The Dark Knight Rises Christian Bale Rules Out Robin For Batman 3 (and beyond)

[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 ******ed 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.