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

[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"...

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"...

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.

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.

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!

hell ya brother!

 

[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....

 

[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....

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.