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

[Indy Flash]

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

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

No Problem at all Great Pic.

 

[Mister H.]

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.

Great post, except for the part where you assume I've never read a Batman story featuring Robin. I've read dozens, and seem what seems like fifty or so episodes of BTAS involving the guy. Based on those experiences, I've come to the conclusion that I don't care for the stories involving him, and now avoid them...unless they invlove the Joker. Its not even so much that I hate Robin, but I just love that Batman who was forced to face the world alone when a tragedy robbed him of his family.

 

[Mister H.]

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.

Since I saw them on Scooby-Doo when I was four. So, 1981? And I understand perfectly well how works of fiction give the author the freedom to explore any avenue he wants. I also understand that the public will accept whatever hand they are dealt as long as it works. But I also know that Robin isn't a character that the general audience is clamoring for and that Nolan should feel any pressure to try and include in his finale if he isn't interested in doing so-- like Raimi allegedly felt during Spiderman 3's development. I maintain that Nolan should have no interest in exploring Dick Grayson in TDKR.

 

[Mister H.]

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.

That wouldn't be true to the mythos. Batman has always (for the most part) had Alfred and Gordon, and they have served the mythos well. You don't need Robin to make TDKR a great movie. Nolan can complete his trilogy without Robin and it can be completely fulfilling. His Batman could have never done the things he's done without Alfred or Gordon.

 

[Mister H.]

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.
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.

Not rolling my eyes at the characters themselves, at your notion that they are at the same level of importance to the mythos as Gordon or Alfred, and your opinion that Batman didn't need a surrogate father or a key ally in the police department. Those things were essential, especially in Nolan's interpretation.

 

[Saint]

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

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

Heh--it's funny, because without Robin, Batman's entire history unravels, the majority of his supporting cast ceases to exist, and no less than six of the current Bat-universe ongoing series vanish from the shelves, leaving Batman: The Dark Knight as the possibly the only Batman title left on the market (and maybe Batwoman).

Clearly, though, Robin adds nothing.

 

[the amazing fro]

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

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

I love this

 

[Saint]

That wouldn't be true to the mythos.

And neither would removing Robin.

Batman has always (for the most part) had Alfred and Gordon, and they have served the mythos well.

Batman has always had Robin, and he has served the mythos well--which is why at least five of the ongoing bat-books on the shelf today depend absolutely on his existence (more than double the number of books which currently feature Bruce Wayne operating solo). The number is even greater if we count books like Birds of Prey and Batman Beyond, both of which are the result of Batman's tradition of training young people.

You don't need Robin to make TDKR a great movie. Nolan can complete his trilogy without Robin and it can be completely fulfilling.

Yes he can. I already said that.

His Batman could have never done the things he's done without Alfred or Gordon.

Yes, but he could have done different things that would have been "completely fulfilling." That's the point I'm trying to get across; removing Robin is exactly the same as removing Alfred or Gordon or anything else; you can do it, and it may work just fine, but it's no more trivial than removing Gordon or Alfred.

 

[Mr. Earle]

No Problem at all Great Pic.

Just messing with you.

That wouldn't be true to the mythos. Batman has always (for the most part) had Alfred and Gordon, and they have served the mythos well.

Robin was introduced in the second year of Batman's publication history, earlier than even Alfred. So one could say that if you cant omit Alfred, you shouldnt be able to omit Robin.

You don't need Robin to make TDKR a great movie.

Nobody said that we need him. Just that it would be cool to have him. Same goes for Alfred, Gordon and even Bruce himself.

Nolan can complete his trilogy without Robin and it can be completely fulfilling.

Nobody said otherwise.

His Batman could have never done the things he's done without Alfred or Gordon.

Yeah he could. Its fiction. He could have done anything Nolan wanted him to. Life fall from a skyscraper on a cab and not break his back because half his cape was extended.

I love this

Me too!

 

[DaveMoral]

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

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

2? There are 3!!! How could you discount McGinnis? How could you?

You know what I really like? That Red Robin's boots are Batman 89's boots.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Oops, forgot about Terry.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Here's another nice pic i've saved.

 

[ALP]

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.

I agree to a degree. I actually think that Nolan could incorporate Robin if he wanted to and the character could work well in his universe. However we will never see it happen if Nolan is only doing a trilogy as he says and it's all but guaranteed that Robin is not being written in TDKR. Where would he fit? With Batman on the run, facing Bane, meeting Catwoman and who knows what else I don't see Robin fitting in there. Didn't Nolan also make a comment about Robin being very young, off in a crib or something like that? Theoretically Robin could fit in this universe but we are not going to see it. This is all hypothetical.

But also, Christian Bale does not like Robin. It would be difficult if the director and actor were not on the same page. You wouldn't want to force Bale into a story he doesn't like.

 

[Mr. Earle]

 

[Saint]

I agree to a degree. I actually think that Nolan could incorporate Robin if he wanted to and the character could work well in his universe. However we will never see it happen if Nolan is only doing a trilogy as he says and it's all but guaranteed that Robin is not being written in TDKR. Where would he fit? With Batman on the run, facing Bane, meeting Catwoman and who knows what else I don't see Robin fitting in there. Didn't Nolan also make a comment about Robin being very young, off in a crib or something like that? Theoretically Robin could fit in this universe but we are not going to see it. This is all hypothetical.

But also, Christian Bale does not like Robin. It would be difficult if the director and actor were not on the same page. You wouldn't want to force Bale into a story he doesn't like.

Yeah, the final nail was in the coffin a long time ago for Robin being in this iteration of the franchise. It'll have to be someone other than Nolan to do it.

 

[Mr. Earle]

With Batman on the run, facing Bane, meeting Catwoman and who knows what else I don't see Robin fitting in there.

Agreed.

But also, Christian Bale does not like Robin. It would be difficult if the director and actor were not on the same page. You wouldn't want to force Bale into a story he doesn't like.

Bale just made an ignorant statement, like most people in this thread have done already. Who cares what he thinks anyway? What is he gonna do, trash Nolan's lights?

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

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

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

Ah, I love the Bat Family. The more the merrier!

Thanks for the pic, Earle, and keeping the good fight.

This "Robin is unnecessary" nonsense is...well, nonsense.

Lucius Fox didn't even make it into the first four movies, so he's obviously not necessary. Is it awesome that Nolan included him? Hell yeah.

Leslie Thompkins STILL hasn't been included in any movie, and I think that's a huge oversight. Is she "necessary?" Apparently not, but I'd still love to see her.

Necessary is purely subjective to the story you choose to tell. As has been pointed out, ROBIN PRE-DATES ALFRED. If Nolan, or another director, chose to go back to the original stories, he could easily make a Batman film without Alfred and still justify it as true to the source material (see: Burton's bloodthirsty Batman justified by early stories). Would it feel like something was missing, as the vast majority of Bat history includes Alfred? Definitely. Just like, to many of us, it feels like something's missing without Robin, as the vast majority of Bat history includes Robin.

"The Batman," while I didn't really care for the show overall, went what, one or two seasons before introducing Gordon? It's possible to do it; it didn't sink the show. He wasn't necessary to the story those writers were telling. But there's still something missing.

These characters are important in telling a good story, but let's not parse words - Robin is a cultural icon. Far more than Gordon and Alfred. Far more than characters that get their own freakin' movies! More than Green Lantern, more than Flash. More than Wolverine, at least before Jackman.

It's Batman AND ROBIN. That's how you like, finish the sentence.

 

[ALP]

Robin is a cultural icon thanks to Burt Ward.

Leslie Thompkins could have worked well in BB, but alas.

 

[Yurka]

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

Spoiler

 

[aandfrugby25]

Sooo how long do you guys think till the Robin fans start speculating that the Junior character from the character sides is OMG Robin lol.

Go ahead guys hold your breath.

 

[Mister H.]

Agreed.

Bale just made an ignorant statement, like most people in this thread have done already. Who cares what he thinks anyway? What is he gonna do, trash Nolan's lights?

How is Bale ignorant because he doesn't care for Robin?

I'm out. It's been fun arguing with my intellectual superiors.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Ah, I love the Bat Family. The more the merrier!

Thanks for the pic, Earle, and keeping the good fight.

Thanks! t:

This "Robin is unnecessary" nonsense is...well, nonsense.

Lucius Fox didn't even make it into the first four movies, so he's obviously not necessary. Is it awesome that Nolan included him? Hell yeah.

Leslie Thompkins STILL hasn't been included in any movie, and I think that's a huge oversight. Is she "necessary?" Apparently not, but I'd still love to see her.

Necessary is purely subjective to the story you choose to tell. As has been pointed out, ROBIN PRE-DATES ALFRED. If Nolan, or another director, chose to go back to the original stories, he could easily make a Batman film without Alfred and still justify it as true to the source material (see: Burton's bloodthirsty Batman justified by early stories). Would it feel like something was missing, as the vast majority of Bat history includes Alfred? Definitely. Just like, to many of us, it feels like something's missing without Robin, as the vast majority of Bat history includes Robin.

I agree 100%.

"The Batman," while I didn't really care for the show overall, went what, one or two seasons before introducing Gordon? It's possible to do it; it didn't sink the show. He wasn't necessary to the story those writers were telling. But there's still something missing.

Burton films didnt have Gordon in them. He was just a commissioner named this way. They didnt have the alliance and co-operation they have in the comics or Nolan's movies.

These characters are important in telling a good story, but let's not parse words - Robin is a cultural icon. Far more than Gordon and Alfred. Far more than characters that get their own freakin' movies! More than Green Lantern, more than Flash. More than Wolverine, at least before Jackman.

It's Batman AND ROBIN. That's how you like, finish the sentence.

Agreed.

How is Bale ignorant because he doesn't care for Robin?

I'm out. It's been fun arguing with my intellectual superiors.

I dont remember his exact words, but he made some demeaning comments. Nolan on the other hand was a lot more subtle. He said that Robin is too young for now and that he wants to focus on Batman. For all we know

a) He likes Robin but wants to tell a different story.
b) Likes Robin but is afraid that the general audience will find him cheesy and we'll have another Schumacher debacle.
c) Hates Robin.
d) "Robin? WTF, a kid in a raibow suit fighting crime? That's ridiculous! CHEESY AS HELL! I read serious comics for serious readers such as myself."

We dont know about Nolan, but for Bale its definitely (d).

 

[DaveMoral]

^And Bale allegedly holds Dark Victory as a favorite. While not a fully Robin story, Dick Grayson is in half of it and becomes Robin, on his own, by the end and helps save Batman's hide. If it weren't for Robin in that story, Joker, Two-Face etc surely would have made their way into Wayne Manor from the Cave.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Robin isnt the prominent element in Dark Victory, mobsters are. At least that's what i remember of it because half way through i wanted to shoot myself from boredom.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Robin isnt the prominent element in Dark Victory, mobsters are. At least that's what i remember of it because half way through i wanted to shoot myself from boredom.