawn? Yeah. But that isn't his limits to that. He's still a man that needs friends and partners in his efforts. There's a big part of him that is sympathetic and passionate about the plight of others. It is that part of Batman that makes him a righteous tool of justice instead of a maniac hell-bent on revenge. It is that part of him that feels for the orphan Richard Grayson. It is that part of him that can't deny Dick the very thing he has dedicated his entire life to. It's the core of Batman. He's a man, human and flawed. Alone, sad, angry, joyous, excited, right, wrong, sympathetic, vengeful, and all things in between. The reason we all love Batman is because he is human underneath it all. The origin of Robin is one of the greatest displays of that humanity in the Batman legend, and that is why so many want to see it realized correctly.

[nightwing2010]

Starro was never a central character in the Batman mythos. Everyone who disagrees with Robin being in the franchise seems to be double talking. "It worked in Movie A, but it can't work for Batman", and that's just blind bias. A younger sidekick worked in films like The Professional, Road to Perdition, Matchstick Men, Reign of Fire, Star Wars, and so on. Now everyone's saying it can't work for Batman? It's ****ING BATMAN! After 70 years now are people going to start having issues with Robin, when it's pretty much been status quo longer than what most people have been alive?

Also if I here one more "endangering a youth" statement, I'll flip. These are comic book films, not a family court. It's not like Batman is throwing the guy out there with no training or means to defend himself. Besides, Robin has more god given talent than Bruce ever had. When I was 15 I defended myself against 5 thugs and walked away from it, are you saying Robin can't? To me the anti-robin argument is paper thin. So thin people are going of on crazy tangents that decades of history disagrees with. Either Robin is a witless kid, Bruce is an irresponsible prick, or somehow the legions of Bat-fans that have grown up with this character would now reject him because a film about a grown man dress up like a bat, jumping off rooftops is too realistic for him. Uhh, yeah, that makes sense. 100 Percent well said! Noirman! Nolan Goyer, and Most importantly Chuck roven and WB paying attention?!! i know damn well the two Long lasting producers that have been on since bat89 till begins and darkknight (Benjamin Melniker& Micheal E Uslan)agree that Robin is important to the mythos, ive seen all their interviews and articles on it!

[nightwing2010]

Issues with Robin started decades ago. After decades of it Burton decided to rulke out the character and 20 years later Nolan is doing the same.



Batman himself got far more training durting his life. He was a grown up man when he finally put the suit on.

That said, it is not if Robin can or can’t defend himself. It’s the fact that an adult allowed him to put his life in danger. Batman does that, he goes to jail.



That Bruce doesn’t know. To put an underage life in danger is ilegal and immoral no matter if he has talent or get lucky enough to survive.



You surviving one fight at 15 is paper thin. No adult encourage you to do that and make a career out of that. That’s the big difference.



Crazy tangent is to say that morals and laws are something Batman shouldn’t care for.



The character is uneccessary and goes against what Batman is and is there for. Inside of the Batman fiction a Bruce Wayne adopting a kid and putting him on the streets to fight crime doesn’t make sense.actually payaso, you pretty much in trying to make sense, actually come off making no sense at all! the charcters has been done right in animation and on film, i dont care what anyone says, big deal Chris o Donell wasnt a ten year old, he wasnt camping it up and saying gee gosh willikers through the whole damn movie!!? he was a good partner, and its a testament that he's the only sidekick thats lasted 70 freaking, years when all other sidekicks have basically fallen by the way side, its because hes as awesome character as batman, and even more so makes Bruce wayne a richer cahracter as well!

[wellsy]

I think I finally see where you're coming from, El. But I think it's because you misinterpet what Batman and Robin is about. In retcon Batman didn't really adopt Dick, he was a material witness in the murder of his parents and Bruce just provided him a safe and temporary place to live out of guilt and empathy. We agree on one thing, Batman never wanted Robin. Bruce isn't out to be Dick's dad or his best friend, just his mentor.

While in the care of Bruce it became obvious that Dick was out for vengance. He wanted justice, just like Bruce did, but Dick was willing to run off into the night to find that justice. Training, or no training; Bruce or no Bruce. He was alot more wild and reckless than Bruce was at that age. Of course Bruce saw the vengance that raged inside the boy and he sympathized with it, how could he not? Batman gave him a path, a focus for that potentially destructive rage inside Dick. He tutored him, trained him, and when BATMAN thought Dick was ready, he became Robin.

Let's get one thing really clear. Bruce Wayne is not a responsible person. If he was, he would have become a cop or homocide detective. He wouldn't dress like a bat and maim criminals every night. He wouldn't cause untold property damage in Gotham city. Bruce is unhinged, and he is a living id. Bruce Wayne would have no issue with allowing Robin to fight crime. Does that make it right? No. But Bruce allows it. I think you're starting to forget Batman isn't quite sane.

Also, here's a story about how well the adoption service in America works. A woman I saw on the Steve Wilkos Show adopted over 41 children, one of whom was wrongfully imprisoned for child molestation for 10 years. The woman proved herself to be irresponsible numerous times, but that state allowed her to adopt a child 41 times! Knowing this, how unrealistic would it be for a billionaire to be allowed to do it once? And like I said, Bruce isn't out to be Dick's dad. It takes years for him to officially adopt him. Bruce is merely a benefactor to Dick in the public's eye. He doesn't want to adopt every orphan, he just wants to help Dick. They are two men on the same mission, and Batman is making sure Robin does the mission right.

I think your issue, El, is that you're assuming certain factors about Robin and Bruce Wayne instead of researching a little. You're posing yourself as the authority on the matter. " The character is uneccessary and goes against what Batman is and is there for." That's what you said, right? But who are you to presume that when, in fact, that has been part of the character for so long? You, in a bit of arrogance I think, are saying that dozens of creators over decades of history are wrong.

Batman isn't Frank Castle. He isn't a heartless machine of vengence. Is he dark? Yeah. Withdrawn? Yeah. But that isn't his limits to that. He's still a man that needs friends and partners in his efforts. There's a big part of him that is sympathetic and passionate about the plight of others. It is that part of Batman that makes him a righteous tool of justice instead of a maniac hell-bent on revenge. It is that part of him that feels for the orphan Richard Grayson. It is that part of him that can't deny Dick the very thing he has dedicated his entire life to. It's the core of Batman. He's a man, human and flawed. Alone, sad, angry, joyous, excited, right, wrong, sympathetic, vengeful, and all things in between. The reason we all love Batman is because he is human underneath it all. The origin of Robin is one of the greatest displays of that humanity in the Batman legend, and that is why so many want to see it realized correctly.
That hit the nail on the head. Well said NoirMan.

[NoirMan82]

That hit the nail on the head. Well said NoirMan.

Thanks man. I hope I didn't sound too preachy. As a Batman fan I want the mythos to be really well handled, Robin and all. If not by Nolan, then someone else as worthy. I think all of this bruhaha is starting because people feel like the franchis is getting to the point where it's time for Dick Grayson to show up. Truthfully, Robin doesn't have to show up in the trilogy at all, people know that story and where it goes. But we never really got to see Grayson's origins handled the right way.

[Nightwing1977]

If they don't respect the character, they're not the right creative team to bring him to the screen.

How does not wanting a certain character in a film mean they don't respect the character? That doesn't make sense. They just don't want to use him. Period.



Bale's refusal to do Robin, shows only that he cares about this project and he's probably following NOLAN like a german to a nazi



This is the most dumbest post I ever read. Because he doesn't want Robin, he is following Nolan like a German to a Nazi? You cross the line right there with that "Nazi" talk there. Why don't you call me that too with me somewhat agreeing with Bale on no Robin in Nolan's film while you're at it, huh? :whatever: :whatever:

And of course Bale care about this project. That why this franchise is doing so well.



IF HE REALLY CARED ABOUT BATMAN, HE WOULD HELP THE FILMMAKER's FIND A WAY TO INCLUDE SUCH A PIVOTAL PART OF THE BATMAN UNIVERSE



Once more, not wanting a character doesn't mean he don't care about Batman. In fact, are you talking about Batman & not Robin there? Thus, he does care about Batman. God, some of you guys whine & bash an actor or director because they don't give you what you want. Ever heard of "You can't always get what you want"? :oldrazz:

[Poetic Chaos]

How does not wanting a certain character in a film mean they don't respect the character? That doesn't make sense. They just don't want to use him. Period.

Saying he'll chain himself up and refuse to work is saying more than just "that's not the direction we wanna go in." Exaggeration or not.

[nightwing2010]

I think I finally see where you're coming from, El. But I think it's because you misinterpet what Batman and Robin is about. In retcon Batman didn't really adopt Dick, he was a material witness in the murder of his parents and Bruce just provided him a safe and temporary place to live out of guilt and empathy. We agree on one thing, Batman never wanted Robin. Bruce isn't out to be Dick's dad or his best friend, just his mentor.

While in the care of Bruce it became obvious that Dick was out for vengance. He wanted justice, just like Bruce did, but Dick was willing to run off into the night to find that justice. Training, or no training; Bruce or no Bruce. He was alot more wild and reckless than Bruce was at that age. Of course Bruce saw the vengance that raged inside the boy and he sympathized with it, how could he not? Batman gave him a path, a focus for that potentially destructive rage inside Dick. He tutored him, trained him, and when BATMAN thought Dick was ready, he became Robin.

Let's get one thing really clear. Bruce Wayne is not a responsible person. If he was, he would have become a cop or homocide detective. He wouldn't dress like a bat and maim criminals every night. He wouldn't cause untold property damage in Gotham city. Bruce is unhinged, and he is a living id. Bruce Wayne would have no issue with allowing Robin to fight crime. Does that make it right? No. But Bruce allows it. I think you're starting to forget Batman isn't quite sane.

Also, here's a story about how well the adoption service in America works. A woman I saw on the Steve Wilkos Show adopted over 41 children, one of whom was wrongfully imprisoned for child molestation for 10 years. The woman proved herself to be irresponsible numerous times, but that state allowed her to adopt a child 41 times! Knowing this, how unrealistic would it be for a billionaire to be allowed to do it once? And like I said, Bruce isn't out to be Dick's dad. It takes years for him to officially adopt him. Bruce is merely a benefactor to Dick in the public's eye. He doesn't want to adopt every orphan, he just wants to help Dick. They are two men on the same mission, and Batman is making sure Robin does the mission right.

I think your issue, El, is that you're assuming certain factors about Robin and Bruce Wayne instead of researching a little. You're posing yourself as the authority on the matter. " The character is uneccessary and goes against what Batman is and is there for." That's what you said, right? But who are you to presume that when, in fact, that has been part of the character for so long? You, in a bit of arrogance I think, are saying that dozens of creators over decades of history are wrong.

Batman isn't Frank Castle. He isn't a heartless machine of vengence. Is he dark? Yeah. Withdrawn? Yeah. But that isn't his limits to that. He's still a man that needs friends and partners in his efforts. There's a big part of him that is sympathetic and passionate about the plight of others. It is that part of Batman that makes him a righteous tool of justice instead of a maniac hell-bent on revenge. It is that part of him that feels for the orphan Richard Grayson. It is that part of him that can't deny Dick the very thing he has dedicated his entire life to. It's the core of Batman. He's a man, human and flawed. Alone, sad, angry, joyous, excited, right, wrong, sympathetic, vengeful, and all things in between. The reason we all love Batman is because he is human underneath it all. The origin of Robin is one of the greatest displays of that humanity in the Batman legend, and that is why so many want to see it realized correctly. well one thing your wrong about one thing now , in the comics now bruce wayne is Officially DICK GRAYSON's FATHER! even though Grayson's nightwing already, bruce signed the legal Documanents! SO ANY DEBATE SHOULD END NOW! IN THE COMICS BATMAN IS LITERALLY DICK GRAYSONS FATHER NOW!!!!

[NoirMan82]

well one thing your wrong about one thing now , in the comics now bruce wayne is Officially DICK GRAYSON's FATHER! even though Grayson's nightwing already, bruce signed the legal Documanents! SO ANY DEBATE SHOULD END NOW! IN THE COMICS BATMAN IS LITERALLY DICK GRAYSONS FATHER NOW!!!!

Nope. I mentioned that, " And like I said, Bruce isn't out to be Dick's dad. It takes years for him to officially adopt him." I should clearify that Bruce wasn't ALWAYS out to be Dick's dad, although he is now.

[weezerspider]

LOL at Bale's comments. Robin stays in the comics only. I've never been a fan of side-kicks. And besides, the two worst Batman films had Robin in it. We don't want camp to enter the Bat-world again.

[NoirMan82]

LOL at Bale's comments. Robin stays in the comics only. I've never been a fan of side-kicks. And besides, the two worst Batman films had Robin in it. We don't want camp to enter the Bat-world again.

Camp came from the director, not Robin.

[The Shadow]

Bale's probably holding a grudge against the character Robin, because O'Donnel was chosen over him to play Robin in the first franchise. Lol

[El Payaso]

I think I finally see where you're coming from, El. But I think it's because you misinterpet what Batman and Robin is about. In retcon Batman didn't really adopt Dick, he was a material witness in the murder of his parents and Bruce just provided him a safe and temporary place to live out of guilt and empathy. We agree on one thing, Batman never wanted Robin. Bruce isn't out to be Dick's dad or his best friend, just his mentor.

Could Bruce think that, after having his enemies in his own house and after they burnt it to ashes, his house could be safge for a kid?

Could any judge believe that a single billionaire with a reputation of being alcoholic, pyromaniac, womanizer would be a safe choice to leave a kid with? Once again, if somebody says yes, Michael Jackson would jump out of his wheelchair.

While in the care of Bruce it became obvious that Dick was out for vengance. He wanted justice, just like Bruce did, but Dick was willing to run off into the night to find that justice. Training, or no training; Bruce or no Bruce. He was alot more wild and reckless than Bruce was at that age. Of course Bruce saw the vengance that raged inside the boy and he sympathized with it, how could he not? Batman gave him a path, a focus for that potentially destructive rage inside Dick. He tutored him, trained him, and when BATMAN thought Dick was ready, he became Robin.

When would that be?

Bruce knows that it took decades for him to be ready to be Batman. And it took him to live amongst the criminals.

He was in his mid-twenties-going-to-thirties according to the movie. If that’s the case, I can’t see Batman spending 10 years or more to train a kid. Then again I can’t see Batman going after every kid wanting revenge before they become killers he has to take to the jail.

Let's get one thing really clear. Bruce Wayne is not a responsible person. If he was, he would have become a cop or homocide detective. He wouldn't dress like a bat and maim criminals every night. He wouldn't cause untold property damage in Gotham city. Bruce is unhinged, and he is a living id. Bruce Wayne would have no issue with allowing Robin to fight crime. Does that make it right? No. But Bruce allows it. I think you're starting to forget Batman isn't quite sane.

Batman has his own set of rules and inside of that he’s very responsible. The fact he didn’t go through the usual channels in order to become a crimefighter does’t make him irresponsible. Encouraging an underage to risk his life on the other hand...

Also, here's a story about how well the adoption service in America works. A woman I saw on the Steve Wilkos Show adopted over 41 children, one of whom was wrongfully imprisoned for child molestation for 10 years. The woman proved herself to be irresponsible numerous times, but that state allowed her to adopt a child 41 times! Knowing this, how unrealistic would it be for a billionaire to be allowed to do it once? And like I said, Bruce isn't out to be Dick's dad. It takes years for him to officially adopt him. Bruce is merely a benefactor to Dick in the public's eye. He doesn't want to adopt every orphan, he just wants to help Dick. They are two men on the same mission, and Batman is making sure Robin does the mission right.

A Batman movie that talks about adoption issues?

In any case, Bruce Wayne’s reputation is very well known amongst Gothamites, he wouldn’t get away with this as that woman did.

I think your issue, El, is that you're assuming certain factors about Robin and Bruce Wayne instead of researching a little. You're posing yourself as the authority on the matter. " The character is uneccessary and goes against what Batman is and is there for." That's what you said, right? But who are you to presume that when, in fact, that has been part of the character for so long? You, in a bit of arrogance I think, are saying that dozens of creators over decades of history are wrong.

Arrogance or not, my points stand. Batman’s a loner dark figure and Robin takes that away. Batman is not about parenthood or dealing illegaly with underages.

And for the umpteenth time, I have said Robin can work in comic books and animation.

Batman isn't Frank Castle. He isn't a heartless machine of vengence. Is he dark? Yeah. Withdrawn? Yeah. But that isn't his limits to that. He's still a man that needs friends and partners in his efforts. There's a big part of him that is sympathetic and passionate about the plight of others. It is that part of Batman that makes him a righteous tool of justice instead of a maniac hell-bent on revenge.

It is that part of him that led him to Gordon and Dent as allies. Not to colorful-dressed underages.

It is that part of him that feels for the orphan Richard Grayson. It is that part of him that can't deny Dick the very thing he has dedicated his entire life to. It's the core of Batman. He's a man, human and flawed. Alone, sad, angry, joyous, excited, right, wrong, sympathetic, vengeful, and all things in between. The reason we all love Batman is because he is human underneath it all. The origin of Robin is one of the greatest displays of that humanity in the Batman legend, and that is why so many want to see it realized correctly.

Batman has plenty of great stories where he shows humanity. Fatherhood is not on Bruce’s agenda as he knmows he can’t provide the child of a normal family and life he needs. Even if the kid feels that he doesn’t need that it is Bruce’s responsibility to give him a normal life, not to risk his life.

He does need friends as anybody else, but he knows in his mission he can’t “have the luxury of friends.”

[El Payaso]

Bale's probably holding a grudge against the character Robin, because O'Donnel was chosen over him to play Robin in the first franchise. Lol

He's most probably blessing the day he didn't get the part. :cwink:

[The Shadow]

Lol. Yeah, ODonnel portrayed the 60s camp version of Robin rather than the real Robin. Also, too old and looked nothing like robin. : )

[NoirMan82]

He's most probably blessing the day he didn't get the part. :cwink:


I'm certain of that as well. Needless to say, if he landed that gig he wouldn't be Batman now. Instead he'd be doing lines of coke off a dirty table in a West Hollywood motel, brooding about the day his agent gave him the lead to some superhero movie. He clutches his rusty revolver that he bought after pawning his colorful, benippled costume. How was he supposed to know there would be so much neon? Too much neon for a talented kid just trying to make it. Click. One bullet in. Click. Click. Three. Joel promised him, promised him it would make his career. Click. Four. He didn't know the travesty Tommy and Jim would embark on. How could anyone? Click. Five. He didn't know then, but he knows now. He knows how to set it right.

Click...Six.

BANG! One for Schumacher!
BANG! One for Kilmer!
BANG! BANG! Two for those scene chewing ****s!
BANG! One for his agent!

He's kind enough to save one for himself. He knows how to set it right, and he knows what they'll say. Christian Bale, of Batman Forever fame...quintuple murder/suicide. Batman Forever FAME?! It makes him laugh, a small, nervous laugh. What fame was there for him? Nothing. None! Not back then, but there is now. He knows how to set it right.


BANG!


Sorry, I think I got off track...damn coffee. Nice Sig by the way, El!

[NoirMan82]

Could Bruce think that, after having his enemies in his own house and after they burnt it to ashes, his house could be safge for a kid?

Could any judge believe that a single billionaire with a reputation of being alcoholic, pyromaniac, womanizer would be a safe choice to leave a kid with? Once again, if somebody says yes, Michael Jackson would jump out of his wheelchair.



When would that be?

Bruce knows that it took decades for him to be ready to be Batman. And it took him to live amongst the criminals.

He was in his mid-twenties-going-to-thirties according to the movie. If that’s the case, I can’t see Batman spending 10 years or more to train a kid. Then again I can’t see Batman going after every kid wanting revenge before they become killers he has to take to the jail.



Batman has his own set of rules and inside of that he’s very responsible. The fact he didn’t go through the usual channels in order to become a crimefighter does’t make him irresponsible. Encouraging an underage to risk his life on the other hand...



A Batman movie that talks about adoption issues?

In any case, Bruce Wayne’s reputation is very well known amongst Gothamites, he wouldn’t get away with this as that woman did.



Arrogance or not, my points stand. Batman’s a loner dark figure and Robin takes that away. Batman is not about parenthood or dealing illegaly with underages.

And for the umpteenth time, I have said Robin can work in comic books and animation.



It is that part of him that led him to Gordon and Dent as allies. Not to colorful-dressed underages.



Batman has plenty of great stories where he shows humanity. Fatherhood is not on Bruce’s agenda as he knmows he can’t provide the child of a normal family and life he needs. Even if the kid feels that he doesn’t need that it is Bruce’s responsibility to give him a normal life, not to risk his life.

He does need friends as anybody else, but he knows in his mission he can’t “have the luxury of friends.”

LOL! At the Micheal Jackson comment. I just think Batman is deeper than you give him credit for. The Robin origin shows a lot of that depth and a good 50% of Batman's modern day personality is shown through it. More than anything, I think excluding Dick Grayson is more of a disservice to Batman than a benefit. It just makes him seem very one-note. Like he's the Grim Avenger of Evil and that's it. There's also a ton of good ways to adapt Dick Grayson for the Nolanverse, so it's like a big missed opportunity, for Nolan to miss out on making Robin really cool.

[The Shadow]

Yes, he was for the most part ruined in the 60s and in the first movie franchise. This could be robin's redeeming moment in the media.

[RobinWB]

LOL at Bale's comments. Robin stays in the comics only. I've never been a fan of side-kicks. And besides, the two worst Batman films had Robin in it. We don't want camp to enter the Bat-world again.thats you dude your in the minority, and Bale's an ignoramus for stating that.:whatever:

[RobinWB]

Yes, he was for the most part ruined in the 60s and in the first movie franchise. This could be robin's redeeming moment in the media.i agree with you about robin in the 60's, but i disagree with you about the 90's franchise, i found Nothing wrong with Chris O'donnel's Portrayal Of robin in Forever. he played it serious, not campy, so what he was little older. people seem to forget Batman Forever as far as now is the Highest Grossing batman film EVER! Begins didnt even manage to outgross it!lol what joke!

[batman497]

I love solo batman flicks but I tink robin would cool be if done correctly. I like the way they did tim drake in batman animated. I think if they didn't pull a batman forever on us and changed things it could be cool.
Do's
1. Batman finds dick grayon in a crackhouse working as an errand boy for low lifes.
2. Batman takes him in to re-channel his rage against crime.
3. Tony Zucco is a lone shark working for the mob.
4. Incorporate circus very minimally
5. Robin should be 12 yrs old.
6. Robin needs edge he should be as hardcore as batman.
7. Robin should be in the shadows he shouldn't be seen with batman.

Don't
1. Have bruce wayne at the circus where dick's parents are killed.
2. Have robin in those lame colors. A pre-nightwing costume would be cool.
3. Have robin fight adults head on. It would look stupid to see him beating adults up.

[RobinWB]

I love solo batman flicks but I tink robin would cool be if done correctly. I like the way they did tim drake in batman animated. I think if they didn't pull a batman forever on us and changed things it could be cool.
Do's
1. Batman finds dick grayon in a crackhouse working as an errand boy for low lifes.
2. Batman takes him in to re-channel his rage against crime.
3. Tony Zucco is a lone shark working for the mob.
4. Incorporate circus very minimally
5. Robin should be 12 yrs old.
6. Robin needs edge he should be as hardcore as batman.
7. Robin should be in the shadows he shouldn't be seen with batman.

Don't
1. Have bruce wayne at the circus where dick's parents are killed.
2. Have robin in those lame colors. A pre-nightwing costume would be cool.
3. Have robin fight adults head on. It would look stupid to see him beating adults up. totaly disaagree with you batman finding robin in a crackhouse? ridiculously lame! and batman should be seen with Robin! there Partners for GOD SAKES! and dick Grayson should be given the Tim Drake costume, and have it be dark Red and and the cape be black, with gold in the inside of the cape, and the gold belt like Christian bale's there was someone who did manip that looked awesome with Christian as Batman with robin those pics were awesoem! anyone know where those are here?

[Nightwing1977]

Saying he'll chain himself up and refuse to work is saying more than just "that's not the direction we wanna go in." Exaggeration or not.

God, you realize Bale was quite joking about the "chain himself up". Bale is known for his humor, even if it a little sarcastic. He might consider changing his mind if they make the movie good with Robin. Some of you folks are taking his comment way too serious....literally. He just isn't a big fan of Robin. In fact, many want Robin to take a seat for now. Beside, he is quite right they don't want to go in that direction. With how dark the Nolan's Batman films is right now, Robin wouldn't fit. He is more of a very light character like Spider-Man or Superman, that it wouldn't make the Nolan's films feel the same if he add Robin. Why change something with how good the Batman films are doing right now without Robin? I don't want a trainwreck like Spider-Man 3 if Nolan do any sequel & is force to add Robin because of whining fans or WB doing the deed. :whatever:

[wellsy]

Sarcasm doesn't come across well with just written words Nightwing. The words we say only constitute ~5% of what we intend to communicate (most of it's body language, and the rest is in the tone of the voice).

[Sentinel X]

Dude, no Robin. Nolan doesn't want it (I think the charecter is lame too) but most importantly...Nolan doesn't want it. Let him have his own vision of Batman...there are a lot of charecters we may never get to see. If anything get Catwoman to be a "sidekick" for Batman...Im happy they want to leave robin out, yay!

[Cunning Stunts]

Personally, I think there's a decent way to bring "Robin" into this film, although it may be a little tough. Also, I'm not a huge advocate of bringing Robin into this series, but I've got faith in Nolan doing it right. Regardless, I can't see it being too easy... But here's a "rough draft", so to speak, of how I could see it working more easily:

1- Obviously, bump Robin up a couple years... I'd say, minimum, 16 or 17 years old. The same story comes into play, however- Dick's a trapeze artist whose family is killed due to Zuccos distortion of the circus the Graysons perform for. Bruce adopts Dick with Dick almost unwilling, and becomes even more unhappy with Bruce's constant leaving.

2- Dick has some talk with Alfred (most likely, just as in Dark Victory, about Bruce's childhood and the loss of his parents), that eventually leads to Alfred saying something that (unbeknownst to Alfred) goes through Dick's head as, "This is my opportunity to fight crime and get back at Zucco!"

3- Dick creates the Robin persona, and tries to track down Batman, (whether to aid him or to challenge him [possibly due to the accusations of Batman being a criminal, and that he may have a link to finding/beating Zucco]- or even both- would have to be decided) parading around to try to fight crime. After a few meetings, Batman finds Robin to be Dick. Bruce plays this off as if he found out about it through the police/news, and "grounds" Dick, disallowing him to leave the manor.

4- During this particular story, Bane comes into play as well. Eventually comes the battle between Batman and Bane in which Bane breaks Batman's back. Gotham devolves at a moderate rate into chaos since the police force isn't very capable of operating effectively without Batman's help. The media is flooded with, "Where is Batman?"

5- While Bruce is immobile and bed-ridden in Wayne Manor, Dick takes this as his opportunity to "explore", finding the cave. He finds a Batsuit (perhaps a new prototype or a "spare" of the TDK suit?), which he takes and develops into his own suit with his own symbol.

6- When issues in Gotham go from bad to worse, the police force try again to use Batman's signal (some time after realizing that Batman may be "dead", maybe?), and here appears Dick Grayson- only this time, as Nightwing, who manages to help the police force take Bane down.

At least, that's how I see it. It could be a perfect opportunity to bring in Dick and Bane, as I'm sure some fans out there want to see.

I also had small ideas about Jason Todd and Tim Drake being brought in later as well, but we'll save those for another conversation. Let's worry about Dick first. :P

[Mandalore464]

Honestly, if you have a 16-year-old with only a month or so of training in martial arts and his past as a trapeze artist as his sole experience in charge of ridding Gotham of the crime in general AND Bane in particular, well... Gotham is screwed. So I think they should keep Batman around the whole time. And, I want to see the final evolution of Batman into the Batman we know, and Christian Bale is doing a good job, so I wouldn't have him confined to a bed anytime soon anyway.

But I like how this take has Dick going from Robin to Nightwing so fast (Basically, Robin would only be his persona while he has no access to gadgets and better technology for his outfit, and has to rely on his former circus uniform, and he'd become Nightwing as soon as he officially joins the Batman team, right? I think that's cool)

[Cunning Stunts]

Honestly, if you have a 16-year-old with only a month or so of training in martial arts and his past as a trapeze artist as his sole experience in charge of ridding Gotham of the crime in general AND Bane in particular, well... Gotham is screwed.

But I like how this take has Dick going from Robin to Nightwing so fast (Basically, Robin would only be his persona while he has no access to gadgets and better technology for his outfit, and has to rely on his former circus uniform, and he'd become Nightwing as soon as he officially joins the Batman team, right? I think that's cool)

Yeah, well I mean, I had the idea originally taking place over the course of longer than a month... Perhaps a year? Or maybe we can look at Dick turning 18 as his "coming of age" as a real hero for Gotham... I.e.- when he becomes Nightwing.

For training, also, since Bruce won't admit to Dick that he's Batman nor will he train him in martial arts, Dick can do just as Bruce does as was detailed in Hush- he can become increasingly obsessed with fighting, martial arts, and the sciences of fighting, just as Bruce did after his parents' deaths, and he can train all over the city.

[Mandalore464]

Sorry man, I edited my post while you were replying... Added arguments as to why I think Batman should be kept around.

And to reply to your post, I am not opposed to a Robin/Nightwing that would be 18 or so. I know it CAN be done. But have him responsible for the whole city, even after 2 years of training here and there in Gotham, while Batman spent 7 whole years around learning techniques from the best of the best because he had the money to afford the travels and the teachings, that is a big difference.

I know you're not saying that it should be done exactly that way, and there are ways around it, and I am only giving an opinion on what you wrote considering it's the scenario they'd choose to go by.

Other than that, as I said, I really don't want to see Batman confined to a bed, cause I pretty much consider the Nolan movies as Batman's trilogy (If trilogy it becomes), and I really want to see him fight crime right til the end of it.

[Cunning Stunts]

Sorry man, I edited my post while you were replying... Added arguments as to why I think Batman should be kept around.

It's all good. Yeah, I don't like the idea of Batman being bed-ridden either, but I do feel like Gotham should need Nightwing when he appears. Perhaps his martial arts training could happen during his grounding, then Batman gets his back broken, and Nightwing appears in a shorter span of time?

The story's always open for editing, especially since I just kind of thought of it off the top of my head a few days ago. And, for the obvious fact, that it's not even a movie script.

[GL1]

With how dark the Nolan's Batman films is right now, Robin wouldn't fit. He is more of a very light character like Spider-Man or Superman, that it wouldn't make the Nolan's films feel the same if he add Robin.

Dude... do you read comics? Or are you just talking about costume colors?

Imagine troubled Natalie Portman following Al Pacino around in Heat and helping him solve crimes. Robin in Christopher Nolan's Batman films would come off as slightly more believable than that.

Didn't see the movie, but just had to comment this a great example of people's imaginations going dead when Robin comes up. If Joker isn't making smiling fish in Dark Knight, why do we think Robin has to be following Batman around to be a viable member of the supporting cast.

Having read through this thread, I could see Robin working in the current continuity. Of course, this isn't a "Robin or bust" statement, or "anything but Robin" (both of which are utterly stupid IMO). The progression would be very, very easy...

...In short, Robin acts as messenger rather than direct crime fighter. When he does fight, he only does so when the odds are already stacked in his favour (don't fight battles that you haven't already won, no?).

Intelligence and patience are really all a writer needs to bring in Robin and make it work.

Quoted for Reasonableness. Wisdom lies here.

[returntovoid]

I have nothing against Robin but Nolan's Batman films are going really well and the introduction of Robin could ruin his Batman films IMO.

[hegele]

remember what happened the last time a director gave in to what fans wanted?
.....
........... we got Venom.

if Nolan doesn't see a Robin, or any other notable Batman characters in his films, than by all means, lets not have them.

In all honesty if Nolan doesn't feel right with any of the rouges, I would not be opposed to an original villain made for a film. If BATS made Harely Quinn, who has been put into the comic cannon, why can't a live action film with a hell of a talented storyteller no less?

[returntovoid]

remember what happened the last time a director gave in to what fans wanted?
.....
........... we got Venom.

if Nolan doesn't see a Robin, or any other notable Batman characters in his films, than by all means, lets not have them.

In all honesty if Nolan doesn't feel right with any of the rouges, I would not be opposed to an original villain made for a film. If BATS made Harely Quinn, who has been put into the comic cannon, why can't a live action film with a hell of a talented storyteller no less?

I think Nolan should use Hush or Black Mask instead of creating a villain IMO.

[NoirMan82]

One thing that makes me wary about Robin being adapted is the suggestions for adapting him that I heard from people around the net. If the "fans" have such a lack of understanding and motivation for the character, I doubt Nolan would. I'd rather see the character not done at all rather than done incorrectly....again.

[bojanthewiister]

remember what happened the last time a director gave in to what fans wanted?
.....
........... we got Venom.

if Nolan doesn't see a Robin, or any other notable Batman characters in his films, than by all means, lets not have them.

In all honesty if Nolan doesn't feel right with any of the rouges, I would not be opposed to an original villain made for a film. If BATS made Harely Quinn, who has been put into the comic cannon, why can't a live action film with a hell of a talented storyteller no less?

very good point, we don't need another venom, *shudder*

it would be awesome if nolan decided to make an original villain , but it does bring up one question...are we ready for it? Power like that in the hands of nolan would mean a rated R movie the likes of which the world has never seen. we would never sleep again, batman vs. the psychotic murderer who kills his victims by slowly giving them paper cuts all over their bodies and subsecuently covering them with salt and lemon juice, or batman vs. satan himself.

there are a lot of stories and archs to choose from and in the end if Chris doesn't want to include robin, it's his right and you know what im happy. the darkest robin could possibly be is a boy scout with a grass stain. now nightwing, that would be awesome.

hmmm what about a batman beyond movie? maybe that should be the third movie...Terry McGinnis, the year 2050 and human animal hybrids? awesome movie. and you know what, christian bale could play terry and bruce, and static shock lol

[GL1]

the darkest robin could possibly be is a boy scout with a grass stain. now nightwing, that would be awesome.

hmmm what about a batman beyond movie?

http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/img/facepalm.jpeg

remember what happened the last time a director gave in to what fans wanted?
.....
........... we got Venom.

Last time a director gave in to what fans wanted we got The Incredible Hulk with Ed Norton, the time before that we got "Iron Man" with Robert Downey Jr. Giving fans what they want is, generally, a good idea if the story doesn't suffer.

if Nolan doesn't see a Robin, or any other notable Batman characters in his films, than by all means, lets not have them.

In all honesty if Nolan doesn't feel right with any of the rouges, I would not be opposed to an original villain made for a film. If BATS made Harely Quinn, who has been put into the comic cannon, why can't a live action film with a hell of a talented storyteller no less?

BTAS also serviced all of the classic and many not-so-classic Batman villains. If Nolan did that, then I'd have zero problem with him overlooking the number one rogues gallery in comics to create his own villain(ess). If Nolan does pass over awesome villains for whatever reason, it had better be the Darth Vader of the new Millineum. Seriously. Batman's Rogue's gallery rocks, anyone who can't tell whatever story they want to with it has weak kung fu.

[DaveBham1982]

Robin shouldnt be brought in for the next film at all. Robin was brought into the comic books originally to lighten the books up and to provide a childs point of view, the idea is they know they cant be Batman so they fantasize they can be Robin and go on adventures with Batman.

Todays audience is totally different to back in the forties and I honestly believe that if it wasnt for fan loyalty they'd scrap the robin character. Robin works if you want a kiddy film which isnt what they want with Nolan and Bale.

The only way I could see Dick Grayson working in a Nolan Batman film is if his family get murdered and Bruce takes him in and decides to teach him martial arts etc so he can handle himself. Then instead of becoming Robin the Boy Wonder in a bright coloured and stupid looking suit, he reluctantly agrees to help Bruce from the Batcave. For instance helping him with the computer type stuff and maybe even helping him come up with a motor cycle that Batman can regularly use, as it looks like the bat-pod is hidden in the tumbler. Then when they do a sequel etc it can be revealed that Dick has designed his own suit etc and ends up wearing it when Batman needs help.

But if I am honestly Robin is just there for Batman to talk to when he is out and about. Even in the animated series they decided to make him around 18 and at college alot so they dont have to use him unless they want to.

[terry78]

I think people need to wait and see the flick before they decide if Robin fits or not. The final scene may insist that he could use someone like Dick on his end.

[souvlaki]

Honestly, after seeing TDK I have to say Robin would probably be better off left out of the series. Not really a spoiler, but on the off chance people are squemish over someone even hinting how TDK ends: It's not that I think Nolan couldn't do a good job with him it's just that with the likely direction they may go after TDK, I don't really think a young boy being put out in harms way is probably the smartest approach to resolve the problems Batman faces leading into the next film.

[CHEZ]

Batman is far more interesting by himself. Robin is a corny character.
Just the sound of it is plain awful, Batman and Robin

If you really really really think about it...it's so stupid it's ridiculous.

"Robin"? Come on. Corny cheesy little dandy running around with Batman in what looks like the stupidest superhero costume ever designed.

Batman is far more psychologically interesting by himself.
He scarier and it makes sense. He is trying to strike fear in the criminal underworld. He would be defeating the purpose with a corny little dandy by his side.

And then there's the whole Dick Grayson hanging around Bruce Wayne all the time. It's stupid, really really really stupid.

Robin was only thrown in to soften the Batman character, but today we don't need that. Today, we are interested in the dark brooding character that Batman was always meant to be.

Keep Robin out. Please.

I commend Nolan and Bale on their desire to keep that character out. It shows that they really care about the character and drama that is Batman.

[zenith16]

This will probably bethe last time I'll show this

you other bat man fans should introduce to Nolan, bale, and Gary Oldman this.

here's the link.
Frank Miller on writing the 7th Issue of All Star Batman & Robin

New Comic Book Day on HypaSpace
http://www.spacecast.com/wvx/2007/10/hs_a071004.wvx

and if that doesn't work this is from the site
http://www.spacecast.com/videoplayer_4663.aspx


and
Jim Lee on illustrating Frank Miller's All Star Batman & Robin
New comic book day on HypaSpace
http://www.spacecast.com/wvx/2007/05/hs_a070524.wvx



and if that doesn't work this is from the site
http://www.spacecast.com/videoplayer_3982.aspx



source hyper space weekly.
http://www.spacecast.com/hypaspace.aspx


of
www.spacecast.com/ (http://www.spacecast.com/)
watch the video. Since it's from Frank miller those three have to consider it, especially since they said they took a lot of his reference material. and it's more resent then dark victory(which it's Obvious he Bale didn't read) so it should be easier for Bale of all people to find.

It's on hyperspace and bale and Nolan know who they are too. So I'm sure they can supply them with it. It's up to you guys that want robin in or more likely to have a fast track to being night wing with a dark story as possible as shown in the video links of the comics, I just put up by frank miller and Jim lee. I'm out. later.

[LightningFlash]

I thought Robin would be cool to be in the third movie, but if they only plan to make a Batman trilogy, then why would/should they bother to bring in Robin? The third movie, and possibly the final for Nolan/Bale/etc., should be about redemption, and even though bringing in Dick Grayson could be a way emotionally, it would be dumb to start up Robin's story(the only way Robin worked for Batman Forever is that they had Batman & Robin following, in which they ruined the character of Batgirl).

[zenith16]

LOL what ever. the titles were screwed up any way. It should have been batman and Robin first from the jump, and then 4 should have worked as "for ever" and ended it. batman 4 ever says it all and you know it. the wording is final.

And as you know it wasn't just bat girl that got screwed over. Other wise they wouldn't have changed Harvey dent now who was played by Billy D willams and and then Tommy lee jones. face it they had screw ups started befor Robin and bat girl were brought in.

It had nothing to do with the characters it was the producer's and writers bad chose in the change of the character's historys and a few bad casting idea's as show with Billy D willams and flip flopping from there. stop punishing the characters cause of bad holly wood screw ups and chose prior to ruin the movie franchise. sheesh. it's the over changing of things that killed the franchise. Pay attention.

[Timstuff]

Giving Batman a young sidekick IMO is what caused him to be ruined for so many years, so hearing that Christian Bale hates the idea of Robin being in the movies is a sigh of relief for me. He is not a necessary part of Batman's character, and I think Batman is a much more effective character without him. A very large aspect of Batman's story is how lonely he is, and when he's got an adopted teenager living with him and working as his sidkick, that kind of undermines him.

Also, no matter how hard you try, you can't make Robin seem as scary as Batman, and Batman becomes less scary whenever he's with Robin. In fact, the harder you try to make Robin look "intense," the sillier he ends up looking.

[zenith16]

Giving Batman a young sidekick IMO is what caused him to be ruined for so many years, so hearing that Christian Bale hates the idea of Robin being in the movies is a sigh of relief for me. He is not a necessary part of Batman's character, and I think Batman is a much more effective character without him. A very large aspect of Batman's story is how lonely he is, and when he's got an adopted teenager living with him and working as his sidkick, that kind of undermines him.

Also, no matter how hard you try, you can't make Robin seem as scary as Batman, and Batman becomes less scary whenever he's with Robin. In fact, the harder you try to make Robin look "intense," the sillier he ends up looking.
And yet Frank miller pulled off the opposite of what your claiming. ahhhhh well this will be a never winning argument. until that comic is shown to those three in the movie. or until they meet up with frank Miller again and he gives them a dark script. and you know frank miller , he does that well.

[GL1]

Giving Batman a young sidekick IMO is what caused him to be ruined for so many years, so hearing that Christian Bale hates the idea of Robin being in the movies is a sigh of relief for me. He is not a necessary part of Batman's character, and I think Batman is a much more effective character without him. A very large aspect of Batman's story is how lonely he is, and when he's got an adopted teenager living with him and working as his sidkick, that kind of undermines him.

Also, no matter how hard you try, you can't make Robin seem as scary as Batman, and Batman becomes less scary whenever he's with Robin. In fact, the harder you try to make Robin look "intense," the sillier he ends up looking.

Ah, lonely Batman... with Lucius making equipment for him, Alfred as a father figure, pining after the enamoured Rachel and Gordon as, essentially, his sidekick... its a wonder he can even survive on his own! :brucebat:

I do agree that having Grayson live with him in the mansion can remove that tension though, although it can be maintained if the situation is A) temporary, B) unwanted by either one. C) all of the above.

And horror movies have been making kids scary for years.

Seriously, if people could just get it through their heads that Robin is not a tag-a-long and that Robin doesn't need to be a mini-Batman, these discussions would sound a lot less ridiculous.

Giving Batman a young sidekick IMO is what caused him to be ruined for so many years Many people believe this, and it is the silliest, most backwards, illogical and unproven if not disproven thought in this entire discussion.

Batman is far more interesting by himself. Robin is a corny character.
Just the sound of it is plain awful, Batman and Robin

If you really really really think about it...it's so stupid it's ridiculous.

"Robin"? Come on. Corny cheesy little dandy running around with Batman in what looks like the stupidest superhero costume ever designed.

Batman is far more psychologically interesting by himself.
He scarier and it makes sense. He is trying to strike fear in the criminal underworld. He would be defeating the purpose with a corny little dandy by his side.

And then there's the whole Dick Grayson hanging around Bruce Wayne all the time. It's stupid, really really really stupid.

Robin was only thrown in to soften the Batman character, but today we don't need that. Today, we are interested in the dark brooding character that Batman was always meant to be.

Keep Robin out. Please.

I commend Nolan and Bale on their desire to keep that character out. It shows that they really care about the character and drama that is Batman.

Thank you for being completely wrong and restating the same disproven points that have been repeated throughout this thread. Thank you.

[returntovoid]

Nolan doesn't need to introduce Robin in the third film, i think Robin should be introduced when Batman gets extremely vengeful and angry and so far i don't think Batman gets extremely vengeful and angry in TDK (even though i haven't seen TDK).

[Constantine]

“If Robin crops up in one of the new Batman films, I’ll be chaining myself up somewhere and refusing to go to work.”

Yeah, tough talk for someone who audtioned for Robin.:funny:

[zenith16]

Yeah, tough talk for someone who audtioned for Robin.:funny: LOL that was a good one man . you should make your vote known BTW. http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=258975

[Two-Face]

That's why Bale is now laughing all the way to the bank.

[strikerbatman2]

Ya but nthey could make movies for 100 years without robin

[El Payaso]

Yeah, tough talk for someone who audtioned for Robin.:funny:

And that for being rejected not only saved himself some bad career afterwards, but got the main role in a fantasic bat-franchise. :joker:

[Monstera]

My opinion: No Robin, but I would still be tempted to see what Nolan & co. would do with him/her.

[ray243]

After you watch finish the dark knight...you will know why you should not have a robin in this version of the film.

If batman allows someone to be robin...then he can't be considered batman anymore...it will destroy what batman under this circimstances stood for.

The ending will tell you why

[blueblazer2]

If Christian Bale hates Robin so much . Then how come he audition for the role in Batman Forever . That does not make sense

[comic_book_guy]

and that is why i love christian bale... xD

[comic_book_guy]

If Christian Bale hates Robin so much . Then how come he audition for the role in Batman Forever . That does not make sense
:wow: he did!?