Was that little kid in Batman Begins supposed to be the future Robin?

Give Robin his own movie then so his own fans can follow him.

[eamonn3]

Originally Posted by Robin91939

This is my thought on it.

The child was in the movie for three reasons, really.

1.) To show just how bad the narrows really were. He was a neglected child, standing out in the rain with his parents fighting and hollering inside the house. He wasn't a bitter kid, he was hopeful, even in the rain with his fueding parents. He represtented the goodness in Gotham that Batman was fighting for.

2.) Batman has always been loved by children. This was a tribute to all of the young fans that have loved Batman for the ages. He was there to give a childs perspective of the Dark Knight. He saw what the adults couldn't. He saw that the Batman was a hero, "Batman will save us".

3.) He was an homage to the character of Robin. Not of any specific incarnation of Robin, be it Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, or Tim Drake- but rather just a generic homage to the character. He wore a red short sleeve shirt, with a longsleeve greyish green shirt underneath, he gave hope to Batman, and depended on him in a time of need.

The character of "Narrow's Child" was in the film BATMAN BEGINS for these reason. Will he ever become Robin? Absolutely not. Was he a tribute to the fans, and of the character of Robin? Yes. Is that all that a Robin fan needs? From a genesis movie of Batman, yes.

-R

Looks like you were wrong about that kid. After watching this last Batman I realized that kid in the 1st film who was a nod to Robin was Robin in this last movie. Robin John Blake and so you aren't completely wrong about no "Robin" as we know him from the Burt Ward and comic book stuff. They stuck him in the movie but not as the "Boy Wonder" we were all thinking of.

[Gale]

^^^Was it confirmed that Blake was the kid in Batman Begins? 'Cause I didn't think it was. I mean it would make sense, but was there a legit confirmation?

[arkham.insayn]

Originally Posted by Gale

^^^Was it confirmed that Blake was the kid in Batman Begins? 'Cause I didn't think it was. I mean it would make sense, but was there a legit confirmation?

No.

But for a split second in the movie everyone probably thought it might be.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Gale

^^^Was it confirmed that Blake was the kid in Batman Begins? 'Cause I didn't think it was. I mean it would make sense, but was there a legit confirmation?

He definitely wasn't and I'm glad because that would have been so contrived.

[GRangerPrimeNYC]

Wow, a lot of the early replies on this thread are rude as ****!
Nice to know some things don't change....

And eamonn3, Robin91939 wasn't wrong, and what you said makes no sense.
Seems sad to make an account only to reply to this 6 year old thread...and have it be your only post...

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by The Joker

He definitely wasn't and I'm glad because that would have been so contrived.

Something we agree on TDKR

[Bathead]

I'm surpised anyone still believes this. Or to think that Blake was the kid all grown up as there is NOTHING in the movie to even indicate that.

[ChocheTheHero]

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[R_Hythlodeus]

did Batman ever got his equipment back? I mean, a Lannister always pays his debts and Joffrey definatly IS a Lannister...

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by ChocheTheHero

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

The edit makes absolutely no sense. He saw the face of Batman and knew it was Bruce? Because Blake definitely said he saw the look of Bruce and knew he was Batman.

[Baramos]

Both that kid's parents were alive and he was more than old enough to remember his mother dying therefore.

Jack Gleeson (that kid) is also blonde as blonde can be. JGL is not.

[BatmanGoesToRio]

It was just a kid I guess. And after those nine years (one year between BB and TDK plus the eight year gap before TDKR) this kid would just be way too young to be "Robin" John Blake.

[Bathead]

Originally Posted by Gale

^^^Was it confirmed that Blake was the kid in Batman Begins? 'Cause I didn't think it was. I mean it would make sense, but was there a legit confirmation?

No, no confirmation whatsoever. This is all fan speculation.

[Bathead]

Originally Posted by Baramos

Both that kid's parents were alive and he was more than old enough to remember his mother dying therefore.

Jack Gleeson (that kid) is also blonde as blonde can be. JGL is not.

I agree with everything you've said, but, as to the bolded part, there is such a thing as hair dye. To be fair though, John Blake doesn't seem the type to dye his hair.

[Excelsior.]

I bet that kid never got out of poverty and became one of the social revolutionaries.

[Bruce_Begins]

that kid grew up to be a roookie cop who shot at batman's emp gun in tdkr.

[Anno_Domini]

^ Another marvelous theory, lol.

[Batman jr.]

It was a mistake to add the name "Robin" in TDKR.

I really like the ending (minus the platform rising tbh) and him collecting his stuff though.

[Anno_Domini]

I think it was more of a mistake even calling him 'John' since we only hear that name once while collecting his stuff at the end. He should've responded by saying 'Blake' then handing his ID card which is revealed that his first name is Robin when the lady says, "Ahh, yes, there you go Robin Blake."

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

I think it was more of a mistake even calling him 'John' since we only hear that name once while collecting his stuff at the end. He should've responded by saying 'Blake' then handing his ID card which is revealed that his first name is Robin when the lady says, "Ahh, yes, there you go Robin Blake."

Yes, that would have made the allusion work better (though it still would have been lame IMO).

[Batman jr.]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

Yes, that would have made the allusion work better (though it still would have been lame IMO).

It's not lame. It just wasn't necessary. And I'm NOT a JGL-disliker.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

Yes, that would have made the allusion work better (though it still would have been lame IMO).

Indeed. TDKR's way is just a bit confusing that we hear his name being John once, but it's really Robin. Robin Blake should've been his name, or Robin Grayson even, but John should've never been his first name to begin with.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by Batman jr.

It's not lame. It just wasn't necessary. And I'm NOT a JGL-disliker.

I think it is lame. It would have been better if his name was Tim Drake or something.

It was a corny cheap way to get an emotional reaction from those in the general audience who know enough to know that Robin exists but not enough to know what his alter ego identity is. And it was wholly useless apart from that, as Nolan might as well have just kept the guy's name as John Blake and had him take over from there.

Also, I'm not a JGL disliker. I like the actor. But his character in this film was worthless, unnecessary, and two-dimensional, and the film would have been a lot better off without him.

[Anno_Domini]

It's Nolan's personification of Robin, not just the first Robin, Dick, or Jason or Todd. It's an culmination of past and present Robins into one, thus his name is Robin. Didn't find that "lame" at all; I actually found it pretty brilliant.

But, it's hard to argue when I see John Reese smiling at me, lol.