The Dark Knight Rises Nolan...add Robin!!!!!! - Part 1

[Mr. Earle]

^ But no reason is good enough for people like you. I could write a thesis on why I don't like Robin (why most people don't like Robin) and you'd still approach me with the same condescending "you just don't get it" tone. You can claim that somebody else's thoughts are "irrelevant" but they are relevant to them.

Where did anyone snub you for not liking Robin? Its fine if you do, all we re doing is rebuking arguements like "he doesnt need him because he has Alfred", "Robin isnt important", "loner Batman is the true Batman", etc which are all incorrect.

And why does Batman need a surrogate son? There aren't a lot of folks that think that is even remotely important, yet a few posters in this particular thread would have you believe you are less of a Batman fan if you don't follow that line of reasoning. I can easily argue I'm more of a Batman fan, as I'd rather see more Batman, less sidekick. It's kind of ridiculous.

He doesnt need a surrogate son, neither a surrogate father (Alfred). He could just as easily been all alone punching dudes. Robin adds more to the table in the same way that Alfred, Gordon, Bullock, Montoya, Leslie, Oracle, and his various villains do.

Of course you re not forced to like them all, but including a character only if he's essential is stupid. You rarely "NEED" anyone or anything. The writer thinks of new directions and gets the character there.

So basically this thread boils down to some people asking for an extra character and all the character development that goes with him, be it Robin, Leslie, Oracle, etc while others are like "i dont like _____ , you shouldnt be asking for him because we dont need him", etc.

 

[StarLord]

In Nolans universe, no. Unless theirs something at the tail end of TDKR. I doubt it though.

Other than that, leave it to another Batman movie down the road.

 

[Bads316]

No Robin for Nolan, especially now. But I think another trilogy (or at least a couple of films) dedicated to that story could be amazing - depending on a near infinite amount of circumstances obviously.

 

[StarLord]

No Robin for Nolan, especially now. But I think another trilogy (or at least a couple of films) dedicated to that story could be amazing - depending on a near infinite amount of circumstances obviously.

It would be interesting to see a stand alone Robin movie though, perhaps in the same style that 'Watchmen' was set.

 

[Wade Garrett]

I can see a Nolan-esque Robin in a Nolan Universe. I can picture a Batman Robin relationship in a Nolan Universe. What I can't picture is a Bruce/Dick relationship in a Nolan Universe, and its not Nolan's fault. I just can't see Bale as an adoptive father, he seems too young, I still see him as the straight out of college frat boy that still needs taking care of, I just feel hes not mature enough for a robin partnership

 

[Saint]

^ But no reason is good enough for people like you.

In fact, I don't think you need a reason at all--but it's cute that you think you know what you're talking about.

Your preference is your preference; I don't care if you don't like Robin, I just care if you use piss-poor reasoning to tell other people why he doesn't work. For example, I don't really like the Penguin. What he brings to the table isn't what I'm interested in seeing. However, because I am not a silly person, I don't dream up a bunch of terrible and irrelevant reasoning to tell other people why the Penguin doesn't work or shouldn't be in these movies, and I don't claim that he "adds nothing."

And why does Batman need a surrogate son?

Welcome to fiction: nothing is needed until the writer makes it so. Batman doesn't need anything. You could just as easily say "Why does Batman need Alfred? Why did TDK need to feature the Joker?" So excuse me if I think that's a completely meaningless statement.

Batman only needs Alfred and TDK only needed the Joker because the writers had specific goals for Batman and included roles and relationships that served those goals. In that respect, he needs Robin exactly as much as he needs any other character.

If someone doesn't like the role that Robin plays or what he adds to the mythos, that is entirely reasonable. I don't care about that. It's when people claim he adds nothing that I start responding, as that is demonstrably false.

I can easily argue I'm more of a Batman fan, as I'd rather see more Batman, less sidekick.

Sorry, you've mistaken me for someone who gives a single, solitary crap about some "Who's the bigger Batman fan" pissing contest, or whatever it is you think is happening. I don't really care.

 

[aandfrugby25]

Sorry, you've mistaken me for someone who gives a single, solitary crap about some "Who's the bigger Batman fan" pissing contest, or whatever it is you think is happening. I don't really care.

I agree besides everyone knows im the biggest Batman fan anyway...... also i would win a pissing contest cause i pee like a champ.

 

[Mister H.]

In fact, I don't think you need a reason at all--but it's cute that you think you know what you're talking about.

Your preference is your preference; I don't care if you don't like Robin, I just care if you use piss-poor reasoning to tell other people why he doesn't work. For example, I don't really like the Penguin. What he brings to the table isn't what I'm interested in seeing. However, because I am not a silly person, I don't dream up a bunch of terrible and irrelevant reasoning to tell other people why the Penguin doesn't work or shouldn't be in these movies, and I don't claim that he "adds nothing."



Welcome to fiction: nothing is needed until the writer makes it so. Batman doesn't need anything. You could just as easily say "Why does Batman need Alfred? Why did TDK need to feature the Joker?" So excuse me if I think that's a completely meaningless statement.

Batman only needs Alfred and TDK only needed the Joker because the writers had specific goals for Batman and included roles and relationships that served those goals. In that respect, he needs Robin exactly as much as he needs any other character.

If someone doesn't like the role that Robin plays or what he adds to the mythos, that is entirely reasonable. I don't care about that. It's when people claim he adds nothing that I start responding, as that is demonstrably false.


Sorry, you've mistaken me for someone who gives a single, solitary crap about some "Who's the bigger Batman fan" pissing contest, or whatever it is you think is happening. I don't really care.

Wow, somebody's really full of himself. I especially like the part about it being "cute" that I don't know what I'm talking about, although I'm confused about what you mean there. I don't care for Robin, nor do I think he fits Nolan's continuity, and the vast majority of folks (especially in the general audience) couldn't care less if Robin was ever in another Batman film. What is it I'm so wrong about? That you have an irrational attachment to the Boy Wonder and cannot accept the opinions of those who do not?

And please, don't tell me you "don't care if I don't like Robin". You care very much, as that last post of yours was one of the more condescending and arrogant posts I've seen on the matter. This is really bothering you.

 

[Mister H.]

He doesnt need a surrogate son, neither a surrogate father (Alfred). He could just as easily been all alone punching dudes. Robin adds more to the table in the same way that Alfred, Gordon, Bullock, Montoya, Leslie, Oracle, and his various villains do.

No, considering Bruce's age when his parents were gunned down, he most definitely needed a surrogate father. And he did need Gordon, or some kind of ally in the GPD. The others you listed kind of make me want to roll my eyes, as they can't touch Alfred or Gordon's importance in the history of the Batman mythos.

But Bruce Wayne definitely doesn't need a surrogate son. Apparently there are folks who love that angle, but I can't see any way that could work in TDKR. Batman's an outlaw, Bane will be hunting him along with law enforcement and god knows who else, Catwoman will provide some kind of distraction, there just isn't time to develop any kind of Dick Grayson sublplot (not that I'd want to see it anyway). I don't know how a reasonable person can argue about this. Again, this thread's title reads "Nolan...add Robin!!!!!". We are talking about the next film in Nolan's continuity, and I am maintaining that it will not happen, should not happen, and really couldn't happen without feeling very forced and overly indulgent.

 

[DaveMoral]

Wow, somebody's really full of himself. I especially like the part about it being "cute" that I don't know what I'm talking about, although I'm confused about what you mean there. I don't care for Robin, nor do I think he fits Nolan's continuity, and the vast majority of folks (especially in the general audience) couldn't care less if Robin was ever in another Batman film. What is it I'm so wrong about? That you have an irrational attachment to the Boy Wonder and cannot accept the opinions of those who do not?

And please, don't tell me you "don't care if I don't like Robin". You care very much, as that last post of yours was one of the more condescending and arrogant posts I've seen on the matter. This is really bothering you.

The problem he's pointing out is that you act as if you're an authority on the matter of Robin despite having openly admitted to avoiding like the plague any Batman story that includes Robin. Which is, to the point, the overwhelming majority of Batman stories. Most of those stories where he's with a Robin end up with Batman becoming more and more obsessed and brutally violent heading straight off the deep end to becoming the monsters he fights. Particularly in the late 80s for that year of stories between Jason Todd's demise and Tim Drake's taking up the mantle.

You can't claim to know what you're talking about when you haven't actually read the stories. You have your opinion, that's fine, but it's an ill-informed opinion most likely tied up in Batman '66 and Saturday morning cartoons(and apparently, unfortunately, not the good one B:TAS that did great work with a dark Batman and a Robin).

Could Robin be done in the Nolanverse? Certainly. Especially if Chris Nolan were inclined to do it. Anyone suggesting that it cannot be done is fooling themselves. And anyone continuing to repeat the canard that people are saying he should be in TDKR as a full blown kid vigilante sidekick clearly has a reading comprehension disorder.

Also, as far as the general audience not caring if Robin is in the story... the sword cuts both ways. Their lack of care doesn't mean they wouldn't welcome his introduction anymore than it suggests they hate Robin. And done right, the general audience would indeed buy that not only would Robin work as a hero even with his lack of head protection and his color scheme... they'd also buy a kid in his mid-teens being said hero. There's nothing stopping audiences from accepting that at all. Why? Because pop culture knows Batman has a sidekick named Robin and that he's a teenager. General audiences don't reject the idea of a teen crime fighter Robin, or there wouldn't be successful cartoon shows with him in them. Teen Titans and now Young Justice. They have target audiences, but those target audiences(7-10 yr olds) are dependent upon parental approval. If general audiences really had a problem with the character and his age, they'd be in an uproar about their kids seeing it. They'd do the same with The Clone Wars... to a greater degree. There you've got fans, and the parents of the target audience accepting a child soldier in a full scale war. Why? It's fantasy, and no matter how "hyper realistic" one makes a character like Batman... he's still highly fantastical.

 

[KRIM]

I don't care for Robin, nor do I think he fits Nolan's continuity, and the vast majority of folks (especially in the general audience) couldn't care less if Robin was ever in another Batman film. What is it I'm so wrong about?

For starters, people generally are not seeking or attracted to things they have no reason to care for. It is the job of the creators to make the audience care. This is fiction, and as such is malleable to suit whatever interests one would intend to target.

I don't know how long of a batfan you are, but I can personally tell you the period after B&R was released was devastating for any fan that wanted to see their hero on-screen. Not only was Batman at its lowest, but practically the entire genre was dead because of that film. The public climate towards anything comic book related was averse at best. I can only imagine what was endured for the 20 years prior to Burton's "reinvention" in which the most popular public perception of the character was from the Adam West series. Should everyone have given up? Thanks to Blade, X-Men, and Spidey, a renaissance was born that's still strong today. I was in the theater 4 times when the teaser and trailers for Batman Begins was played. It was met with groans, complaints, or absolute silence. Not very flattering. Should everyone have given up? Thanks to both BB and TDK, Batman is once again king and now TDKR is quite possibly the most anticipated film of next year. If you were to make such a prediction just five years ago, you would have been met with laughter. It's very telling just how quick emotions can change with a single quality product.

In short, the audience doesn't matter. They do not know what they want, nor will they ever. They are akin to stubborn children who will have predictable behaviors that will consistently be proven wrong. Rinse and repeat. The artists are the parents, it is their duty to provide what they can never produce themselves. There is a reason why we are in the high-chair being fed. We're not in a position to make decisions.

Mind you this is not just applicable to Robin, but anything and everything related to fictional properties. If you're not convinced, I can only ask that of the greatest and most revered works of art in our cultures, what percentage of that is a direct result of consumer demand? Maybe then that will give you an idea of just how in/significant we are.

 

[Saint]

Wow, somebody's really full of himself. I especially like the part about it being "cute" that I don't know what I'm talking about, although I'm confused about what you mean there.

I think it's pretty clear: you announced that no argument against Robin's presence could be good enough for me. Since I think it's probably not the best idea to put Robin in this film, given the way it's taking shape--as I mentioned earlier in this thread--we can see that you're obviously wrong, and don't know what you're talking about.

I'm going to skip the middle part of your post where you talk about how you don't like Robin, since you apparently didn't understand the first time I said that I don't care if you don't like Robin.

And please, don't tell me you "don't care if I don't like Robin". You care very much, as that last post of yours was one of the more condescending and arrogant posts I've seen on the matter. This is really bothering you.

Saint: "I don't mind if people don't like Robin, I just mind crappy reasoning."

Mister H: "NUH-UH, YOU TOTALLY CARE IF PEOPLE DISLIKE ROBIN--I CAN TELL BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T NICE TO ME AFTER I COMPLETELY MISCHARACTERIZED YOU AND YOUR ARGUMENT. THE ONLY POSSIBLE REASON TO NOT BE NICE TO SOMEONE WHO IS COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTING YOUR POSITION IS BECAUSE IT BOTHERS YOU THAT PEOPLE DON'T LIKE ROBIN."

I guess you've got my number, buddy. Clearly, you are man who totally knows what he is talking about.

 

[Saint]

For starters, people generally are not seeking or attracted to things they have no reason to care for. It is the job of the creators to make the audience care. This is fiction, and as such is malleable to suit whatever interests one would intend to target.

Important fact!

 

[Saint]

It's just baffling to hear that characters like Gordon and Alfred are somehow needed in a way that Robin isn't. Needed for what? Batman can still be Batman without those characters--just a different Batman with a different history. And you know what? That's exactly what happens without Robin, too. The argument is just silly.

Yeah, Robin's not needed--he's not needed the same way Alfred isn't needed, because Batman could have been a kid bounced through a dozen foster homes, never knowing a strong father figure. He's not needed the way Gordon isn't needed, because Batman could have been a vigilante with no allies in the police, the way many fictional heroes operate. He's not needed because Batman could have been a single loner in a cave for his entire life.

But he's not any of those things.

Instead, he's been raising kids for his entire history--since before Alfred was even created, actually. If that's not your cup of tea, cool, but that's who Batman is. There is no argument to the contrary. If you want to change that, that's fine--sometimes change is good, and they've certainly made changes in these films; but don't pretend it's some trivial, irrelevant detail that's being removed. That's completely dishonest and factually wrong. You can take him out and Batman will still be Batman, but he'll also be different--in the same way he'd be different without Gordon or Alfred or anybody else. To pretend it's less significant than that is absurd.

 

[Mr. Earle]

No, considering Bruce's age when his parents were gunned down, he most definitely needed a surrogate father. And he did need Gordon, or some kind of ally in the GPD. The others you listed kind of make me want to roll my eyes, as they can't touch Alfred or Gordon's importance in the history of the Batman mythos.

You re rolling your eyes at Leslie Thompkins and Oracle, two of the best characters in the bat mythos? Wow dude.... Nobody is forcing you to like them, but rolling your eyes is too much.

But Bruce Wayne definitely doesn't need a surrogate son. Apparently there are folks who love that angle, but I can't see any way that could work in TDKR. Batman's an outlaw, Bane will be hunting him along with law enforcement and god knows who else, Catwoman will provide some kind of distraction, there just isn't time to develop any kind of Dick Grayson sublplot (not that I'd want to see it anyway). I don't know how a reasonable person can argue about this. Again, this thread's title reads "Nolan...add Robin!!!!!". We are talking about the next film in Nolan's continuity, and I am maintaining that it will not happen, should not happen, and really couldn't happen without feeling very forced and overly indulgent.

Like i said, nobody is trying to force Robin on you. You re free to not like him and ask for different paths of character development.

 

[Mr. Earle]

For starters, people generally are not seeking or attracted to things they have no reason to care for. It is the job of the creators to make the audience care. This is fiction, and as such is malleable to suit whatever interests one would intend to target.

I don't know how long of a batfan you are, but I can personally tell you the period after B&R was released was devastating for any fan that wanted to see their hero on-screen. Not only was Batman at its lowest, but practically the entire genre was dead because of that film. The public climate towards anything comic book related was averse at best. I can only imagine what was endured for the 20 years prior to Burton's "reinvention" in which the most popular public perception of the character was from the Adam West series. Should everyone have given up? Thanks to Blade, X-Men, and Spidey, a renaissance was born that's still strong today. I was in the theater 4 times when the teaser and trailers for Batman Begins was played. It was met with groans, complaints, or absolute silence. Not very flattering. Should everyone have given up? Thanks to both BB and TDK, Batman is once again king and now TDKR is quite possibly the most anticipated film of next year. If you were to make such a prediction just five years ago, you would have been met with laughter. It's very telling just how quick emotions can change with a single quality product.

In short, the audience doesn't matter. They do not know what they want, nor will they ever. They are akin to stubborn children who will have predictable behaviors that will consistently be proven wrong. Rinse and repeat. The artists are the parents, it is their duty to provide what they can never produce themselves. There is a reason why we are in the high-chair being fed. We're not in a position to make decisions.

Mind you this is not just applicable to Robin, but anything and everything related to fictional properties. If you're not convinced, I can only ask that of the greatest and most revered works of art in our cultures, what percentage of that is a direct result of consumer demand? Maybe then that will give you an idea of just how in/significant we are.

It's just baffling to hear that characters like Gordon and Alfred are somehow needed in a way that Robin isn't. Needed for what? Batman can still be Batman without those characters--just a different Batman with a different history. And you know what? That's exactly what happens without Robin, too. The argument is just silly.

Yeah, Robin's not needed--he's not needed the same way Alfred isn't needed, because Batman could have been a kid bounced through a dozen foster homes, never knowing a strong father figure. He's not needed the way Gordon isn't needed, because Batman could have been a vigilante with no allies in the police, the way many fictional heroes operate. He's not needed because Batman could have been a single loner in a cave for his entire life.

But he's not any of those things.

Instead, he's been raising kids for his entire history--since before Alfred was even created, actually. If that's not your cup of tea, cool, but that's who Batman is. There is no argument to the contrary. If you want to change that, that's fine--sometimes change is good, and they've certainly made changes in these films; but don't pretend it's some trivial, irrelevant detail that's being removed. That's completely dishonest and factually wrong. You can take him out and Batman will still be Batman, but he'll also be different--in the same way he'd be different without Gordon or Alfred or anybody else. To pretend it's less significant than that is absurd.

Good posts!

 

[RustyCage]

I just can't see Bale as an adoptive father, he seems too young ...

He has a daughter, you know.

In terms of the character's story arc thus far, I agree with you. But you're targeting Bale specifically, not Bruce Wayne. He's perfectly capable of a father role, and is in fact one in real life - a very proud one.

Or hell, just watch The Prestige. It's awesome, and he's a daddy in it (eventually). Plus, Michael Caine and Hugh Jackman, with Nolan directing? C'monnn.

 

[Saint]

In terms of the character's story arc thus far, I agree with you.

I don't necessarily agree (part of what makes Robin interesting is that Bruce is so clearly not prepared for him), though there is the alternative approach some writers (Morrison) take, instead depicting Bruce as an older brother, rather than a father to Dick. Not my preferred approach, but I think it works, and would be appropriate for a teenage Robin. Not in this film specifically--it's turning out very differently, and you can't just go shoe-horning characters in--but in a hypothetical film that could have existed instead of this one.

 

[D.P.]

I'm interested to see what some of you think about the issue that has been raised time and time again about Batman placing the life of a child in jeopardy by allowing him to fight crime alongside him.

Hypothetically, how would justify it in the Nolanverse? Or would you not address it at all?

 

[Mr. Earle]

Read Robin Year One, it addresses the issue. Basically Bruce cant stop Dick from becoming a vigilante himself so instead of trying to stop him, he chooses to train him. Dick also manages to earn Bruce's respect with his skills and acumen, so that makes him confident that Dick can make it.

 

[aandfrugby25]

Read Robin Year One, it addresses the issue. Basically Bruce cant stop Dick from becoming a vigilante himself so instead of trying to stop him, he chooses to train him. Dick also manages to earn Bruce's respect with his skills and acumen, so that makes him confident that Dick can make it.

Your saying that batman cant stop something... impossible the only thing batman cant stop.. is himself.

 

[RetroNaz]

He can't stop a speeding bullet or a locomotive lol

 

[aandfrugby25]

He can't stop a speeding bullet or a locomotive lol

You dont need to stop them when you can just hit them with a batarang and tie them up..... CHECKMATE.

 

[goh78]

As someone who grew up loving Robin and enjoys the character still, there's clearly no place for him in this universe. It would totally overthrow the belief that the job is Bruce's burden - and his alone. Perhaps they will explore this notion more with Selina in TDKR...perhaps not. That being said, we can all agree that Robin has as much chance as being in the movie as Jar Jar Binks, Al Bundy, or Roger Rabbit.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I just wanted to give you Robin haters some seizures. Enjoy:

And yeah there are two Batmen in that pic. Problem?