• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

The Dark Knight Rises Is bringing back Robin such a good Idea?

kingdomhearts said:
I see Robin as a distraction. TPTB needs to evolve the character so that might take away from Batman's thunder again.
Let him have his own franchise if some wants Robin so badly.

TPTB evolved him a long time ago. Everyone here just seems to be ignorant of it, and apparently, they wish to remain so.

El Payaso said:
Cheap treatment and a comic relief were Robin's origin in comics. From that POV, he has been translated faithfully.

I don't think a Batman movie based on his first appearance would be called "faithful to Batman" by anybody. I beleive you inserted the word "origin" here in fallacy. Also, keep in mind, Batman would have been required to be Campy with or without Robin. If Robin had been invented before that time, he would have been switched to campy as well. The character has never been the issue because characters don't make decisions, writers do.

Mh. Robin sucks as a character, beyond Tv series or Schumachers. Two-face, on the other hand, doesn't suck and we all know it was Schumacher who ruined it. Not the same case than Robin. Who needs to made up excuses to not to have Robin? We have like 66 years of reasons (suit and colors included.)

This statement is untrue. I read about Robin in the comics, so it's very clear to me that Shumacher ruined it. It's clear that the case is the same. While this is a common assumption, it's not based on fact.

And 66 years of reasons? Gosh. Name one. And if you think the suit and colors are the problem, read recent issues of Robin where Robin is an AWESOME character, then watch "Batman and Robin" where Robin is a horrible character, both times without the traditional red,green,yellow thing.
 
GL1 said:
I don't think a Batman movie based on his first appearance would be called "faithful to Batman" by anybody.

Even so, it would be.

GL1 said:
I beleive you inserted the word "origin" here in fallacy

How? why? It was his origin back in 1940.

Your accusation of fallacy smells a lot like a fallacy.

GL1 said:
Also, keep in mind, Batman would have been required to be Campy with or without Robin.

Maybe. But the fact is that Robin was the tool they used to make Batman campy. That's the whole point.

GL1 said:
If Robin had been invented before that time, he would have been switched to campy as well.

If Robin had been invented before that time then Batman and Robin would have became campy before that time. Batman didn't became campy at one point with Robin being there by an amazing coincidence. Robin appeared specifically to add the campy touch.

GL1 said:
The character has never been the issue because characters don't make decisions, writers do.

Is that so?

In fact writers made Robin originally a campy absurd character. So by himself or under the writers excuse, he's still campy.

GL1 said:
This statement is untrue. I read about Robin in the comics, so it's very clear to me that Shumacher ruined it. It's clear that the case is the same. While this is a common assumption, it's not based on fact.

You say Robin was a cool character untill Schumacher took it?

GL1 said:
And 66 years of reasons? Gosh. Name one. And if you think the suit and colors are the problem, read recent issues of Robin where Robin is an AWESOME character, then watch "Batman and Robin" where Robin is a horrible character, both times without the traditional red,green,yellow thing.

Basically Robin wears a ridiculous gaudy-colourful suit that includes green elf shoes and meat color panties, says 'holy' now and then and adds a gay/pedo vibe to the Batman concept.

In time, they changed the colors, the suit design, the words in his mouth, personality etc etc. So when they had this different character named Robin instead of the original, they offered a better product (and they did because the character was already there so why not? It's not like the character itself is inherently necessary like Gordon is).

But Robin still screams campy because most people remember who he really is. That's why Burton didn't use him and that's why Nolan said he won't use him. And that's why Schumacher did use him.
 
Shawn Wayne said:
Jake Gyleenhaal is in "Brokeback Mountain" where he plays a gay cowboy. Please reconsider....
lol:ninja:
 
El Payaso said:
Even so, it would be.

We disagree, Batman's origin isn't representative of everything that Batman is and can be. Representing a small section is simply not the same as representing the entirety.

Your accusation of fallacy smells a lot like a fallacy.

You inserted the word origin into an arguement in which it was not relevant, in my estimation. Later in this post you explain why you do that.

Maybe. But the fact is that Robin was the tool they used to make Batman campy. That's the whole point.

But that's also incomplete. Batman's entire attitude and M.O. changed, and would have changed regardless. Robin was simply a part of a solution to a problem, and not a deciding factor in any way whatsoever.

If Robin had been invented before that time then Batman and Robin would have became campy before that time. Batman didn't became campy at one point with Robin being there by an amazing coincidence. Robin appeared specifically to add the campy touch.

I disagree. Dark child sidekick characters have been done before, there's no reason that Robin couldn't have done/been that, if the writers had wanted. It's not a coincidence, but it's still a writer and not the character.

In fact writers made Robin originally a campy absurd character. So by himself or under the writers excuse, he's still campy.

He was campy, just like *was* campy Batman.

You say Robin was a cool character untill Schumacher took it?

Ah, good point. Clarification: He was a cool character in the comics at that time

Basically Robin wears a ridiculous gaudy-colourful suit that includes green elf shoes and meat color panties, says 'holy' now and then and adds a gay/pedo vibe to the Batman concept.

Hm. It's interesting you use present tense here, where it is not correct. I think that's the heart of our disagreement, you are still in the past. I believe comedians add a gay/pedo vibe to Batman more than anyone else.

In time, they changed the colors, the suit design, the words in his mouth, personality etc etc. So when they had this different character named Robin instead of the original, they offered a better product (and they did because the character was already there so why not? It's not like the character itself is inherently necessary like Gordon is).

Same thing they did with Batman. And no fictional entity can be inherently essential. All characters, especially comic book ones with 40+ years of history, are better products with different words in their mouths and different personalities from the origional. Typically with better costumes too.

But Robin still screams campy because most people remember who he really is. That's why Burton didn't use him and that's why Nolan said he won't use him. And that's why Schumacher did use him.

And here is our main disagreement. Here is why you use present tense verbs to refer to the past. I don't think we'd say that being a winged-Punisher type character is "Who Batman really is." You seem to be equating the meta-reason for Robin's origin with "Who he really is," yet you don't do this for any other characters, and neither does anyone else. So, somehow, this character I read is magically "not really Robin" and the one who appeared in 1938 is because... because you say so?

My statement is this: The character which you dislike, the character in question, is not "Who Robin Really Is," but rather "Who Robin Is Perecieved To Be," or at worst "What Robin Represents" though I would stipulate he only represents that to the uninformed.

Just as there's more to a person than why their parents conceived them, there is more to a character than what they were created for. All characters evolve over time, Robin is no different.

In a media where character concepts change often and easily, resting multiple characters' identity on a single iteration strikes me as shortsighted. At the very least, it seems to be oblivious to 20+ years of comics.

I understand many people feel this way, but it is still illogical, and I expect better from comic book fans.
 
Aw, man. Who has the energy for this anymore.
 
^ Same as Nolan :D


Well, I owe all of you a reading and a reply.
 
I personally don't get the massive bummage of Nolan and BB, am I missing something?
 
The what of who and what? Am I missing something?
 
El Payaso said:
Aw, man. Who has the energy for this anymore.

Oh, thank God! :up: I was so scared to click on this thread. Whew!
 
Introducing Robin into the TDK would be suicide for the film. Even if it was done right, casual audiences would probably reject it because of the horror of the Joel Schumacher films.
 
SuperFerret said:
I feel Robin is a necessary part of the Bat-mythology and should be included in the future.

Agreed, Batman/Bruce needs someone else to interact with other than just Alfred, Gordon, Fox and a new love-interest for every film...
 
^ Oddly enough, SuperFerret didn't include any reason for that statement.

I must ask, what's the real need for Batman to have someone else to interact with, aside from 4 interesting characters, some gansgsters and some villiains?

GL1 said:
Oh, thank God! I was so scared to click on this thread. Whew!

My work is done.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,704
Messages
21,789,408
Members
45,618
Latest member
BadlyDrawnKano
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"